A good day day day.

Let's just stop trying out new referenda, OK?

What's confusing about Mastodon? Just join a random server and you can find everyone else on any other server. (Or are these called 'instances'? I don't know or care, fact is it works without problems.)

In Dutch you can generally replace 'arts' with 'dokter' whenever you like. 'Arts' is a bit more highbrow though.

Well, your view is not unbiased, perhaps it's difficult to do here, given the limited amount of writing room. And in a discussion it seems to be obligatory to only mention the parts that are favourable to one's personal outcome, somehow. But still. Even though you seem very convinced on the pros of nuclear, others still beg to differ. Like this research shows. Money remains an important driver of the whole issue, and money being spent on nuclear cannot be spent again on wind turbines or batteries. Unbiased information is difficult to get online however, most websites on the matter have preconceived ideas that they present. Nuclear waste also concerns medium and low level waste, which are a lesser problem, but still a problem in larger quantities. And high nuclear waste remain radioactive longer than homo sapiens has been around, so although the quantity is not a lot, its longevity makes up for it, so it remains quite a problem for which no final solution has been found. As I wrote earlier: the debate is not over just yet, otherwise it would not be newsworthy every time again. Strong opinions on both sides do not make up for it, usually a strong opinion is not backed up by knowledge and facts alone, but also on feelings and emotions, otherwise it would not be a strong opinion. Which makes the discussion more difficult.

And how renewable is this new glass-coated DNA material? Iron scores pretty high on that one too.

The arguments of Greenpeace against nuclear power have nothing to do with age though. It's too expensive, which takes money away from e.g. wind and solar, with less carbon-free energy in the end for the money spent and more fossil fuels being used as a consequence. And still produces nuclear waste. Just develop batteries, hydrogen and the likes for storage. And ban or tax the use of fossil fuels. This debate is not over yet, not by a long shot, and climate will remain in the news as long as we live, I'm afraid.

There was this case of Lucia de Berk who was locked up innocently.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk

I'm not saying that it's the same scenario here, but I would remain careful in passing judgement.

There was this case of Lucia de Berk who was convicted on statistics like these, although she was innocent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk

Perhaps your chances with Michelle are better than you thought!

When only the bad things of something are reported it is biased by default. Better to have a more balanced story, which will probably be more boring because of that. A lot of people would then not be interested anymore because of the lack of controversy.

Too bad the police and politicians do not recognise the threat that the warming climate is bringing. Now they're just locking up the messenger, equivalent to putting fingers in your ears. And then getting angry when concerned people take those fingers out. Hopefully this protest movement will grow, so that their voice can no longer be neglected.