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.
PetteriSkaffari
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.
Rainbow weather.
Falling from 2 storeys down is safer than falling from 3 storeys down.
We have to admin the admins.
Hardest part of running is not running too fast, even when you can. It's a recipe for injury. Instead, let your body grow into running, which initially takes a couple of years to grow your tendons and bones, which is not really finished, ever: you can always improve. I only learned to take it easy after 40, only then having the peace of mind of just enjoying running, instead of wanting to be at the next crossing, the next bridge or the next footpath. Just to enjoy the running that you do and reach all the landmarks while just running along. Doing a race once in a while will help to keep the training on a lower intensity, but it will always remain difficult not to run too fast. Injuries will be just around the corner if you're not careful.