Personally, I would rather current research focus more on solar, wind, tidal, geothermal -- rather than to continue to rely nuclear power.
The problem with all of those is that there are a limited number of locales where they can work well, and all of them except for geothermal are transient. That means power storage, which means batteries, which means toxic chemical waste. It may or may not be as dangerous on a per-volume basis as nuclear waste (someone more knowledgeable than me would have to answer that), but there would certainly be a hell of a lot more of it.
Jessica focused her mind on lasguns, wondering. The white-hot beams of disruptive light could cut through any known substance, provided that substance was not shielded. The fact that feedback from a shield would explode both lasgun and shield did not bother the Harkonnens. Why? A lasgun-shield explosion was a dangerous variable, could be more powerful than atomics, could kill only the gunner and his shielded target.
Famous but probably-apocryphal conversation between a visiting German general and his Swiss counterpart, prior to WW2:
German: How many men are under your command?
Swiss: I can mobilize one million men in less than twenty-four hours.
German: What would happen if I marched five million men through that pass tomorrow?
Swiss: I would call up my men. Each man would fire five shots. Then I would send them home.
The U.S. military (Navy and Air Force, especially) has been repurposing obsolete aircraft as radio controlled target drones since not long after WWII.
They were doing similar things even during WWII. JFK's older brother Joe Jr. was killed along with another crewman in a mishap with an explosives-loaded B-24 Liberator. They were supposed to get the plane airborne, arm it, then bail out, but the explosives (equivalent to about 14kt) went off prematurely.
It kind of puts the environmentalists in a bit of a clamor. They wont know which way to go with this
Except given that fracking is polluting ground water and wells, any scheme oil companies come up with to try this is likely to pollute just as badly.
Trusting the oil companies is generally a bad idea.
Trusting government is generally a worse idea. Remind me again, was it Exxon or BP that was setting off above-ground nuclear explosions, a while back? Heck, mushroom clouds from the Nevada desert tests were such a common sight in Las Vegas that one of the casinos (the Stardust) had a sign partly inspired by them.
Would rather die from cardio-vascular disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer then?
Yes, I would rather live longer and die from those things than to die earlier from malnutrition or related problems.
We tinkered around with our food system and 2/3 of the population is over-weight and 1/3 is obese.
I'm sure having readily-available food has caused average weight to rise, but I'm skeptical about how much of a factor that is compared to reduction in exercise. Until quite recently (in the evolutionary and historical scheme of things), humans have had to burn a lot of calories just to stay alive -- food, shelter, and protection all required heavy exercise to acquire, produce, and/or maintain. Even after the advent of agriculture, the vast majority of the population spent their time doing manual labor to grow food, and the rest of the population tended to do manual labor that was just as intensive. Staying alive required you to plow a field, or chop wood, or haul stones, etc. Today, most of us here on Slashdot (and a lot of other people around us) gain our food, shelter, and protection by making little motions with our fingers, talking, and every so often moving a short distance within a building. We don't have to exercise to survive (in the day-to-day sense). Exercise is something we have to deliberately seek out.
Shorter version: I think the problem is more our lack of caloric output than our excessive caloric input.
We suffer from heart disease, diabetes and related problems in epidemic proportions.
Until human beings cease to be mortal, by definition something will be killing us in vast numbers. And unless those causes of death are evenly spread out, some things will always be glaring problems compared to everything else. All we can do is change what those things are, and hopefully make them happen later in life.
Or not. That's a pretty tiring way to go about debate. I've expressed disinterest in the points for a specific reason, that's only a back-door for exhausting, lame meta-discussion
Or an inability on your part to back up your views with facts and logic. As close as I can tell, what you consider "tangential and irrelevant" is the questioning of your underlying assumptions. "Everyone knows X is true, therefore Y is true." "Err, X isn't true, for these reasons." "That's irrelevant, we're talking about Y."
That's because the claims were tangential and irrelevant.
That is itself a claim. Back it up, please.