FYI: plate tectonics affect the carbon cycle, help regulate the atmosphere, and thus ultimately contribute to keeping our planet's surface at a comfortable not-too-hot and not-too-cold temperature.
Not sure what you're suggesting with that article - I have no issues with residual strong force effects as a concept nor that it happens in nature. That wasn't the point I made.
The broader argument against nuclear is the fact we have superior options available with FAR less set up time (solar, wind, hydro, etc). Battery tech is also starting to improve, meaning transport is becoming more possible. You have to be at least subconsciously aware of that, or you wouldn't have had so much to sling at alternative forms of energy.
The waste caused by wind and solar are far exceeded by nuclear waste (even with better options like thorium cycle plants).
This is relevant because if we are to use nuclear power, it should offer a good alternative to these options. I would love nuclear power to be viable because it would mean more research into nuclear physics, but the reality is that it confers a geopolitical risk, takes 10 years to set up a traditional reactor, and mini reactors are inefficient at best.
There is also the issue of cost per Watt - which is highly dependant on location and regulation. The majority of what I have seen in this category is unfavorable though (but, that could change).
Nuclear physics is good. Nuclear power is sub-optimal. No one is trying to stop the earths core, or the Sun's fusion, or bananas from radiating. The argument is against building reactors.
We should not destroy this planet JUST so that we can colonise other planets. That is risky at best, self-sabotaging at worst.
(The climate disaster is not an excuse to say 'we have to colonise other planets or we're toast!' BTW)