Energy density refers to the fuel mass. There is no fuel mass for solar. However it is at least as destructive of the environment as wind. Tens of sq kms of panels are needed to match a GW powerstation on less than 0.15 sq km.

She lived to the full life expectancy of her time, eventually dying of cancer like many people. Not unusual. Her co-Nobel Laureat husband died 28 years earlier in a horsedrawn traffic accident in Paris, but that does not mean this transport technology is dangerous, of course. Nor may any conclusion be drawn from Mme Curie's death

You are incorrect. We know from Hiroshima/Nagasaki, from Goiania, from laboratory experiments on animals, from human exposure to radiation in clinics to diagnose (and cure cancers) that the radiation received by the people at Fukushima, even the plantworkers, were far too low to cause extra cancers. There are places in Iran, Brazil etc where far greater doses are received all the time from the rocks. Extreme safeguards just inflict greater dangers elsewhere - as caused the 1600 extra deaths from the evacuation at Fukushima.

You are wrong to think that these conclusions are presented by the nuclear industry or are inspired by Trump (heaven forbid). The nuclear industry has been supine for the past 40 years in its acceptance of regulations that lack any scientific basis (and not even in their interest!). What you read comes from academic and medical study by a broad spectrum of professionals in many countries, some of which may be found here. www.radiationeffects.org This is not sponsored by anyone. It aims to correct a major cultural error dating from the Cold War.

The record shows that reactors are super safe already. Of course somebody will happily take your money to make them even safer. Worth waiting for? No. Take them when ready? May be when we see the price. Waste? Not important compared to human biological waste or, yes, plastic.