After all, the word stems from the suffix “philia” which means tendency or affinity towards, as opposed to “phobia” which means aversion or separation from. Philia is used for a lot of words as a suffix for literally meaning affinity towards, like in the word “hydrophilic” or affinity towards (bearing) water, but it can also denote interest or attraction as in “audiophile” (interested in audio), “cynophile” (interested in or lover of canines/dogs), or “gynophile” (interested or loving of women).

Here’s the definition and further background about “pedophile”.

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

Mmmm I agreed with you until reading this. The 6th IPCC Assessment Report showed us that Wind + Solar + Battery Storage are still a safer bet for rolling out non-fossil fuel energy sources at the fastest rate we can launch them. Nuclear sadly still takes too long to build.

I think there is a space for advanced nuclear, though. Small Modular Reactors, Fast Breeders, and such should be encouraged going forward. The US (and I think UK) each have funds specifically designated to the development of advanced nuclear too.

But old nuclear will take too long to get a hold on emissions. I still think nuclear fits in a well-balanced energy portfolio, but not of the specific technology of the 1950s-1990s.

We’ve had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we’d do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

I mean, Chernobyl is kind of an outdated example. Fukushima would be the more recent one to point at, or even Three Mile Island. Not particularly useful for your argument. Still, I think if people got educated about all 3 of those examples from history, they’ll come out convinced that nuclear is still a safe bet.

Problem is, like I said above, that conventional nuclear takes too damn long to build.