Again, I don't think this is productive, but I'll make my position clear anyway. Oppose. There are some sources here that support the idea that various types of nuclear power have been considered as sustainable, but that wasn't the only reason the IPs edits were reverted. This is one reason tying this into the above discussion is a bad idea, because this isn't just about the academic consensus on a loosely defined "type of nuclear fission". Using the article to explain in context that nuclear power is in some ways sustainable, according to some points of view, would be fine. The edits introduced large quantities relatively weakly sourced material to present nuclear as being a primary and uncontroversial source of sustainable energy. The above sources support mentioning nuclear as one aspect of sustainability. They do not warrant altering the article to make nuclear energy the first specific section, nor do they warrant excessive ref-bombing to support that perspective, while using similarly selective tactics to undermine those who hold a more critical perspective. This isn't just about verifiability, this is also about WP:WEIGHT. Even the sources presented here indicate that nuclear's sustainability is under-researched and hinges on too many unknowns to be accepted without further comment. This is true for many areas of sustainable energy research, but especially nuclear. It is an active area of research (or areas, rather) which has a relatively small but extremely vocal core of active supporters. This should not be used to diminish that perspective or the potentially revolutionary research, but major context was being selectively left-out from the proposed edits.