okr said:

My opinion is the same as it was before and after Chernobyl, before and after Fukushima:  No, thanks.

Chernobyl and Fukushima were/are not "small issues" as Conegamer thinks and I'm afraid that - even in the unlikely case that another nuclear power plant catastrophe won't ever happen again - the thousands of tons of radioactive waste which are buried around the world will cause more problems in the future than anyone can imagine now.

You should read into the Chernobyl incedent as to why it occurred. Furthermore, comparison of Chernobyl to Fukushima is one of the craziest, most insane statements made by the media or anyone. Comparison between the two would be like arguing World War 2 and the Bosnian War were on the same scale because they involved most of the same countries.

Nuclear disasters that are caused by random accidents like Fukushima are so unbelievably rare, to argue against Nuclear Power because of them is pure insanity. Chernobyl was not an accident. I suggest you read up on the causes of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#The_attempted_experiment

Given the immense power that they produce, and the benefit to humanity they offer, they are a massive net benefit. Yes, they have drawbacks, but nothing advantageous for humanity has ever been a perfectly optimal scenario. Everything comes at a cost, and Nuclear power has that incredibly small chance something catastrophic will happen at a very rare time, but we cannot point to it and say "oh, this is why it shouldn't exist!". If we did that, then we should ban cars, airplanes, and oil for the damage they've caused societies and families at one time or another.

 

As to the OP. I like Nuclear. Its more expensive than other sources of power, but its clean, plentiful, and has a lot of future upside unlike other clean sources. I hope America gets off of its fossil fuel horse and starts riding Thorium and Nukes until we can't anymore.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.