Yes. Fear of nuclear energy is plain silly and promulgated most often by the very people whose cause it probably helps best, environmentalists.

Here is an interesting article on the subject "There is no such thing as nuclear waste."

Overjoyed.

Assuming carbon is the primary problem affecting our environment. noone wants another Chernobyl, but the risks as small & confined compared to a small sea level rise.

(and hello)

unfortunately the idea that nuclear power is less carbon intensive only works if you ignore the the mining , refinement , transport and long term waste storage issues. http://boakes.org/two-nuclear-fallacies/

I would be very interested to learn what vested interests environmentalists would have that might be worse than those of the nuclear power industry , how many cases of leukaemia can be linked to solar or wind power ?

A run down of recent nuclear disasters... http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nuclear-power-plant-disasters.html

BNFL have been caught cutting corners many times http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/694996.stm

BNFL use outdated risk assesment methods and so have inherently flawed saftey systems http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/deadly-cargo-nuclear-waste-travelling-through-london-poses-unacceptable-risks-1379600.html

Can we honestly say we think we can contain an increasing volume of nuclear waste for long enough for it to not pose a risk .

The real answer to the energy problem is to use less energy until we can increase renewable yields and nuclear power is a read herring on this quest.

It's a more straightforward question about Nuclear power in France (I live there currently), and it is an economical one, the French being the world's biggest exporter of electrical energy (Britain being one of the largest importers). Opinion in France seems to be generally good, if not overly-enthusiastic, and was reinforced a few years ago by the much celebrated 'non' to the war in Iraq. Public opinion goes beyond the debate of whether the war was politically or morally justified in that for France, it would never have been economically justifiable. It is well managed, and the French are extremely forward-thinking, going as far as proposing plans for nuclear fusion (!) plants in the decades to come. Carbon emissions, as far as statistics show us, are markedly lower than France's non-nuclear neighbours. However, even with a system which is as responsible, organised and well-financed as the French one, there have been incidents - so far all relatively minor. The possibility of catastrophe is minimal, but the relative damage of a nuclear catastrophe compared to almost any other kind, well, I need not explain. It seems that renewable energy would be most suitable for the developing world, and feasbile, if a little costly and ungainly, in the most developed nations. It is the middle, wealthy but still developing nations such as Iran that need to be won over to the idea of alternative energy. Not that I think there's anything wrong at all with Iran or any other nation wanting nuclear power; it seems a perfectly logical, resposible reaction to an economy of that size and its immediate needs. It could only be a good thing to see a developed country leading by example by matching the French nuclear model, but with renewable sources.