I fall pretty firmly in the pro-nuclear camp. Sure, it's easy to be frightened by radiation, but from a scientific standpoint, we can accurately measure it, we have a decent understanding of its affects on the body, we understand what causes it; radiation only seems invisible, mysterious and dangerous to people who lack basic a scientific understanding of it. Also, I'm willing to argue that nuclear technology is safe. Yes, there have been three high profile disasters from nuclear power generation, but to me, those disasters are not indicative of some inherent flaw in nuclear technology, they were the results of human operator mistakes, or design and engineering mistakes, which can be accounted for and corrected. Lets not ignore the 2014 Elk River chemical spill, the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill, or the thousand other mistakes and accidents surrounding fossil fuel production and consumption, which are subject to the same operating and engineering foibles. Also, considering a fundamental flaw of fossil fuels involves releasing carbon into the atmosphere disrupting the delicate balance that our climate and ecosystem requires, from a long-term perspective, nuclear has always seemed like the safer choice to me. A big hoopla could be raised about nuclear waste, but that ignores the fact that innovations in reactor technology can minimize or eliminate waste, and the waste that is produced, while dangerous, is extremely compact and with the proper precautions can be safely stored indefinitely. I think nuclear is the only carbon-neutral power source capable of being scaled up to meet present day demands given the technology we have now. Also, considering what scientists are saying about global warming, now is the time to act, not five, ten or twenty years from now hoping for some silver bullet to save everything. The dangers of radiation, and the risks of nuclear power should not be downplayed, but from my perspective, I think they are overemphasized by too many people.
I would say I'm in the pro-camp as well. Although I'm not that knowledgeable in some of the finer details of reactor technology, so it's hard to really cement myself on one side or the other. But yeah, the article mentioned the fact that nuclear energy has the least number of deaths per kilowatt of power. I find that one of the most surprising things about nuclear power. Nuclear power has even saved 1.8 million lives according to NASA. The startling lack of fatalities due to nuclear was what really made me re-think my stance. I remember reading a little article about Thorium reactors being some kind of miracle nuclear reactor. I should go back and read up on that a little bit. Do you happen to know anything about Thorium?
No, I can't say I know much about the Thorium fuel cycle, but I think there are, if not miracle technologies, at least good solutions out there, but we need to invest the money and expertise to find them, and the public needs to trust the scientists and engineers who have spent their life studying and designing these things. My personal belief is that as a species, we will either choke ourselves on fossil fuels, or we will adapt to a new energy economy which takes into account carbon in our ecosystem. I just don't think solar, wind, biomass, and hydroelectric are capable of sustaining the energy usage we're accustomed to. I don't know if you've seen the documentary Pandora's Promise, it felt like PR by the nuclear industry, but I do think they have a point with respect to overall environmental impact.