Patrick Moore argues that Nuclear power plants are not much of a threat or target as they are made out to be, they supposedly can withstand a 747 (the thought of 747 and nuclear station in one sentence is way too scary for me to bear).
He makes some good points, like the number of people that die every year working in coal mining plants, But I have to admit, I'd rather have lived near a coal power plant than a nuclear plant (but after reading "The high cost of cheap coal" I don't know which is the lesser evil).
I understand his point of view, but I think that Nuclear energy is not the final answer. In the long run, there will probably be some issues with the continuous storage of nuclear waste (Would you want that buried near your own house?) that will cause people to be concerned like we are about greenhouse gases now.
He discusses recycling, which seems like the major answer to the waste issue, but I wonder if this technology is developed enough to actually put into use.
I think nuclear energy might be a good option in some cases (he mentions California subsidizing millions for solar energy that could build a nuclear power station with ten times the power output); But I also think we need a good balance of various energy sources. In the long run Nuclear power would still have its issues.
We should try our best not to praise one solution at one time and demonize another only to turn around and continue the same cycle.