I think we need to be a little careful about analyzing risk, e.g. with nuke plants. A lot of the discussion seems irrational, because of how scary the worst case scenarios seem. But if an alternative pollutes more or has a greater negative impact on climate change is it really safer? Can't the slow and steady certainty of these effects be just as disastrous as nukes over the course of a century?

We need to compare best guess expected results, rather than how dire the worst case scenarios are. I don't know the best answer, but I have a strong suspicion that people don't give nuclear energy a fair chance. We shouldn't rush into it, but I'd hate to see it off the table because we imagine possible disasters without looking at possible solutions.