>Is this a crazy world or what?
>http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

I've reading about nuclear power.
The main benefit of generating power in this method is that fissionable uranium is abundant and a very small amount of uranium generates a tremendous amount of energy. One uranium fuel pellet, less then .5 cube, produces the equivalent energy of 16,500 cubic feet of natural gas, 1800 pounds of coal, or 150 gallons of oil. Since relatively little fuel is needed to power nuclear plants, nuclear energy is safer than the other alternatives for generating large amounts of electricity. The waste that is generated in a nuclear plant is contained within the plant or eventually removed for long-term storage. With fossil fuel plants, tons of pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants release no gaseous pollutants and the amount of radioactivity is miniscule. Those living near a nuclear plant face less radioactivity per capita than is encountered in many normal daily activities.

Spent fuel from the fission process presently needs to be stored in shielded vaults at nuclear plants. A proposed central storage site in Nevada has been blocked by political machinations.

Early nuclear scientists predicted tremendous benefits of nuclear power due to the possibility of recycling fissionable waste products into new fuel. Recycling nuclear fuel, as France does, increases the power generating potential of the industry and nearly eliminates the waste problem. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, only 3% of spent fuel is actual fission byproduct waste. Most of the spent fuel, 96%, is unused uranium, which can be recycled to generate more electricity. In 1977, President Carter banned the recycling of commercial reactor fuel, crippling the nuclear power industry. Lifting this ban would increase efficiency in the industry and alleviate the waste storage problem. In short, politics, not science, is preventing the industry from responsibly handling spent nuclear fuel.

For those who think nuclear energy is not a viable option, I suggest they read Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens.

Few months ago in one of democrats debate the subject of nuclear energy. What candidate said was bunch of nonsense.

According to Gwyneth Cravens, someone living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant for a year is exposed to less radiation then from eating one banana. The annual waste from one nuclear plant can fit in a bed one standard pick truck.