Nucelar Energee

Just as people so often seem to say "stastistics"in stead of statistics so they seem to say "nucelar"instead of nuclear. Laughable, if it wasn't for the fact that nuclear energy is no laughing matter.
Listening to a discussion yesterday betwen Lesley Kemeny, an apologist for the nuclear power industry; anti nuclear activist, Helen Caldicott, and an Amercian physicist specialising in wind energy. I was struck by the shallowness of Kemeny's apologia and his failure to take seriously the demonstrable threats of radiation. In fac it sounded to me not unlike the sort of self-justification that the tobacco industry indulges in.
My father used to point out that the coal mining industry had been responsible for enormous loss of life, far more than the nucear industry. I wonder if he would be so confident of that talking to the childen of Chernobyl.
So, it was interesting to hear Kemeny spouting off a similar line of argument.
It is a difficult dilemma

• fossil fuels=greenhouse gases
• nuclear energy=awful by-products
• wind farms=bird species threat

So what to do?