maybe because of its radiation and destructive force capability

Emissions: Compared to other major existing energy sources, such as coal and oil, nuclear power emits almost no greenhouse gasses, or nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the primary components of air pollution. Energy independence: Increasing American nuclear energy enables the country to reduce the amount of oil it imports from other parts of the world and provides reliable base-load power. However, there are limited stores of uranium isotope U-235, which is required for nuclear fission and is largely found in Canada, Australia, and Niger. Cost: The expense of building two advanced technology nuclear reactors was originally estimated at around $7 billion. The price tag recently rose to $14 billion and construction hasn’t even begun. Champions of wind, solar, and other forms of alternative energy argue high cost and government support for nuclear are gobbling up money that could help develop less established industries. Environmental health and safety: The risk of a catastrophic reactor accident, as well as significant waste disposal problems, hangs around nuclear power’s neck like a noose. Uranium mining can also endanger the health of miners and people living near mines, as well as the environment, as radioactive ore waste has been shown to contaminate surface and groundwater. Security: Underlying a nuclear chain reaction in both an energy reactor and weapon is an isotope called uranium-235. Reactor grade uranium requires a 3-5 percent concentration of U-235, while weapon grade needs 90 percent concentration. Therefore anyone possessing U-235 and the necessary equipment can make either nuclear energy or bombs. Impact on natural resources: The Union of Concerned Scientists calculated that to keep cool a typical 1,000 megawatt reactor requires approximately 476,500 gallons of water a minute be pumped through its system, a number that could nearly triple in some of the new, larger facilities. In some systems, the warmed water returned to its source – lake, river, ocean—contains low level radioactivity. Also aquatic life circulated through the cooling system can be killed.

One reason - it's not so much nuclear power that people are afraid of. Nuclear power capability translates into the ability to create nuclear weapons, and people see that as unacceptable with regard to certain countries (North Korea, Iran, for example). If North Korea and Iran can manufacture nuclear weapons, God only knows how many of their neighbors will freak out and insist that they, too, must develop nukes for self-defense. Then, just imagine the apocalyptic scenario that could turn into reality if some unstable third world countries develop nuclear weapons.

Imagine a mistake that could be caused in nuclear energy. Destructive? :(

My problem with nuclear power is not the safety of generating it. It is this: what are we doing with the waste products like depleted uranium and radioactive water?

A nuclear reactor is safer than an oil refinery due to the double redundancy applied on it. The cooling water has a separate cycle and has no contact with any radioactive materials. There has been more accident in oil refineries than in a nuclear power plants. But I prefers solar and wind energy. They are cleaner and less dangerous.

People don't understand nuclear power and so they are scared of it. You can either teach people about it and convince them its safe or build the damn nuclear plans anyway regardless of the deluded protests. People don't want to learn though, so I'm inclined to go with the 'build them anyway' idea. Its working here in Canada, we've got a few big new ones being built.

Don't know really I think that it automatically gets associated with Nuclear bombs and chennobel (don't know how the hell to spell it lol). I am definitely not against it and think that us in the UK vitally need to dramatically increase our use of nuclear power. Shame we have to get the french to build the bloody plants though ain't it !

Two good reasons could be, Three mile Island U.S.A. 1979,and Chernobyl Ukraine 1986.Its definately not safe.

Clean? What do you propose to do with the radioactive waste, which is lethal potentially forever?

SAFE?! does Chernobyl ring a bell?

Nuclear power + Murphy's law = safe? 1) "Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and declining energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Debate_on_nuclear_power 2) "Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl: Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_debate#Accidents

It isn't that safe, they melt down. It isn't that clean, the radiocative waste remains dangerous longer than the life span of any container that can hold it. The salt domes that hold those containers will eventually be holding waste pools. One seismic crack and it's into the water table. The only real energy answer is the Pinwheel Generator. Google: Squidoo.com, then type in the search box- Pinwheel Generator. Thanks, Russ