And that's where the global warming theory came from : opposition to coal plants, in favor of Nuclear plants. Since then it has been picked up an run with by everyone as a reason to use their product / not use a competitors.<p>The resulting water is so muddy nobody can see through.<p>I would have thought that the non-greenhouse pollution from coal, plus the deaths caused from mining put Nuclear in front. Even in the extremely rare events of Nuclear accidents the total deaths are lower than the ongoing toll from coal mining and shipping. But nobody wants to discuss that, all we get now is OMG NUCLEAR WASTE and OMG GREENHOUSE GASES!<p>The worst outcome of it all is the obsession with wind power over all else, despite all the drawbacks as mentioned in this paper : land use, siting issues with regards to transmission to demand areas, wildlife impact, noise pollution and what happens when the wind stops. The greenhouse gas debate started as a support to transition from coal/oil to nuclear, and we ended up talking about going from coal to wind power because the wrong interest groups got control of the dialogue.
As someone degreed in Physics, I have far less fear of the long term consequences of nuclear power and nuclear waste than many of the other byproducts of western civilization.