If you're willing to consider Science, Science has called into serious doubt, the notion that fossil fuel emissions are promoting changes in climate. Rather Science has found evidence that climate change is natural, ice ages give way to warmer periods, etc. Until about 13,000 years ago, long before there was any significant presence of fossil fuels, a good chunk of Illinois in the U.S. was covered by a glacier.

But considering that in the U.S., our Environmental "Protection" Agencies supposedly want to get older cars with higher emissions off the streets, yet when they do get the older cars off the streets, they sell "Emissions Credits" to Businesses, as a license to polute, maybe what we really need is a different government.

Not ta' be too cynical or anything but once you start multiplying seven-billion...

If you cite scientists please come up with links to your claims.
That there was natural climate change before (which nobody denies) is no ecidence that we don't have man-made climate change now.

Rather than express my opinion on the safety of nuclear power directly I'll post some links. If anyone has figures which contradict these I may well change my opinion, otherwise you can talk all you want but I'll put it down to uninformed emotional reaction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_death_toll
http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/p...ants/existing/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ation_failures
http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/2...power-vs-coal/

OMG, another climate change denier! I studied this at university (which I doubt you did) and I've kept abreast of it. The mechanisms of climate change are reasonably well understood. Given the landmasses in the right place, there will be glaciation such as we have now. Its ebb and flow is controlled by astronomical changes (Milankovitch cycles), which have been studied for a century now. It shouldn't be getting this much warmer this quickly: the climate should be static and then cooling.

If you take the trouble to check the deniers with scientific qualifications (listed on Wikipedia), you can eliminate the non-climatologists (they know no more than you) and the retired (out of the loop, going gaga); you're left with about half a dozen: like the doctors who deny that HIV causes aids.

Actually, we can build low-emission power plants and use other reduction techniques to off-set the emissions they do create. We cannot shorten the millions of years that it takes to get nuclear waste radioactivity down to safe levels, though, nor can we build fail-safe containment structures for that period of time.

As I stated, we can not reverse the effect, so we have to minimize it as long as we research something better.

You are right, we can't do that.
That is why I said that we have to decide which is better, pollution due to radioactive waste or globally changing the climate in an unpredictable way. I still think (only my opinion) that changing the climate globally is worse, but of course our first objective should be to avoid both with researchg clean ways to produce electricity.

Humans will be long-gone(?) by the time it would take to study such seemingly infinite systems, read every science book ever written and see how wrong you\* can be... F#!k: coal, gas, nuclear and cutting education!

I ought also to point out that the computer you are posting on is a very expensive luxury.
I don't think I'm being too sensationalist when I say it's likely somebody died due to the way your computer, car, cell phone or other device was manufactured.

The only free ride is to not use energy. It is childish to think that there is some good way to create energy that won't kill us. You can't burn fossil fuel in the amounts we do and not kill ourselves.

Unfortunately, byproducts of nuclear processing are already in the world. The open air blasts of testing has covered the world much much more than any reactor accident. Most likely the processing of nuclear fuel has released more matter than every accident.

We as a people could reduce need if we wanted to. We would prefer to use more and more without regard to it's effect.

My opinion is that maybe nuclear ought to be part of our energy. All the nuclear matter we have on earth is already here. We don't create more, we dig it up and process it.

So true, even ancient civilizations knew "free trade" would corrupt and murder but the masses\a#!es(we\us)... And still education that pays for itself gets cut?!.

I would also mention that if you play with fire you will burn you some day or another.

Btw, a way to categorize of a nuclear incident is to count a number of person that have been killed/injured/... Wow. Where are human rights to allow such evaluation?

Human rights are not to be killed. Fewer people have been killed due to nuclear power than fossil fuels -- thus it has been proven safer by history. Or is ignoring deaths part of your morality?
As I said if somebody can prove that nuclear power is more dangerous to human life and health than fossil fuels I may revise my opinion of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

well, you might go to visit there how it is. Have you ever been even? - You can really be depressed visiting the region.
Ask the population what they really do think about it.

On Wikipedia, it is not sufficiently described on the page.

Maybe one can find some more reportage on youtube. Some parts of body can be locally growing, not as it should. It looks strange, but you can live with it. Sometimes.

If you loose someone that was close to you, from your family, due to it, it is probable that you do regret that such an energy has been invented.

I am aware of the only nuclear disaster to happen which cost a significant number of lives. I am aware of it because it was such a rare event.
How many people died because of the failure of the properly-operated Fukushima plant? I'll give ou a hint: It's less people than failed dams have managed to cause.