Entry 3

After going over most of the blogs, I still believe nuclear energy has the potential to do good. Aside from little pollution, safety, proper disposal of nuclear waste, and the economic advantage, the international supply also sides for nuclear energy. Oil and coal reserves are situated in certain locations around the world. Some countries lack these sources (Japan) while others have an excess (Saudi Arabia). This may result in trade interference and changeable costs. However, uranium and plutonium (nuclear fuel) is proven to be "equally dispersed"(1) all around the world which makes nuclear fuel reliable.
In addition, nuclear disaster and harms are very rare. For example, about 30000 people (2) die each year from breathing problems, three hundred from ore mining, and an incredible zero from nuclear energy. With advances in this branch of science, a nuclear meltdown would be very scarce and even if it occurs it is not comparable to the extended affects of coal and natural gas. Radiation from nuclear plants would also not increase significantly at all. On average we receive 200 millionth rems (3) of radiation which would become 200.2 millionth rems if all our energy came from nuclear plants. Nuclear energy may have a few downsides, however In my opinion nuclear power is the solution not the problem.

(1) http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1425_web.pdf
(2) http://members.tripod.com/funk_phenomenon/nuclear/procon.htm
(3) http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiation.html
Picture: http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/11/Cold-Fusion-Rossi-1-537x392.jpg