True...Nuclear energy has now been proven to be one of the safest in 'conventional' energy as TMOG described. But it could be better if fusion energy could be achieved. It will be like generating our own sun.

And we must remember conventional energy will eventually run out! Fossil fuels are making too mcuh polution, and theyre already affecting us in a global and very alarming rate. The ever-popular global warming isnt a myth, its completely real. Yes, it has been seen before here on Earth, but never on these scales. Also, studies suggest there shouldnt be so much heat nor Co2 by this time... so it is obviously a human effect. Green energy may cause some dangers to wildlife, but this can be fixed with proper locations for the green energy sources, but the damage conventional energy does is already too high, and its still increasing. Just remember Katrina, 2005. Hurricane that hitted USA. Those who remember it... know that this wasnt just bad luck, this was global warming. Conventional energy's bad-side is already killing us... thats why green energy must and is the only solution to both stay at the point of progress we are and with a habitable Earth! xD

The danger doesn't exist, an accident like that cannot happen with modern day safety procedures.

There are over 400 nuclear power plants in the world today, and we've never had a major incident like Chernobyl since.. Well, Chernobyl.

I'd advise that everyone stop saying 'conventional energy' and 'green energy' in this thread - Renewable energy, non-renewable energy and nuclear energy would be much more accurate.

For the record, wind farms will always shred birds, solar fields will always denature acres upon acres of land and hydroelectric dams will always blend aquatic wildlife. There's no logical preventative measure and removing one source means you need more of the others.

I daresay that burning old trash is not 'green' as it no doubt causes pollution.

Can we please stop saying green in this thread? Here's some more appropriate phrases:

Renewable energy
Non renewable energy
Nuclear energy
Recycling

Okay, new world incident where 2 or more nuclear reactors are either exploding or on the verge to on Japan after the devastating earthquake. News say one of them may have a fusion, and its 250 km from Tokio. I pray to God that it doesnt happen Germany has notified the world they will stop using nuclear plants cus of this event. All of this proves my point that nuclear energy is too dangerous, even with all the security sistems in the world.

The casualties to that event number less than thirty. I could show you explosions in fossil fuel power plants which are far far worse.

Modern safety protocols for nuclear accidents prevented a Chernobyl situation occurring. This actually proves my point about how safe nuclear power is now.

The current situation is no worse than a comparable fossil fuel plant failure.

Also, Germany is not going to stop using nuclear power because of this. Find me a shred of evidence to prove otherwise. It's ridiculous.

My bad on the Germany data: they had already accepted to use nuclear energy, yet cus of this event they have reverted the decision and will use this data to decide in 3 months.

And also, it does not prove your point. I never said that something like Chernobyl had to happen 4 nuclear energy 2 be considered dangerous. And this nuclear problem isnt over yet. This is bad enougha already, with a lot of quimics being tossed into the air, and a 3rd reactor is in a huge danger to fuse. The cooling sistems are unoperational and the fuel bars are exposed, it may just be a matter of time 4 it to happen. And the company owning these reactors said their security protocols SHOULD had prevented any tsunami-earthquake scenario, yet this event was "above of what we expected".

Offering a page (its in Spanish, my home language) where many experts say that this event changes the nuclear energy, from one of the safest, to one that may be tossed soon. Many experts say this may be the start point 4 the nuclear energy 2 be reconsidered as a viable energy source.

http://noticias.latam.msn.com/xl/intern ... d=27993549

Producers of nuclear energy worldwide (2007):
United States 29.2%
France 16.3%
Japan 11.0%
Germany 5.9%
Russia 5.4%
Korea 5.3%
Canada 3.3%
Ukraine 3.2%
United Kingdom 3.0%
Sweden 2.6%
Rest of the World 14.7%
Source: http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/key_stats_2007.pdf

Germany is one of the greenest power-producing nations in the world. They are not going to turn back on that by ditching nuclear power. Germany's only response has been to postpone projects to extend the longevity of nuclear power plants by three months. This is nothing but a token gesture to calm the anti-nuclear protesters and does not actually amount to anything.

As for your safety claims, do I really have to answer your half-baked opinions with absolute proof of the massive ecological damage caused by fossil fuel mining, drilling and burning? Perhaps you'd like me to show you some of the hugely destructive explosions that have happened in fossil fuel plants? Compared to the relatively tiny damage caused by nuclear power?

Nuclear power is cleaner, safer, more efficient and has a greater longevity than fossil fuels. It is also far more efficient than renewable power sources such as hydroelectricity and wind turbines, not to mention, it is actually less damaging to ecosystems. (Yes, I'm not joking)

Note, news media is not the place to find unbiased, or even necessarily true information. Especially MSN news, are you serious? Learn to academic source.