Before I say anything…GO TO THIS SITE AND LOOK AT THE MOVIE NEAR THE BOTTOM…I sure love greenpeace…
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear
Anyway, many people in this great world of ours see nuclear power as a menace that threatens the very foundation of humanity…well, this is just not true. Greenpeace states in their website that using nuclear power on a greater scale will flood the world with radioactive material that could be used in nuclear bombs. Well unless you are using Plutonium 
reactors, which the United States does not, you will not be producing weapons grade radioactive material. And this non- weapons grade Uranium wouldn’t be worth stealing! You need a high level of technology to enrich it into a bomb! And I seriously doubt countries or terrorist groups who have this technology are going to go through the trouble of stealing radioactive materials from US power plants when they could just simply go to Niger and get better quality uranium (I’m sure that someone would sell you some…).
Greenpeace also has declared that Nuclear power presently does not make a difference in our struggle to limit greenhouse gases, and it would cost trillions of dollars to build enough plants to make a difference. Well, take a look at this site http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html and you will see the stats of nuclear power usage in the world.
The Greenpeace site also attacks nuclear power plant safety, claiming that a “Chernobyl-scale” accident would occur around once every decade. The answer to this problem has already been answered, however. Passive safety coupled with improved equipment drastically increase safety at these power plants. Passive safety takes all human error out of the equation and regulates the reactor pressure through natural means.
I believe the one and only valid point Greenpeace has made regarding nuclear power is the problem of nuclear waste. This is a serious problem, and solutions like Yucca Mountain have been introduced, but many people believe this to be too dangerous. But if nuclear waste is stored at Yucca Mountain or other sites, isn’t this safer than pouring Co2, mercury, and other toxic residues out from coal plants? There is no perfect energy solution, and most likely never will be. This means you can’t tell people to trash the best option and use old coal plants until you find something else. The fact is that while alternative energy possibilities are being developed and used in small amounts, they still need more improvements. Solar energy needs to become more efficient, as does Wind power. Geothermal energy is only effective in small regions of the world, biodiesels need a mass amount of methane or other gas to create fuel, and candles just don’t cut it anymore.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/logos20-1/passive01.htm
http://www.huri.harvard.edu/workpaper/chart2.gif
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4753771.html
http://www.corrosioncost.com/government/nuclear/nuclear2.gif
Very interesting blog. For the most part, I agree with the points you are making.
However, in regard to your video, you suggest we watch it, but then do not talk about the issue it is addressing, as far fetched as it may be.
What are the chances a nuclear power plant will be attacked? Wouldn’t there be a hell of a lot of effects if a plane were to hit it and a ton of radioactivity was released, worse than Chernobyl ever was?
I understand they are talking about the extreme happening and I am NOT against nuclear power plants b/c there is that slight chance they may be targeted (I am aware of the tight security). I think nuclear power is a good idea, especially if they get that waste storage thing figured out.
But, I mean if you are going to tell us to watch the movie, written in CAPS no less, and then make a sarcastic comment such as “I sure love green peace…” then tell us why you think video is wrong, silly, far-fetched, stupid, etc. or at least address the issue of a terrorist attack. I am curious as to what you think about that issue.