Cumulatively good? Not.

Primrose noted above the inevitable accidents, and the problem of storing spent fission fuel. Also, nuclear plants are juicy targets for terrorists or other hostiles, and materials for nuclear energy can be diverted into doomsday weaponry.

Nuclear power makes sense only as a lesser evil because of energy scarcity, as it’s begun to dawn on all but the Cheney-ite greedheads that burning fossil fuels is unsustainable.

Scarcity of food-fuel-water is a function of supply and demand. It seems to me that the best approach to energy supply is to reduce demand. Until we address the demand side of the equation, we’re just p*ssing in the wind. The elephant in the room is our population policy, or rather our taboo on discussing population policy.

McCain’s plan is also notable for what’s not there — say, for example, a way of restructuring US debt

You’re clearly right. What would you suggest?

There is a blog post somewhere in the Internets, which I can’t put my hands on, with a photoshopped picture of Bush along with the Presidents of Japan and China right after Katrina saying “here’s your rebuilding package for ya!”

Every time you get an x-ray, the technician leaves the room. That’s all we need to know about nuclear power.

Non-sequitur. The X-ray tech leaves the room because he or she is exposed on a daily basis and the health effects of radiation are cumulative.

they want a robber baron society, they are federalists, which the new word they use is “libertarian”