You seem to be presuming that I have taken a stance on nuclear energy; I do have a stance on it, but it was not expressed in my response.

Secondly, I did read the numbers, but believe they represent an over-simplification of things that must be considered. Assuming for a moment that the numbers you're shouting back at me are correct (despite the fact that they are incomplete and do not capture some events that were covered up that occurred during the cold war), they do not measure the economic costs of loss of habitats nor the lingering health effects of radiation.

Furthermore, nothing I stated was untrue. If you want to debate any of the points I made, please debate them with facts and not with exaggerated sensationialized responses.

For the record I am actually in favor of the evolution of nuclear energy, but I do not believe that simply burying nuclear power plants and the waste deeper underground represents a carefully considered long-term strategy. To pretend that there haven't been other smart people before us who thought they had it all figured out but turned out to be mistaken is not useful to us or the humans who will (possibly) still be living on this planet a couple hundred years from now.