Unclear about Nuclear

As expected our Mr Ed Milliband has today confirmed the government commitment to future energy supply based on a basket of sources which will, as the mainstay energy producer include nuclear. Really hard this for Green supporters, many of whom are still signed up CND supporters with battle scars from protesting against nuclear in the 60s.
I did O' level geography a long time ago, for one of our field trips we went to Suffolk and included in our studies a visit to the then quite new (and now quite shut down) Sizewell A nuclear power station. We were taken round the impressive site by an eager P.R chap who without a shudder proudly told us that the fish in the local waters were far bigger than elsewhere. Whether they glowed or had two heads he did not say.
The great guru of Green thinkers and the inventor of the Gaia hypothesis is James Lovelock. Here's what he has to say about nuclear; "We must conquer our fears and accept nuclear energy as the one safe and proven energy source that has minimal global consequences. It is now as reliable as any human engineering can be and has the best safety record of all large scale energy sources."
Easy for him to say, I still have visions of giant fish, but he's not wrong. France grasped the idea early and produces much of it's energy from nuclear thus making it more self sufficient and less vulnerable to major energy exporters with a hand on the the big "off" tap.
There are statistically minute risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Almost a third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breath air laden with the pervasive carcinogen, oxygen.
The World Health Organisation states that only 75 people died as a result of the steam explosion and subsequent fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. The area itself is now verdant and teaming with life, so here's what Lovelock suggests; go to nuclear for a large proportion of energy production, and the rather difficult to deal with waste?..... dump it in the rain forests so nobody can go there!
I have to say, a bit of a CND campaigner myself in my time, it makes sense, at least until we can sort out nuclear fission as a power source.....perhaps we can use those big fish too.

Copenhagen draws near and clearly the various representatives of the various interested parties are getting fretful and protectionist and edgy. Doubtless the same old, same old will happen; none will give an inch and then after all that time there, at the eleventh hour, following a variety of dramatic brinkmanship ploys, an agreement of sorts, not strong enough but with the potential to be improved at another summit, will be approved. You mark my words.

Brilliant! It's really difficult to visualise just what a tonne of carbon is.... well here is a fantastic piece of work that does just that, check it out here now;
http://carbonquilt.org/