Xiaofan, if you are genuinely interested in the subject, I suggest "The 
Nuclear Energy Option" by Bernard L. Cohen. While you may disagree with the 
arguments, it's a book that is very well written.

>> Ok, let's use your example. How many people died in that accident?
>> Meanwhile, oil- and coal-fired plants account for many millions of
>> verifyable deaths.
>
> That is because of the oil/coal-powered plants account for majority
> of the power generated.

The relationship is far far from linear. Oil and coal powered plants account 
for just over 50% of electricity generated in the US. Nuclear power 
generates about 20%.

It is estimated that in the US, air pollution from fossil fuel burning 
plants causes about 30,000 deaths every year (Cohen, p. 34). If the 
relationship was linear, nuclear power would cause 8,000 deaths/year.

> And this is not the point actually. I think it is wrong to argue for
> nuclear power with your stated reason even though the current
> accident rate is not that high. You need to remember the
> *potential" disaster it could cause.

What do you have in mind? Give me the worst case scenario. 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist