I agree! So what's worse - dumping tons more nuclear waste into the atmosphere and on the ground, or dealing with a far lesser quantity of waste in a manner such that none is released into the air or water? Personally I'd rather have less nuclear waste in the air I breathe. How about yourself? Right. We should be pushing alternatives instead of just increasing the coal mess as quickly as possible. Google Centralia, PA. Our very own Chernobyl from the coal power industry. That would be great. But right now one doesn't exist. Consider the following conversation between a doctor and a patient: Doctor: Your LDL levels are through the roof, and you are showing early signs of coronary artery obstruction. You have got to start exercising and dieting or you are headed for a heart attack. Patient: That's pretty inconvenient. What are my other options? Doctor: Well, statins can reduce your HDL's, and combined with diet . . . Patient: Whoah! Statins sound like they could be dangerous. I think I'll wait until a cheaper, safer alternative comes along. Would such a decision be a wise one?