READERS: On this point I will concur with Mr Chips. There is indeed material being disseminated which disagrees with what I have presented. For example I saw last night where "GreenPeace" has an article on Chernobyl. It starts with the introduction "Thousands have died as a result of Chernobyl and even thousands more will die in the future". Yet the WHO (World Health Organization) has studied the issue in depth for decades and the statistics don't support any kind of minor deaths associated with Chernobyl for the general public much less massive deaths. The Thyroid cancers of those in nearby exposed areas on showed a 3 - 6 % increase over a 6-8 year period but only for 0 - 17 year olds, with an overall population affect of 0.004% to 0.01% average and then the numbers start to decline back to normal. Now that may sound terriable but one has to remember that this simply means "If you would have had 100 thyroid cancers develope, that Chernobyl will cause the numbers temporarily to go to 103 to 106" . While that is not a good thing, one must first and formost realize that many, many of those thyroid cancers can be traced to radioactive carbon inhaled from the atmosphere which was released by the burning of coal. Inotherwords, the facts are it is more likely than not that nuclear power (in absence of coal burning) would actually reflect a decrease in such cancers. You cannot and should not judge the temporary increase in thyroid cancers data in absence of knowing what the affect on cancer increases would have been had we simply added another cancer causing coal burning plant instead of a nuclear plant. One would find in such case that it is the increase in overall power generation that shows an increase of thyroid cancer and not an issue linked just to nuclear power. Adding nuclear power instead can statistically see thyroid cancers decrease as older coal fired technology is shut down in the future. That is the reality of this issue. But that reversal is not necessary to make nuclear power not only acceptable but desireable. There is nothing (including sleeping with a woman) that doesn't expose you to radiation. We simply must gage which activities yield more benefit to our lives than risk and go with the flow. We must either decrease our dependance on energy or go nuclear since hydrocarbon fuel resources are being depleted and renewable energy sources are not yet available to replace the loss of petrolum. The most important thing to keep in mind is the meaning of the numbers and the tricks of the trade of those agenda driven protestors. To state a supportable fact i.e. - "10,000 people have died of cancer since TMI", has absolutely no meaning what-so-ever in absence of knowing how many would have simularily died without the accident. Nor not to get facts regarding the cancers (or black lung deaths) that would have been caused by the coal industry that it replaced. It is entirely possible, indeed highly likely, that any minor increase in the national cancer rate would be offset by a radical decrease in black lung deaths. That is to say the total number of deaths will surely decline because nuclear actually causes fewer cancers than coal. So what are we saying? It takes more than a soap box and paranoia to develope good policy. There are those that spout numbers which are fabricated out of whole cloth without any basis what-so-ever and/or use distorted statistics. You must look at the credentials of the source and the methodology and purpose in forming the statistic Lastly you should remember that governments, nations, workers as well as investors and business owners, all live in the same country. It is not reasonable to assume they all are profit driven advocates that disregard the risk to their own and their families lives.