Okay, first off, please remember that there is a drastic difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Firstly, a nuclear bomb has to be specially designed to result in the desired explosion. A nuclear power plant can not and will not produce a nuclear explosion under any circumstances, unless it is somehow converted into a nuclear bomb, which I even doubt is possible, let alone feasible.

Now, onto the first misconception. No, a nuclear power plant is not going to give your family radiation poisoning, cancer, et cetera. They are designed so that no radiation can escape. In the case it does, due to a meltdown of the core, or other such problem, very little will escape, as demonstrated by the Three Mile Island accident. The average person recieved eight millirems of radiation, while the most recieved was about 100 millirems, which is only a third of the average radiation recieved the US residents every year [source].

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, "But what about Chernobyl?" That particular incident, which did cause 56 deaths and a large amount of nuclear fallout. Well, if it weren't for the fact that those managing the facility had the collective IQ of a gerbil, it could've been easily avoided. It was an out-of-date facility, which was overworked and undermaintained. About 9,000 of the 6.6 million who were affected (a 0.00136364-to-1 ratio, mind you) may die of cancer [source], cancer that could've been avoided if those running the facility weren't idiots.

Second misconception is that we have no where to store nuclear waste materials. Wrong. There is a facility in Arizona called the Yucca Mountain Repository. It is designed to store radioactive materials for a long time. It extends five miles below ground, in a U-shaped tunnel that is made of stainless steel and nickel alloy, as well as titanium drip shields. No radiation is getting out.

Sure, you may say, "Oh, storing it underground. Yea, that sounds safe." Well, consider that nuclear reactors use relatively little fuel. Some (I don't know how much) of this fuel can be replinished and used again. That means that it's a rather small amount being placed in the YMR.

What about transporting it, you say? You don't want your children to develop three eys and five arms, you say? Well, not to worry. What the radioactive materials are transported in release little-to-no radiation. I'm sure that what it does release, if any, is less than an x-ray. They are also extremely resiliant, being able to survive a collision with a tractor-trailer, and temperatures up to, if I remember correctly, 6000 degrees Farenheit. They aren't going to be easily destroyed (an, as before, there isn't going to be a nuclear explosion occuring).

What about terrorists? The most they can do is produce a dirty bomb, which essentially just releases radiation. Provided the area is evacuated in time, there should be little damage. The only ones who would die right away are ones who are the ones who would die from the explosion of the bomb.

Now that we've gone over some of the common misconceptions, onto the pros of nuclear power plants. First and foremost, they are clean. Very, very clean. Their only byproduct is nuclear waste, which is easily manageable, as described above. They produce no greenhouse gases, a major problem with oil, coal, and natural gas power plants. As well, they don't produce any pollution that can harm people directly, as well, provided they remain stable and don't leak radiation, which only occurs if the facility is poorly maintained.

Now, of course, they aren't as clean as geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, or solar power plants. But you have to factor in that nuclear power plants produce vast amounts more energy, and with far less space. If you're hellbent on sticking with these, you're probably someone who refuses to go with any form that produces any sort of waste or pollution. don't worry, I'm with you. I love the idea of tearing down forests to put of fields of wind generators and solar power plants, and damming up rivers for hydroelectric power plants.

Now, of course, there are cons. Yes, meltdowns can and will likely occur at some point, but all forms of power have the chance to cause harm. I don't know if anyone knows how many people have died in coal mine collapses. I'm sure there are a substantial amount who have died in oil and natural gas fires and explosions as well. I have no clue if anyone has died from geothermal, wind, or solar power plants, but I know that people have died from dam bursts (not sure how many are power plants, though).

I'm sure that the pros vastly outweight the cons. Nuclear power plants should be the predominant source of power for the US, and should only fall to the next generation of nuclear power: nuclear fusion reactors. These reactors are far cleaner, would produce a great deal more power, and wouldn't have any radioactive by product. Two deuterium atoms (a hydrogen atom with one neutron) go in, one helium atom comes out, as well as a good deal of energy. It's the holy grail of power plants (aside from vacuum energy, but that may not even be feasible).

Nuclear power is the power source the Earth, and people, need most.