And both for what you thought I was saying: That nuclear power is The Answer to America’s (or the world’s) energy woes.

But I’d like to remind everyone reading this — pro, con, neutral, apoplectic or apathetic about nuke power — that I freely admitted in the first two parts of this series that I don’t know enough about nuclear energy generation to make an informed decision about its prospects. I never said atomic power was a panacea, or even that I believe it is. I only pointed out some realities about nuclear power generation so far in the United States…

First, that as far as I could discover from a good deal of research time, it has killed or sickened few, if any. Secondly, I reminded readers that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor nuclear energy, a fact that seems not to warrant much mention in the mainstream media’s portrayal of the debate. Also, I put a few numbers to some of the hazardous realities — both to humanity and the environment — of conventional American energy production. A side note on this:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Be Prepared for the Stock Market Apocalypse

You could still make major gains in the coming stock market bust…

Even after billions more in bank losses…even as foreclosures continue to soar…even as stocks on Wall Street fall apart. In fact, in spite of those things. With a lot less risk. And plenty of confidence that you’re doing the right thing.

All you have to do is follow seven steps. Click on the link below to learn how to protect your wealth (and turn a very nice profit) in the stock market meltdown:

The Key to Financial Survival

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One less-than-adoring reader observed that if I were to mention the tens of thousands of deaths related to coal mining, then injuries and deaths related to uranium mining should also be pointed out. Of course, I considered this when I wrote Part Two, in which I touched on the dangers of coal mining in my discussion of the human costs of American energy production…

According to my research, uranium mining was only recently resumed in the U.S. after being halted in the early ‘90s. Since its resumption in 2001, domestic uranium mining has been predominantly “open-pit” — which is far less hazardous and manual-labor intensive that conventional underground mining (like for much of our coal). Long story short: I couldn’t find much on the dangers of modern uranium mining in America.

However, this reader’s letter spurred me to some further digging — which led me to some old newspaper stories and other sources indicating that uranium mining in Utah, Colorado and other places in the American Southwest (mostly in the 1940s and ‘50s) may indeed have sickened or killed a number of miners and residents of mining communities. In fact, many of these people and their families have received payments under a 1990 law called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

Again, specific numbers were hard to come by — but since I’m nothing if not objective, I felt this was worth mentioning. Also, since the U.S. currently imports more than 80 percent of the uranium used by domestic reactors, the dangers of mining the metallic fuel in Russia, Australia, and other major supplier nations must be considered (finding hard info on this is another matter, however).

Lastly, I must once again thank Whiskey & Gunpowder readers for their voluminous feedback — pro, con and otherwise. Special thanks to the numerous bona-fide experts who wrote in to express support for this series, among them a former U.S. Navy nuclear submariner and numerous active and retired nuclear engineers…

Now, back to the business of neither defending nor exalting American nuclear power generation — but considering it as objectively as I can.

From Ukraine, With Bile…

Always on the tongue-tips of those who’d thwart the spread of nuclear power in America is the 1986 reactor meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl, Ukraine. Of course, this disaster embodied all of our worst fears about nuclear energy — and I, for one, would never try to minimize or understate the horrors those in surrounding territories (especially Belarus) have experienced for the last 22 years because of the accident. I also agree with nuke-power’s harshest critics on one point at least: We’ll likely never know the true extent of the incident’s impact…

However, even the most jaded of nuke-haters would have to grudgingly admit that in the history of nuclear power around the world, Chernobyl has been an anomaly, albeit one of the most terrifying sort. To make an informed assessment of the risks of nuclear power, one must look at the whole picture. That picture includes 31 nations that are generating nuclear power in 439 plants — apparently without significant loss of life or destruction of the environment so far, Chernobyl excepted.