Often the argument about whether nuclear power represents an acceptable risk or not is then used to argue that nuclear power is a key solution to get rid of fos

Often the argument about whether nuclear power represents an acceptable risk or not is then used to argue that nuclear power is a key solution to get rid of fossil fuel (a straw man argument?), as if there are no other parts of nuclear power which should be questioned. This particular article doesn't say so explicitly, but has links in the margin to: "Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil curse?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473 Key aspects of the discussion really is whether nuclear power is safe (for people and environment) and economical. A good discussion about the economic aspects can be found at: "Cost, not Japan crisis, should scrub nuclear power" http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-17-cost-not-japan-crisis-should-scrub-nuclear-power http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-17-cost-not-japan-crisi...