The Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 3036), which will soon be debated in the Senate, contains substantial subsidies for nuclear power.  The bill recognizes nuclear as a “zero-emissions” option.  This is driving environmentalists crazy since they believe the money should be going to renewables (wind, wave, solar, etc.), and nuclear still carries too many risks.  Personally, I tend to think nuclear must be included in the mix, although I am basing this on the as-yet unfounded assumption that the next generation of nuclear plants will be built to be vastly safer than the previous ones.  But whether or not they are built safer, there are still the issues of sabotage and nuclear waste.  All we need is one Chernobyl-like nuclear disaster - - just one! - - to prove that nuclear power just wasn't worth it.  Thoughts, anybody?

My understanding is that radioactivity in most nuclear waste cannot be “treated away; it is inherent to the nucleus of the radioactive isotope.  The best kind of treatment appears to be some form of stabilization, such as vitrification, or just reducing the volume of the waste.  Some people have come up with neutralization technologies, but they don't seem to be taken seriously by the people who have to deal with large volumes of commercial high-level nuclear waste.