James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution

James Lovelock and his latest book was recently noted in this blog. In this particular article, Lovelock comes out to fully support the use of nuclear energy. He points to global warming issues, the use of fossil fuels, nuclear energy opposiyion...

Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer.
I find it sad and ironic that the UK, which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists, rejects their warnings and advice, and prefers to listen to the Greens. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.
Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are not, its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.

We do have the memories of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, "The China Syndrome." And we do have the issue of "what to do with the waste." But maybe he is right? Other environmentalists are in agreement with Lovelock. There clearly is a growing voive in calling for nuclear energy.

Personally still torn over this issue... Is the risk worth it? Or are the risks outweighed by the use of fossil fuels and lack of motivation to conserve?