Ok, I'm not saying this guy doesn't have a point, but there's a couple things in that article that are either incorrect or intentionally kept very vague.
He says that so far there's been 56 deaths directly related to Chernobyl. That's a UN/IAEA figure, the Ukrainian Government's commission on radiation security alone claims 34499 dead until this day, the WHO figure was around 50000 6 years ago.
I don't know which figure is true, but there's no doubt that when the IAEA Director General assessed the site in 1986 as the first western visitor his report was very much in favor of the ukranian and russian response to the accident. Until this day there's a memorial for him at the kiev institute for radiation medicine thanking him for his support.
His name was Hans Blix, btw.
All this doesn't refute the authors argument of nuclear energy being a clean form of energy, but he's definately using the most favorable figures available to make his points on reactor safety.
Second he claims that nuclear energy is cheap and will become even cheaper. That's not likely. China alone is building over 20 new nuclear plants and yet even today demand in raw uranium ore exceeds production capacities. The increased demand is currently being covered by stockpiles of ore dating back into the cold war era. As soon as the stockpiles are used up a steadily increasing demand will exceed supply. That never helps in making things cheaper.
