Admittedly, minor accidents and slip ups continue to shake public confidence in nuclear power. Given the unquantifiable risks that nuclear power carries, it is only right that the industry be subjected to the test of public opinion and due political process. However, this argues for exceptional vigilance, regulatory scrutiny and accountability-and not for bans or shutdowns. Those nuclear operators with a good safety record deserve to have their licenses renewed, so that existing plants may run to the end of their useful lives. The Bush administrations enthusiastic support goes a lot further than this, however. It also wants to see new plants. Proponents of new nuclear power stations make three arguments in their favor. They will enhance energy security by lessening dependence on fossil fuels Far from being environmentally harmful, they will be beneficial because they will reduce the output of greenhouse gases And, most crucially, the economics of nuclear power has improved from the days when it was wholly dependent on bail out and subsidy. Yet these arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. The claim that governments should support nuclear power to reduce their vulnerability to the OPEC oil cartel is doubly absurd. Little oil is used in power generation: what nuclear power displaces is mostly natural gas and coal, which are not only more plentiful than oil but also geographically better distributed. Security is enhanced not by seeking energy self-sufficiency but through diversification of supplies. Creating lots of fissile material that might be pinched by terrorists is an odd way to look for security anyway. What about the argument that climate change might be the great savior of nuclear power? Global warming is indeed a risk that should be taken more seriously than the Bosh administration has so far done. Nuclear plants do not produce any carbon dioxide, which is the principal greenhouse gas. However, rushing in response to build dozens of new nuclear plants would be both needlessly expensive and environ mentally unsound. It would make far more sense to adopt a carbon tax, which would put clean energy sources such as solar and wind on an equal footing with nuclear, whose waste poses an undeniable (if remote) environmental threat of its own for aeons to come. Governments should also dismantle all subsidies on fossil fuels—especially for coal, the dirtiest of all. They should adopt reforms that send proper price signals to those who use power, and so reduce emissions. Global warming certainly provides one argument in favor of nuclear power. But it is not sufficient on its own to justify a nuclear renaissance. What's the public's opinion about nuclear industry?