I affraid that as a physics graduate I still have very deep concerns about nuclear safety; in terms of accidents in reactors, deliberate acts of terrorism, and waste disposal / decomissioning.

The threat of terrorism should not be under-estimated. How many nuclear plants across the world are capable of withstanding a direct hit by a plane or bomb? And what damage can be done if terrorists get hold of some low-level nuclear waste and spread it on the London Underground system or water supplies?

I'm still not convinced by the assurances that depleated Uranium is perfectly safe for using in munitions (other than the intended target). So while the graph provided by Alex is helpful in understanding the scale of the present dangers, I don't believe it gives us a simple answer regarding the risks of nuclear power.

It remains unclear is whether nuclear power is actually economically sensible. Once the costs of building, decomissioning and long-term storage are all taken into account are they actually cheaper than other sources of fuel? The government's latest idea, quite sensibly, is to leave this to market forces (assuming this does not lead to shortcuts and lower standards for quick/any profits). But, like banks, nuclear plants are too big to fail and even if profits may be possible, the state will end up cleaning up the mess if anything goes wrong.

Launching nuclear waste into space is an attractive option, until you consider the possibility of an accident and nuclear isotopes being liberally released in the upper atmosphere for dispersal across large regions.

For me the advantages of investing in new power generation technologies makes much more sense than considering building a single new nuclear power station, especially in Iran.