This is an advocacy piece. It's major weakness is that it offers a large number of arguments, some strong, others weak. To cast doubt on the whole article it is only necessary to discredit the weakest argument. To be an effective advocacy piece it needs to weed out the weak arguments and hammer the strong.

This is very good journalism. Nearly every source is directly quoted, and there are at least a dozen expert sources.

The failure of the right wing corporate press to evaluate the costs and hazards of nuclear power generation are reported in some detail. Along the way some of the costs and hazards are presented. The administration subsidies to corporations to follow this path are one of the disasters of the year.

Excellent journalism; well sourced and informing on a subject that should be in the forefront of everyone's thoughts,especially now that the coal gasification project has been scrapped and Wall Street has decided to withhold funding of new coal power plants. This part "As Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation told BBC News (11/29/05), another “dirty little secret” of nuclear power is that “startlingly, there’s only a few decades left of the proven high-grade uranium ore it needs for fuel.” This has been the projection for years." could also be part of the issue associated with Iran's desire for nuclear power,e.g. competition for a diminished resource. I do wish the author