http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/24/169241&tid=134&tid=1

An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has posted an interview with
a former Chernobyl engineer, Alexander Yuvchenko, who was not only
there the night of the explosion, but is still alive today to tell
about it. A fascinating recollection of some pretty heroic acts."

============

Some stupid idiots (isn't that redundant?) mentioned problems with
nuclear power and why coal is better.
I modded those bastards down. If you think coal is better than nuclear
then your not a logical environmentalist.

Also, I would prefer nuclear power generation strictly in private
hands. Those who mention they prefer government control, you're wrong.

When a private enterprise runs a nuclear power plant, it has to invest
1 to a few billion dollars. And IF there is a meltdown or shit like
that, your entire invest is gone within a day. The plant is pretty much
like a crime scene.

And mind you, these power plants take 8-10 years to give decent returns
on investment. When you're only asset is the power plant, why will you
risk it and the people who work there by lax safety measures?

One interesting comment
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119161&cid=10060926

I'm mostly apathetic about the nuclear power discussion. But I'm
wondering why it would be better for it to be under private control. If
you're talking about corporations owning nuclear power plants, I'll
have to disagree. The main concern of companies above all else is to
beat its competitors. That leaves them more prone to curruption than
the government, which is considerable. I'm usually for the rights of
companies to invest in whatever, but this would affect whoever is in
its vicinity, as in risking their lives.