t[IUS~ II1HtIUI-S~ ~bpU~ldlly l[lObU WIIO ~l[{.7. ~DOLI[ IIOW<br >decisions， about meeting the world s energy needs<br >ead， about the environmental and public health<br >:reased (or decreased) use of nuclear power， and<br >ation of nuclear weapons. Each country s nuclear<br >， country s future.<br >of nuclear policies involve consideration of diverse<br >lg objectives. Credible arguments for increased use<br >can be based upon economics， public health and<br >:ntal protection， foreign policy， and national<br > factors can be employed to construct comparably<br >; in opposition to nuclear power. For example， in<br >reased use of nuclear power can reduce the need for<br >ar economic advantage in terms of balance of inter-<br >t the cost of nuclear-generated electricity may be<br >roduced by the burning of oil - an equally clear<br >ntage. Under normal operation， nuclear power<br >， have less adverse effects upon public health and<br >ironment than coal-burning plants; but， if severe<br >urn out to be more likely than anticipated by the<br >:quences of following the nuclear path could be<br >iced dependence on imported fossil fuels could<br >eedom of choice in foreign policy， especially in<br >. xporting countries， but increased dependence on<br >mology and imported reactor fuel can only restrict<br >ons. Acquisition of nuclear materials and facilities<br >~ ul in the production of nuclear weapons might<br >national security， but it might instead stimulate a<br >by a suspicious adversary.<br >aniel Poneman examines objectively and compre-<br >ply of goals and influences bearing upon nuclear<br >description of the requirements for a nuclear power<br >e current status of the global nuclear enterprise is<br >uage fully understandable by the nontechnical<br >tdies (of the nuclear programs in three developing<br >