In general I've been staunchly pro-nuclear, especially with the current generation technology (pellet reactors etc).
My issue is mostly with:
1) oversight of existing reactors. At some point they SHOULD be decommissioned, but profiteering means that thats not going to happen and they will keep running them until accidents DO start to occur more frequently.
2) The issue with nuclear in my mind isn't with the death toll, but rather the land impact. If something of the Japan scale was to happen at a plant in the Northeast US, you're looking at HEAVILY populated areas that would need to be evacuated potentially for years. That would have MASSIVE economic impact. For instance a quick look at a map in my area (Boston), puts much of the metro Boston area within 30 miles of Pilgrim. Last I heard the evac zone in Japan was 20-30 miles at least from the plant. Thats like 3-4 million people in the case of Boston. While few people might die, it would SERIOUSLY impact the country as a whole.
I personally would like to see US policy shift from maintaining old aging reactors shift to building newer/safer/more efficient ones and decommissioning aging ones. I realize that reactors are cheap to operate and in order to recoup costs you need to keep running them, but eventually the cost of an accident also needs to be factored into the maintenance cost (X likelihood of accident * cost / time, etc).