Nuclear savior? Or nuclear doom?

I can't make up my mind on this nuclear energy debate. On one hand, nuclear energy (by fission) seems to provide a fairly safe, clean and (mostly) reliable energy source, which could quickly replace many of the carbon intensive sorts of energy we are currently dependent on. Simultaneously, the dangers of nuclear energy are quite clear. Occasionally, massive disasters occur, although they are rare. However, smaller incidents are possibly more commonplace than are reported. The effects of these types of radiation are still unclear. Newer means of containing waste (which is actually quite small compared to airborne carbon waste) show some promise.
The arguments for both sides are very strong, so I am naturally skeptical towards anyone who is inherently bent towards one way or another. One type of energy that is rather promising is nuclear fusion, which, while still under development, is the most soup de jour of our practical energy options, providing a much safer, cleaner source of energy without the worry of toxic waste or meltdown.
I guess, presently, the verdict depends on how immediately we need to change our energy system, and if nuclear energy is actually carbon efficient (given mining, construction, decommission, etc.). I can't help but feel like both sides of the argument are overemphasizing their points due to a largely unsolvable debate. For instance, one could argue that water power (massive sudden flooding) presents a much greater risk to nearby residents than nuclear does, but at the same time, a large enough disaster (Fukishima) could effect the entire planet, at least by a little bit. Tricky.