You claim I'm poorly informed, but you don't provide any evidence whatsoever! Nothing in the paper you linked to contradicts what I have said.

You seem to have a severe comprehension deficiency - you fail to understand that a good safety record does not justify ignoring safety problems, particularly when the potential consequences are severe. You also ignore the associated pollution problems.

Aidan,

Wrong on all points. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Do the research.

Thomas, P.; May, J. Coping after a big nuclear accident. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.09.013

Thomas, P.J. Quantitative guidance on how best to respond to a big nuclear accident. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.026

Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.; Taylor, R.; Vaughan, G. J-value assessment of remediation measures following the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accidents. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.003

Yumashev, D.; Johnson, P.; Thomas, P. Economically optimal strategies for medium-term recovery after a major nuclear reactor accident. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.08.022

Video: ‘Experts talk about the health effects of Chernobyl’ https://youtu.be/PZUvoeIArDM

WHO – ‘Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes – Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Health”
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241594179
https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf

WHO – 1986-2016: CHERNOBYL at 30 https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/1986-2016-chernobyl-at-30

Regarding the LNT Hypothesis:
Calabrese, E.J.P., Mikko. A-Bombs, Bears and Corrupted Science; Reassessing radiation safety. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Calabrese-Paunio-2020.pdf

Doss, M. Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era? http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/59/12/1786.long

Higson, D.J., “A controversy that needs to be resolved”; The Boyce Worthley Oration 2019. Radiation Protection in Australasia; The Journal of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society, May 2020, Vol.37, No.1, pp. 29-36. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1raQz-s_wUOrPvNgCYY91iwg6tbEQQd4U/view?usp=sharin

Smaller but more nuclear power stations are what will sustain us in the future not oil-based renewables the manufacture of which is more polluting than coal & petroleum fuel.
Big nuclear power stations can become unmanagable as we have witnessed already. Small ones have a %99.9 safety record if nuclear ships are anything to go by !

Peter Lang,
Saying "wrong on all points" doesn't make it so, and it's pretty obvious to me that YOU are the one who doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about. If you can identify any errors in what I ACTUALLY said (rather than the point you wrongly assume me to be trying to make) then you're welcome to identify them and we can discuss it. But I don't have time to chase strawmen today, so I'm not going to follow a load of links to irrelevant stuff (much of which I do already know).

"but the technology has moved on and now they're low cost."

Well if that's true (and requires some valiant mathematical distortions to make it so), then let's get rid of all the subsidies and then we'll see just how low cost they are. Of course, it'll never happen because, sans subsidies, these so-called low cost renewables would be outta business by next Tuesday week.

Meanwhile our new BFF, realising that renewables will never get the job done, are moving to mini nuclear. ....

http://www.msn.com/en-au/money/other/government-poised-to-approve-16-mini-nuclear-reactors-to-hit-net-zero/ar-AAOPx1d/

Don't waste your time mhaze, aidan lives in his own Neverland, with Peter Pan, Tinker Bell, Captain Hook, & the rest of the green fairy tale crowd.

Where what ever he wishes were true, become true just because he wants to believe. You will never be able to show him the facts, as they don't fit his dream world.