I can't believe that someone other than ttbn can be the first to respond to an article.
Back in my teaching days, now more than a decade gone I would have read this article, noticed the number of statements of questionable logic and asked the writer to go away, find a valid reference for each of the sweeping statements in the first page and resubmit this work with a neutral tone and a complete bibliography.
There are good reasons for considering nuclear power - there are also good reasons for NOT considering nuclear power.At the moment the reasons for Not considering nuclear power appear to be more reasonable.
Consequently nuclear power is not on the planning boards of many nations on earth.
I invite a reasonable, polite and factual response.

Hi Brian,

I think that the LNT model and the alara principle that derives from it have made nuclear power far more expensive than it need be. Now that we are in an age where the risk is far better understood, standardising the safety regulations to better reflect the risk is a necessary precursor for a nuclear resurgence.

It is very unlikely that much wind or solar would be built were it subject to the same level of restriction as nuclear. For example, none would be built in Australia as it would be illegal.