As usual, your argumentative style is to post a comment longer than the original post and full of unsubstantiated assertions that are not worth responding to on a point by point basis. However, I will challenge your last statement:
So care for next generations imply that any extra radiation >0.1mSv/year should be avoided (~7,000 times less than pro-nuclear Rod suggest here to be safe).
Unless people have no problem with the increased risk on serious birth defects, which doubles with 1mSv/year extra.
Do you thus advocate that we evacuate the Rocky Mountain states, tear down Grand Central Station, destroy the Capitol Building, and ground all aircraft? Your assertion, in a world where background radiation levels vary by several orders of magnitude and average somewhere around 2.4 mSv/year (closer to 6 mSv/year if medical exposures are included) is patently absurd.
By the way, you're darned right that I am pro-nuclear. It is far superior to unreliable energy sources and to continued abject dependence on burning coal, oil and natural gas for the power that enables humans to prosper.
Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights