[mpyne]

The nuclear industry honestly couldn't give one shit about whether regulators choose LNT/ALARA or "hormesis". If anything hormesis would make their work planning more difficult as then they'd possibly have to worry about ensuring their workers have enough exposure. ALARA is simple and easy and would remain used for work planning.

But either way, nuclear emits less radiation than coal, so if you're worried about public health effects then we're again in the situation that the power company doesn't really have to care either way; if they want less radiation overall they should build a nuke, if they believe in hormesis then coal would probably be preferred, but even assuming a Fukushima-style triple meltdown would not be a large public health disaster.

[peterpathname]

they don't care? so you may say, my experience is that the industry includes some players who duck and weave to try to evade application of existing regulatory radiation limits.

and again the coal/nukes false dichotomy. the fact that this is fundamentally flawed thinking is highlighted by your conclusion that more nuclear plants reduce public radiation exposure.

[mpyne]

The only people who think thermal power generation is a false dichotomy are those who haven't tried to spec out power generation schemes that rely completely on unreliable renewables. Specifically, renewables have a much different capacity factor than thermal power designs (like coal or nuclear) and therefore require a very heavy investment in energy storage schemes, especially if the plan is to go 100% renewable.

Even in Germany, which is the example everyone points to, 80% of the shift away from nuclear has been towards coal. Even natural gas would be better than shifting to coal! And despite only shifting 20% of that generation to renewables there have been increasing problems with frequency variation and brief power interruptions on the grid due to the much higher variability in power output from renewable.