> I think you are confusing a conclusion, which can be rendered as a Yes or No decision

No, the decision on what energy sources to use is not a Yes or No decision, unless you are willing to seriously reduce your energy consumption. This is more like a budgeting process, where the total has already been decided. Just like in a budgeting process, where you have to choose between welfare, healthcare, defence, environmental improvement, etc, a country is not likely to significantly lower their energy consumption.

In other words, "No" to nuclear is AUTOMATICALLY "Yes" to something else. And realistically, that "else" is going to be fossil fuels, since renewables are getting a lot of funding anyway.

The way I see it, there should be a hierachy:
1. Get rid of all energy from brown coal.
2. Get rid of all energy from black coal.
3. Get rid of all energy from natural gas/oil.
4. Only then, consider shutting down, or at least stop building more capacity for nuclear.

> do so with the best ethical intentions and are perhaps no less intelligent or manipulated than oneself is

There are two different groups to compare to. One is the average voter in a country. Most of them will not understand the "math and physics" involved, unless it is provided to them in an extremely well digested form.

The main problem with this group is that they (mostly) see things as either/or, good/bad, black/white. For instance, they think something is either radioactive or not, but do understand the difference between uSv (micro Sv), mSv and SV. If someone tells them they just received a dose of 300uSv, they probably worry just as much as (of not more) than if someone tells them the dose was actually 70mSv.

Similarly, with waste, if they see a picture of low level radioactive waste form 20 years back, they think it is the same as fuel that was taken out if the reactor the day before.

Similary, they tend to think that if the waste is dangerous for 100 000 years, it is almost as dangerous after 50000 years as it is after 50 years. While in reality, around 300 years is what it takes for it to become "relatively safe", even if it is still not completely harmless.

In other words, the general public is relatively easy to mislead with propaganda. Many have a natural fear of the unknown, and for those who want to, it is easy to introduce enough complication and confusion to prevent them from accepting the scientific arguments in favour of nuclear.

Then there are people groups of people who do understand enough "math and physics" to at least have ability to understand this from first principles, if they put some energy into it. Here on HN, I would expect most to be in that category (including myself, my MSc is from particle physics). It seems to me, though, that too few of these have actually looked into the information available. That would have included me, just out of university.

An the topic of Nuclear energy vs Coal/Gas (after actually doing some investigation), the data I have been able to find, indicate that the case is almost as clear as Evolution vs Intelligent Design. The difference is simply so large (around 2 orders of magnitude or more), that even if there is significant bias/skew in the data I have available, it is not likely to be enough to alter the conclusion.

I would be happy to review sources that reach a different conclusion. But those I've seen so far have relied on such huge errors that the writers either didn't know the math/physics, or was perhaps writing it with the intent to convince the general audience, rather than in search of truth.

But by any means, if you have quality scientific sources that contradict me, I will be happy to update my view.