I couldnt agree more with those last few paragraphs. A couple of things I would add; everything driven by investors and investor sales pitches tends to blow up, one way or another, most of the harm we are seeing is because people reading only investor information don't have enough technical training to realise they have only been given a small part of the story. But they are convinced somehow that the most flawed projects are things of beauty, and throw their money at it anyway, and these projects go ahead, and the damage continues. Nuclear isn't the most dangerous project which will have to be shot down before it does yet more damage, there are far more dangerous projects cooking, like Geo-engineering, but if we can't see sense on nuclear, we probably don't stand a chance of stopping Geo-engineering.
If you think you know the whole story after only a few weeks or months, you are very mistaken, it takes decades of working in science and engineering. It took me thirty years finalising as a chartered engineer, two degrees, two patents in power technology, and part of a PhD on a dependent subject to come to the conclusion nuclear has the same problem as any other kind of extraction industry, the damage it does costs far more than the value of the power from it. I've even shown the proof of that, but folk who don't want to see it, won't see it.
Now you can carry on thinking I am making myself look stupid for disagreeing with you, I would just advise you that you should take your own advice, but if you don't have thirty years to spend on the subject yourself, you should consider the possibility that someone else with that background might just be right.