It is a paradox because there’s no objective, universal definition of tolerance. It’s literally impossible to be tolerant of everything. So you’re left with different forms of what intolerance people deem acceptable.

People make the same mistake about bigotry. It’s impossible not to be a bigot. You just don’t want to be the wrong kind of bigot. Now if only we could all agree on exactly what that was.

Take a look at how the median income in America compares to your country.

It’s a bit too positive to encompass all that is elitism.

That’s just flat out wrong. Reprocessing is significantly more expensive at current uranium prices.

And so many states would throw up tons of roadblocks for reactors shipping their used fuel offsite to a central reprocessing facility.

No, not directly. You’d have to divert it and only irradiate it for short periods of time (30 days rather than the 18 to 24 month cycles that current plants have).

Proliferation isn’t a significant concern for reprocessing within the US. It’s primarily a concern for other non nuclear weapons countries that start it because they can then create nuclear weapons.

The US has no need to do that. They have more plutonium than they need for current weapons and it has a half life in the hundreds of thousands of years so it will last forever.

You obviously didn’t read the article as creating more stable schedules is exactly what they’re doing.

Is it enough, probably not. But let’s not make up lies.

That is certainly a better value option if you can still get the drivers and amps for a reasonable price over there.

I went the DIY route as well and build 2 of the VBSS style subs. I wanted to build something bigger, but my wife vetoed that. AVS forum has plenty of information on design options you have.

I wouldn’t say this is correct. Candu reactors do have an advantage in that they don’t require enrichment, but I’d say that they use fuel less efficienctly since their discharge exposure (in units of gigawatt-days per ton of uranium) is much lower than LWRs.

I’m also not sure where you get the idea their waste has to be stored for a shorter period. They use thermal neutrons in fission so they end up with a near identical set of fission products in their fuel to LWRs.

That’s not the only reason the US previously made recycling fuel illegal. Also note that it’s not currently illegal. There are no laws preventing you from setting up a reprocessing facility in the US.

What is preventing it is the fact that it’s more expensive to reprocess than it is to just buy new enriched uranium. Plutonium also has some less favorable reactivity characteristics that make the plant response to transients worse which further worsens the economics (you need to buy more fuel to overcome the impact this has on thermal limits).

The US has a similar percentage coming from nuclear and similarly only produces a few tons of high level waste each year.

You can fit the entire amount of spent fuel that the US has produced on a single good all field at a depth of less than 10 yards.

It absolutely makes a massive difference. But you unfortunately need to spend $500+ on a subwoofer to get something that outputs the full range of what you can hear. There simply are zero subwoofers below that price point with adequate output in the 20-35 Hz range.

With regards to 4k, I can understand not caring for it. I agree that for most viewing distances and TV sizes, there’s not a massive difference. However, 1080p TVs also don’t have good HDR or the wide color gamut.

Upgrading to a 4k TV with a good peak brightness (at least ~1000 nits) will be very noticable. I especially notice it in anything with fire. It looks so much better on a 4k HDR TV than on a 1080p SDR TV.

Not on my phone it’s not.

My opinion is that the next biggest upgrade is a receiver and a 5.1 (or at least 2.1) sound setup.

That’s not a nuclear waste leak. At least it’s not nuclear waste in the same sense that I’m talking about storage of solid nuclear fuel is different from titrium releases from an active nuclear plant.

But even then, that leak you’re talking about is purely a political issue. The amount of radioactivoty contained is orders of magnitude that which has been shown to cause any measurable increases risk in cancer. There was no technical challenge in addressing thus.

If you want to evaluate the risks on an objective basis, then you should be more worried about the radiation you receive from being out in the sun for 30 minutes. Because that’s more damaging than if every single nuclear reactor in the US had a continuous tritium release of this magnitude for the next few centuries.

The waste is purely a polictal problem. It’s been technically solved for decades.

We even have an example of safe storage of fission products from a nuclear reactor for over a billion years with no migration into the surrounding environment.

That’s because they’re such an important and pleasure able part of life. Especially sunshine and UV exposure.

There’s things you can do to reduce the risk, but most people would be worse off by trying to completely avoid them altogether.

It doesn’t void the whole process. It may very slightly increase the degree to which it’s easier to launder money (I’m not convinced on that aspect since the money already originated from within the banking system).

Rather it prioritizes people’s right to their own property.

What you’re saying makes sense to me if you’re talking about a deposit of cash that was mailed. It doesn’t make sense to me for a wire or electronic transfer.

The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.

Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.

Then you shouldn’t let the transaction occur in the first place.

Sure, that sounds like it’s best addressed with enforcement of the requirements before keeping the money.

I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.

I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.

However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.

I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.

If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.

I understand that’s the law as it currently is. I’m saying that it shouldn’t result in any legal ramifications.

It seems they weren’t well setup, if they were then he wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he wired money before filling the required paperwork out.