Yes,yes. We know all this. Moaning about it will not change a thing because most people don't care. If they did care, they would be pushing back at the thought police; but they are not, so get over it or end up with ulcers.

A duty to offend!? Well yes, but only in defence of the truth and verifiable science. XXX For example, thorium is less radioactive than a banana, has a half life of around 15 billion years. And cannot be made more radioactive, by the application of concentrated solar radiation! XXX Which means, it is the only and most energy dense material in play, we cannot run out of! Why? Because that is more time than the estimated remaining life of the universe. XXX Others offended by the idea that climate change is real? XXX Why? Because the coal free, fossil fuel free solutions, cut across their income streams or interrupt/stop them permanently! XXX Why? Because the sky will fall if we adopt nuclear (safe, clean, reliable, affordable, carbon free) energy! XXX Or because they are permanently welded to fossil fuelled antiquities! Or are paid a (consultancy) fee or commission to support or advocate for them? XXX And as difficult to dislodge as was permanently inebriated shoe retailer Hobson, in Hobsons choice. XXX Possibly because, as in the case of Hobson, had killed too many brain cells with strong drink to use them to adapt to changed circumstances? XXX Alan B.

There's also a duty to offend those who think investing in Bitcoin is a good idea. Simply put, Bitcoin is an algorithm that short sells stock. Which essentially is selling stock at a discount, that you don't yet own! To effectively lower the (sell) value and as far as I'm aware, still illegal? XXX In any event, even if legit!? A long game of pass the parcel and don't be caught being the last (did I offend you) mug investor holding it! Or owning any of the proceeds, when not if, legislated against! If only to protect self funded retiree, MORIBUND mum and dad investors from this OH SO DIABOLICALLY CLEVER, SCHEME. XXX Alan B.

//For example, thorium is less radioactive than a banana//

An entirely meaningless comparison. How much thorium? How large a banana?

//Which means, it is the only and most energy dense material in play//

The only material in play? I think you'll find there's a few more than that, unless you've have the world's smallest and most deficient periodic table.

I have my doubts about it being the most energy dense as well. However, I have no doubts about how dense you are.

A course could be plotted and a trajectory identified for us, into the dim future by reading this book:

The Whisperers...private life in Stalins Russia...Orlando Figes.

Penguin history.

Missing are NOT the labour camps of Siberia. We have prisons bursting at the seams and new ones proposed, where the norm is free labour.

This is a disturbing book with obvious ramifications for us, if we persist in ignoring the obvious similarities.

Thorium. A couple of places up the periodic table from uranium Tony. And in comparison to the other nuclear material Uranium in two 350 MW reactors. XXX A traditional uranium fired light water reactor and a thorium MSR. over a fifty year life of both reactors, the traditional solid fuelled uranium reactor and the thorium powered MSR. XXX The solid fuelled reactor will need 2551 tons of fuel for its fifty year operational life, creating 2550 tons of waste. Whereas, the thorium reactor, will require a single ton of thorium. 99% of which is consumed. With the remaining 1% being not only far less toxic, but eminently suitable as long life space batteries. XXX One ton of bananas being more radioactive than a ton of thorium, or any amount of similar, up or down, gram for gram, volumes. XXX Thorium, thorium. One ton between the four of them. XXX Hail the purple flower there are no more of them, cause one of them could burn it all alone. XXX The longer the half life, the less radioactive the material. XXX Alan B.