How is that not a technical solution for a social problem? The social problems are numerous, including police violent trigger-happy officers, a society that seeks to right wrongs with violence and trump. Sure, some behaviour can be influenced with gadgets (violent behaviour vs bodycams), but this is like trying to cure psychiatric illness with reading a self-help booklet.
A good social solution imho would be to disarm 90% of police officers, only those exposed to real dangerous situations should be allowed body-armour and weapons. Put those officers that wish to leave the force after such a change on ship B, as the world would be much better off without them.

I think you meant sorority?

Are you suggesting that apart from being sexually promiscuous and practicing unsafe sax, they also engage in homo/bisexual relations? If not and certain boys are the/a tool of their trade, then some of their secrets might be eligible for trade secret protection.

Yes the chemistry is hard, otherwise all reprocessing facilities would dissolve their stuff in molten salt at the entrance. But you don't need to reprocess just to get rid of neutron poisons. Just let it sit and wait for about a month and the poisons will have decayed into non poisonous products.
And solar can not provide all the energy we need, unless you redefine 'need' and 'we' and leave the rest of humanity to die of starvation. Add to that some nasty phenomenons called weather and seasons.

The reason we need nuclear now is because fossil fuels are even more polluting wrt CO2, not because some marketing speak did not turn out to be true in absolute sense. I think it is a safe bet to say that you have never felt any impact (apart from hype/worry) from nuclear accidents, but have felt the impact of our continued use of fossil fuels (global warming).

Yes, previous designs had drawbacks, but if you paint everyone pro nuclear energy as 'shill', I don't think it is any use to argue with you. You will not convince me, nor will my arguments convince you.

Yes, but the aggressive cancers are usually also the easiest to treat.
Besides, claiming somebody died of cancer is akin to claiming somebody died of 'sickness'. There are many types of cancer, some can be traced back to exposure of bad habits (asbestos, smoking) while others appear to be completely random. Since Paradide Pete did not mention which kind of cancer, we still don't know anything. Remember though that about 30% of all people die of some sort of cancer, most of them of unknown cause.
Now if you care so much about people dying from cancer, you might better campaign against smoking. That might cause some positive effect, railing against nuclear energy will not.

Indeed, if the gap really exists, then there would be a very good pay to be had for some lucky few that choose the right education. On the whole, I think that is not the case.
So pay close attention where calls of 'too little people trained in X' come from, usually it is someone who will profit from a surplus of them.

If you are judging the state of the industry by the level of your not so random sampling of a few job applicants, then there might be something wrong with your judgement.

btw, I'd answer 'object' and 'I try to no have to by using the right tools/language'.

>> how few people died in Fukushima
Yes, many people died in Fukushima and the coastal region hit by the tsunami. About 20.000 people IIRC. None of those deaths are attributable to the meltdowns or radioactive release that occurred later. What I find disgusting is that you wilfully ignore and abuse the death of so many people to further your unrelated point about nuclear energy. That is as absurd as saying that the people on flight MH17 (shot down by anti-aircraft missle) died because your god does not like gays.

>> how harmless radioactivity/radiation is
It is and it isn't, it all depends on the dose. Here is your test: go outside and stand in the sun for 5 minutes. Nothing bad will happen while you bask in the radiation of that nuclear fusion reactor called the sun. Now do the same for a little longer at a higher elevation (ie on a mountaintop) and you will get a nasty sunburn. Too much exposure to UV will raise your chances of getting skin cancer dramatically, yet we still allow people to expose themselves that much.

>> that no one died to fallout in the atomic bombings, as it where air bursts
>> that no one died in Nagasaki or Hiroshima 'after' the fallout, as the ground level radiation was neglegtible [sic]

You do know that you are conflating two things: bombs meant to kill and destruct, and nuclear power (stations) designed to provide power and thus keep people alive? But as we have arrived at apparently your biggest fear: many more (>1000) atom bombs have been exploded since as tests, and somehow it did not destroy the world. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your fear of atom bombs and nuclear power, and put it into perspective with the rest of the dangers that threaten humanity: The same as seen in the Fukushima Tsunami: drowning. One of the biggest threats is global warming, leading to an observable rise in sea levels. Nuclear energy may be (not so) dangerous stuff, fossil energy is unfortunately way more dangerous. The choice is between these two, because all renewable energy schemes are not ready.

>> that we have no clue and mix up Bequerels with Sieverts

Yes, that may be the case. Being proud of your ignorance is something I think should be punishable, go stand in the corner with your dunce hat on.

http://spacecollege.org/isee3/

Contact has already been made, this has been reported before and the article is 'continued' on a paywalled site.
Is this again the fault of that badly functioning firehose thingy, or some ill informed editor?

This is what some uni group thought up to score some charity points with. "look we made an scientific instrument that almost everyone can recognise but almost no-one knows how to use, and made a very cheap & crappy version of it. And since it is cheap, it is good for the poor".
No thanks. Cheap microscopes have been around for ages, probably because some parents think it will help their kid become a smart scientist later in life. None of these are used in the developing world for medical diagnosis, because there is no need for it. Sending millions of these overseas will help almost no-one.
Having access to a microscope does not make you a doctor nor will that allow you to make a reliable diagnosis. You need training for that, and that training is way more expensive than the microscope or other tools you will use. And training/people to train is something that is lacking, not microscopes.
Presenting a technical solution to this social problem will give them praise 'for the good work they do for the poor' but in reality they could have danced raindances in the poor's name to the same effect.

You started out as a 3 man company, but somehow you have 'lost' the other two founders. Was the size of your ego to blame for that?

And: why are your printers not allowed to print during shows and conventions? Too much chance something goes wrong with them?

eloquently said, I agree somewhat!

It already is. This clearance is just to have a stick when some employee does something public her superiors don't like.