That is not true. Scientist even argue if LFTRs are a powerful way to create Uranium233.

I cannot find information online about scientists saying anything of the sort, but I don't feel like logging into my work VPN to access the pay-walled articles that might have that info. The amount of time required to get enough material for any significant bomb, at least with the information I can find, makes it impractical for that purpose so I stand by my statement.

Also not correct. Where did you get your facts from?

I thought about including little to no waste in there, but opted to put none, because yes, while it still creates some waste, it's significantly less waste, that becomes safe after a few hundred years compared to the several thousands of years that current nuclear waste takes to become safe.

My message is still correct, which I suspect is why you only selected two sections from the entire thing -- where I over-generalized a statement of fact -- as arguments to negate the entirety of my reply.

Current NPP are extremely, almost comically inefficient and wasteful. The material is harder to get, harder to handle, less fuel-dense, and the waste produced creates a hazard that spans hundreds of human lifetimes. We've known about thorium for power generation for decades, but greed and "national security" prevented us from acting on it. Coupled with the confusion and misrepresentation of nuclear power as "dangerous" in the eyes of the general public, and we're now on a collision course with a potential wasteland of a planet.

But hey, don't let a little mistype or over-generalization stop us from knowing options that have largely been withheld or lumped in with more dangerous forms of the same power generation.