Japan literally has orders of magnitudes lower gun violence than the US.

However there isn't the same level of man made junk (which is mostly what ISS has to dodge) impacting on the lunar surface

About 5 tonnes for ~75kW of head rejection capability. Past NASA experiments on Stirling Generators have shown efficiencies in the 25% range, meaning we're looking at the 200kW range for heat rejection. So a threefold increase to what's already been demonstrated in space. That's without using conduction to the lunar soil as a method of heat rejection (thermal conductivity of the lunar regolith varies considerably so I'm sure more work would be needed there)

More likely Stirling Cycle generators. That's what ASRG, kilopower and KRUSTY were using

In the context of the question, yes (i.e. "don't put a nuclear reactor on the Moon because.... Space 1999"). The whole premise of the show was pretty ridiculous

I'll only point out that Thorium reactors can be used to breed U-233 which IS a proliferation risk

We've managed 50kW range radiators in space for over 2 decades (ISS)

Bear in mind, these aren't anywhere near as large or complex as commercial reactors. These are 50kW reactors, vs. the nearly 1GW that most commercial reactors are. There are plenty of small experimental reactors at universities all over the place that don't require large staff to operate

Uranium by itself isn't much of a hazard outside it being a heavy metal. Even U-235 is an alpha emitter with a half life of 700 million years (i.e. it's not very radioactive at all). Sure once you fire up the reactor you start getting fission products which are dangerous, but you aren't doing that until you're on the lunar surface. Radiators are a well known technology, plus you've got the lunar surface as a heat sink

Yes, lets plan our space policy based on campy si-fi shows from the 70's. (Hint, nuclear waste can't explode in a nuclear explosion)

There are a whole raft of nuclear rocket designs that do exhaust some of their fuel (to greater or lesser degree). In some cases it's a deliberate part of the design, in others not so much. NERVA for example suffered from fuel channel erosion which exhausted some fission products. They had made a lot of progress in solving this issue before the program was cancelled, but not entirely. Gas core fission, is much more efficient (and comes in a couple of versions), but we'd have a long way to go to ensure complete containment of fuel. As for neutrons, you need to keep them in a fission reactor to keep it going (otherwise your chain reaction fissiles out). These designs also make use of the propellant as the coolant (so you don't require massive radiators for heat rejection). LH2 is preferred (not water) as if gives you the best exhaust velocity (it also isn't great at absorbing neutrons). Most fusion rocket designs I've seen directly exhaust burned fuel as it's the most efficient way to transfer heat to the propellant and it's all light elements that you want anyways. Heating propellant with neutrons directly is horribly inefficient

Not really, while fusion reactors generally have a higher neutron flux than fission reactors, thatâ(TM)s not really a problem for âoeexhaustâ. Propellant isnâ(TM)t in the reactor long enough to become neutron activated to any real degree, and since exhaust velocity is the name of the game, youâ(TM)re dealing with light elements, which also reduces the problem. Itâ(TM)s fuel products too need to worry about and fission fragments are FAR nastier than fusion products

No vaccine in the history of medical science, has resulted in some new side-effect appearing more than 2-months after receiving it, EVER.

One thing that you missed is that Buffet often does things with the companies he buys in order to improve their value. For example, he bought up large chunks of the fragmented Recreational Vehicle industry, consolidated them and simplified their supply chain. It was more than simple market timing

The recently reported Army Core of Engineers news item has nothing to do with the existing launch facilities at Boca Chica, that request was in regards to building a 2nd set of Starship Launch pads in Texas, which is largely moot until they hear back from the FAA regarding launching Starship from the facilities they've already built. They can pick up the process to build the second set of launch pads at any time