You are attempting to insinuate that reprocessing will eliminate the nuclear waste and obviate mining new U235.
It does neither.
Stupid semantic games and motte and bailey rhetorical techniques do not change this.
It does neither.
Stupid semantic games and motte and bailey rhetorical techniques do not change this.
Which you doubled down on twice, before backpedalling and claiming you never meant that the *other* 99% of the waste wasn't waste and "partially spent" actually means "has a few leftover dregs that don't make a meaningful difference".
I'm not sure what the point is in continuing to engage with someone responding to what seems to be an entirely imaginary set of comments. Nobody in the thread is making the wild claims you seem to be trying to refute.
It's a very obvious attempt to spread the myth that reprocessing somehow magically makes the entire mass of SNF fissile and will magically make all the fission products go away.
I'm truly baffled as to how you reached this interpretation. Nobody, ever, suggested that reprocessing somehow made the entire mass of spent nuclear fuel fissile. The comment that called it "partially spent fuel" specifically mentioned getting the usable fissile material out (thus implying that there's other material that's not usable). I seriously doubt a significant portion of people reading this are reaching the conclusion that nuclear waste becomes a source of infinite energy.
There's no gaslighting here. I'm not going to assume it's bad faith, but here and in other comments you've shown a remarkable tendency vastly misinterpret comments and then accuse other contributors of being ignorant or acting in bad faith. So in the future, when you read something that appears to you to make an outlandish or blatantly false claim, I'd suggest you ask the commenters to clarify what they mean instead of calling them stupid and trying to refute claims that nobody ever made.
Wild.