@tonyjones22 Hey mate,
Firstly, I'm not here to ruffle feathers but reasonable thing to call-out. Play-on. Let's have a civil conversation, pitch forks down and away from a CYC supporter.
I am pro nuclear. Despite me being pro nuclear, I echo what
@RDude is saying with
4DX having a superior product IF it can get off the ground but CYC has an existing business in place that is potentially under duress with the developments by Andreas and his team. I am a huge advocate for nuclear as a power source and believe that radiation exposure is often overly discriminated which has had trickle down effects to my position in CYC. I'm not saying radiation exposure is good - but would you rather a test that works and has been for decades (nuclear imaging) or not have a test at all.
My conviction in 4DX is that if the team can figure out CT:VQ, it will slowly eat into the nuclear imaging market which would make me (NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE) want to rebalance my holdings from CYC to 4DX. Until then, CYC can sleep easy and shareholders can rejoice in lengthy development times for CT:VQ but I'll certainly keep one eye on 4DX and try not to get dry eyes with how long it could take.
If you are so anti-CYC and radiation exposure, put your phone down and use your stove to heat up your dinner.
Would you be more pro cyc if Australia (assuming you're australian) was pro nuclear?
I hope this was civil enough and answers your question.
(20min delay)