<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_13_0144223</id>
	<title>EPA To Reuse Toxic Sites For Renewable Energy</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255442520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes:<i>"The Daily Climate reports that President Obama and Congress are pushing to identify thousands of contaminated landfills and abandoned mines &mdash; <a href="http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/10/green-shoots-from-brownfields">'brownfields' that could be repurposed to house wind farms</a>, solar arrays, and geothermal power plants. Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat. 'In the next decade there's going to be a lot of renewable energy built, and all that has to go somewhere,' said Jessica Goad, an energy and climate change policy fellow for The Wilderness Society. 'We don't want to see these industrial facilities placed on land that's pristine. We love the idea of brownfields for renewable energy development because it relieves the (development) pressure on undisturbed places. The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have <a href="http://epa.gov/brownfields/">identified nearly 4,100 contaminated sites deemed economically suitable</a> for wind and solar power development, as well as biomass. Included are 5 million acres suitable for photovoltaic or concentrated solar power development, and 500,000 acres for wind power. These sites, if fully developed, have the potential to produce 950,000 megawatts &mdash; more than the country's total power needs in 2007, according to EPA data."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes : " The Daily Climate reports that President Obama and Congress are pushing to identify thousands of contaminated landfills and abandoned mines    'brownfields ' that could be repurposed to house wind farms , solar arrays , and geothermal power plants .
Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat .
'In the next decade there 's going to be a lot of renewable energy built , and all that has to go somewhere, ' said Jessica Goad , an energy and climate change policy fellow for The Wilderness Society .
'We do n't want to see these industrial facilities placed on land that 's pristine .
We love the idea of brownfields for renewable energy development because it relieves the ( development ) pressure on undisturbed places .
The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have identified nearly 4,100 contaminated sites deemed economically suitable for wind and solar power development , as well as biomass .
Included are 5 million acres suitable for photovoltaic or concentrated solar power development , and 500,000 acres for wind power .
These sites , if fully developed , have the potential to produce 950,000 megawatts    more than the country 's total power needs in 2007 , according to EPA data .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes:"The Daily Climate reports that President Obama and Congress are pushing to identify thousands of contaminated landfills and abandoned mines — 'brownfields' that could be repurposed to house wind farms, solar arrays, and geothermal power plants.
Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat.
'In the next decade there's going to be a lot of renewable energy built, and all that has to go somewhere,' said Jessica Goad, an energy and climate change policy fellow for The Wilderness Society.
'We don't want to see these industrial facilities placed on land that's pristine.
We love the idea of brownfields for renewable energy development because it relieves the (development) pressure on undisturbed places.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have identified nearly 4,100 contaminated sites deemed economically suitable for wind and solar power development, as well as biomass.
Included are 5 million acres suitable for photovoltaic or concentrated solar power development, and 500,000 acres for wind power.
These sites, if fully developed, have the potential to produce 950,000 megawatts — more than the country's total power needs in 2007, according to EPA data.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29732593</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1255452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright, no mod points to mark you as a troll, so I'll have to argue with you, and hope onlookers can tell the difference between us.<br>
&nbsp; <br>"Brownfields" have already been cleanes up, for all intents and purposes, they are just as clean as anywhere else. It's just that people are (sometimes rightly) sceptical about companies ability to clean the sites completely. Also, these sites are often overlooked by traditional developments, because of the chance that there is some contamination left for which they will be blamed.<br>
&nbsp; <br>If this administration can change the way the liability works, then wind or solar would be a very good fit for these site. Any remaining waste (probably) didn't come from the 'alternative' energy source, so it's still the former occupier who is responsible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , no mod points to mark you as a troll , so I 'll have to argue with you , and hope onlookers can tell the difference between us .
  " Brownfields " have already been cleanes up , for all intents and purposes , they are just as clean as anywhere else .
It 's just that people are ( sometimes rightly ) sceptical about companies ability to clean the sites completely .
Also , these sites are often overlooked by traditional developments , because of the chance that there is some contamination left for which they will be blamed .
  If this administration can change the way the liability works , then wind or solar would be a very good fit for these site .
Any remaining waste ( probably ) did n't come from the 'alternative ' energy source , so it 's still the former occupier who is responsible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, no mod points to mark you as a troll, so I'll have to argue with you, and hope onlookers can tell the difference between us.
  "Brownfields" have already been cleanes up, for all intents and purposes, they are just as clean as anywhere else.
It's just that people are (sometimes rightly) sceptical about companies ability to clean the sites completely.
Also, these sites are often overlooked by traditional developments, because of the chance that there is some contamination left for which they will be blamed.
  If this administration can change the way the liability works, then wind or solar would be a very good fit for these site.
Any remaining waste (probably) didn't come from the 'alternative' energy source, so it's still the former occupier who is responsible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727975</id>
	<title>As long as we aren't dodging the issue of leakage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255363260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Building on top of a brownfield might do little to stop its contents from percolating into groundwater.  (Actually, it might do something at that, simply by diverting rain that would otherwise fall onto and into it.)</p><p>I'm all for putting otherwise-unusable land to good use, but we'd need to have legal structures to protect everyone involved, so (for example) the company building the energy installation isn't suddenly on the hook for everything lurking under it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Building on top of a brownfield might do little to stop its contents from percolating into groundwater .
( Actually , it might do something at that , simply by diverting rain that would otherwise fall onto and into it .
) I 'm all for putting otherwise-unusable land to good use , but we 'd need to have legal structures to protect everyone involved , so ( for example ) the company building the energy installation is n't suddenly on the hook for everything lurking under it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Building on top of a brownfield might do little to stop its contents from percolating into groundwater.
(Actually, it might do something at that, simply by diverting rain that would otherwise fall onto and into it.
)I'm all for putting otherwise-unusable land to good use, but we'd need to have legal structures to protect everyone involved, so (for example) the company building the energy installation isn't suddenly on the hook for everything lurking under it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29731885</id>
	<title>Repurposing toxic waste sites</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1255448880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>About a month ago, my girlfriend and I rode our bikes on the <a href="http://friendsofcdatrails.org/CdA\_Trail/index.html" title="friendsofcdatrails.org">Cour D'Alene Bike Trail</a> [friendsofcdatrails.org], that crosses the Idaho panhandle.  The whole site is a toxic waste dump -- it was the old railway from a mine to a mill, and the entire length of it was contaminated with all sorts of nasty things.  It's 130 km long, and it wasn't an option to just dig up a 130km long by 3 meter wide by 3 meter deep chunk of land.  So what they did was they poured a bunch of clay on the top, and then put a nice fat layer of concrete and asphalt over that, and called it a bike trail.  It's a fantastic bike trail, all out in the middle of nowhere, incredibly beautiful.  It's a great use of land that was messed up a hundred years ago.<p>
Because I'm a malcontent, I've done some research on other toxic waste sites (before we found out about the CDA trail) and found that in the city where I live, Denver, there are almost a dozen EPA Superfund sites, so I have a training ride I call the Toxic Waste Ride that goes through five of them.  Again, it's a great ride, out in the middle of nowhere.  But the fun part is all the houses that have been built on/over several remediated Superfund sites: it's enjoyable, in a sick way, to tell people that they're living beside a <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle\_old/pilot/facts/r8\_36.htm" title="epa.gov">radioactive waste dump</a> [epa.gov], for instance.  I do go on to explain why it's safe to live next to a carefully contained radioactive waste dump, but it's still funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About a month ago , my girlfriend and I rode our bikes on the Cour D'Alene Bike Trail [ friendsofcdatrails.org ] , that crosses the Idaho panhandle .
The whole site is a toxic waste dump -- it was the old railway from a mine to a mill , and the entire length of it was contaminated with all sorts of nasty things .
It 's 130 km long , and it was n't an option to just dig up a 130km long by 3 meter wide by 3 meter deep chunk of land .
So what they did was they poured a bunch of clay on the top , and then put a nice fat layer of concrete and asphalt over that , and called it a bike trail .
It 's a fantastic bike trail , all out in the middle of nowhere , incredibly beautiful .
It 's a great use of land that was messed up a hundred years ago .
Because I 'm a malcontent , I 've done some research on other toxic waste sites ( before we found out about the CDA trail ) and found that in the city where I live , Denver , there are almost a dozen EPA Superfund sites , so I have a training ride I call the Toxic Waste Ride that goes through five of them .
Again , it 's a great ride , out in the middle of nowhere .
But the fun part is all the houses that have been built on/over several remediated Superfund sites : it 's enjoyable , in a sick way , to tell people that they 're living beside a radioactive waste dump [ epa.gov ] , for instance .
I do go on to explain why it 's safe to live next to a carefully contained radioactive waste dump , but it 's still funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About a month ago, my girlfriend and I rode our bikes on the Cour D'Alene Bike Trail [friendsofcdatrails.org], that crosses the Idaho panhandle.
The whole site is a toxic waste dump -- it was the old railway from a mine to a mill, and the entire length of it was contaminated with all sorts of nasty things.
It's 130 km long, and it wasn't an option to just dig up a 130km long by 3 meter wide by 3 meter deep chunk of land.
So what they did was they poured a bunch of clay on the top, and then put a nice fat layer of concrete and asphalt over that, and called it a bike trail.
It's a fantastic bike trail, all out in the middle of nowhere, incredibly beautiful.
It's a great use of land that was messed up a hundred years ago.
Because I'm a malcontent, I've done some research on other toxic waste sites (before we found out about the CDA trail) and found that in the city where I live, Denver, there are almost a dozen EPA Superfund sites, so I have a training ride I call the Toxic Waste Ride that goes through five of them.
Again, it's a great ride, out in the middle of nowhere.
But the fun part is all the houses that have been built on/over several remediated Superfund sites: it's enjoyable, in a sick way, to tell people that they're living beside a radioactive waste dump [epa.gov], for instance.
I do go on to explain why it's safe to live next to a carefully contained radioactive waste dump, but it's still funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29734711</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>techwrench</author>
	<datestamp>1255461420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Some of those Superfund sites are so polluted that the clean up costs were prohibitive, when they were deemed "Brownfields".
<p>
If the some of the funds that will be recovered (after infrastructure costs) are used to further research to clean up of these types of sites, who loses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of those Superfund sites are so polluted that the clean up costs were prohibitive , when they were deemed " Brownfields " .
If the some of the funds that will be recovered ( after infrastructure costs ) are used to further research to clean up of these types of sites , who loses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Some of those Superfund sites are so polluted that the clean up costs were prohibitive, when they were deemed "Brownfields".
If the some of the funds that will be recovered (after infrastructure costs) are used to further research to clean up of these types of sites, who loses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727951</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1255363140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of these places could never be truly cleaned up. You'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India, but even that's just moving the problem away from the USA.</p></div><p>Why clean them up either? At least this policy abandons the idea that every bit of land should be returned to some sort of pristine state.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of these places could never be truly cleaned up .
You 'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India , but even that 's just moving the problem away from the USA.Why clean them up either ?
At least this policy abandons the idea that every bit of land should be returned to some sort of pristine state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of these places could never be truly cleaned up.
You'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India, but even that's just moving the problem away from the USA.Why clean them up either?
At least this policy abandons the idea that every bit of land should be returned to some sort of pristine state.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29733685</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1255457160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If it's that bad, why not build a nuclear power plant there instead? It's not like NIMBY would be a factor anymore, would it?</p></div></blockquote><p>
New sources of radiation scares people to an irrational degree.
</p><p>
Look at the amount of people living in areas where radon is likely.  They still object to a nuclear power plant.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's that bad , why not build a nuclear power plant there instead ?
It 's not like NIMBY would be a factor anymore , would it ?
New sources of radiation scares people to an irrational degree .
Look at the amount of people living in areas where radon is likely .
They still object to a nuclear power plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's that bad, why not build a nuclear power plant there instead?
It's not like NIMBY would be a factor anymore, would it?
New sources of radiation scares people to an irrational degree.
Look at the amount of people living in areas where radon is likely.
They still object to a nuclear power plant.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727709</id>
	<title>Liberal Bias....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255361040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought liberals are supposed to be open-minded to all speech from all persons?  Then why is commentary negative to Obama deleted immediately?  I guess the open-mindedness is only when they agree with the commentary.</p><p>God bless,<br>Mark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought liberals are supposed to be open-minded to all speech from all persons ?
Then why is commentary negative to Obama deleted immediately ?
I guess the open-mindedness is only when they agree with the commentary.God bless,Mark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought liberals are supposed to be open-minded to all speech from all persons?
Then why is commentary negative to Obama deleted immediately?
I guess the open-mindedness is only when they agree with the commentary.God bless,Mark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727853</id>
	<title>Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1255362240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only downside I see to this is that construction costs are going to be higher. For a couple of reasons. These brown sites will by nature of them be farther way from existing infrastructure resulting in higher costs to send both materials and labor to the location. Also there will need to be extra safety precatuions taken for the labourers and the waste from the zones. <p>
All in all it may be a good idea or may not. I hope it turns out to be economically beneficial for all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only downside I see to this is that construction costs are going to be higher .
For a couple of reasons .
These brown sites will by nature of them be farther way from existing infrastructure resulting in higher costs to send both materials and labor to the location .
Also there will need to be extra safety precatuions taken for the labourers and the waste from the zones .
All in all it may be a good idea or may not .
I hope it turns out to be economically beneficial for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only downside I see to this is that construction costs are going to be higher.
For a couple of reasons.
These brown sites will by nature of them be farther way from existing infrastructure resulting in higher costs to send both materials and labor to the location.
Also there will need to be extra safety precatuions taken for the labourers and the waste from the zones.
All in all it may be a good idea or may not.
I hope it turns out to be economically beneficial for all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727543</id>
	<title>cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255359900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cool</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cool</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29732557</id>
	<title>Saginaw, MI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a cesspool of Dioxin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a cesspool of Dioxin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a cesspool of Dioxin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730265</id>
	<title>But: Think of the mutants!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255437720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those sites aren't dead, you know! They are the breeding grounds for all kinds of different mutations, including the six-legged common redneckus monstrosius and the beautiful giant caterfly.<br>How can you just sit there and plan building power plants on the homes of those poor mutants?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those sites are n't dead , you know !
They are the breeding grounds for all kinds of different mutations , including the six-legged common redneckus monstrosius and the beautiful giant caterfly.How can you just sit there and plan building power plants on the homes of those poor mutants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those sites aren't dead, you know!
They are the breeding grounds for all kinds of different mutations, including the six-legged common redneckus monstrosius and the beautiful giant caterfly.How can you just sit there and plan building power plants on the homes of those poor mutants?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727631</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255360440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're talking billions of tons of contaminated soil, water, radioactive waste, old landfills.  What do you propose is done with it?  Where is it going to go when they "clean it up"?

Personally, I love this idea.  Renewable energy, and using otherwise unusable resources?  I don't see what's not to like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking billions of tons of contaminated soil , water , radioactive waste , old landfills .
What do you propose is done with it ?
Where is it going to go when they " clean it up " ?
Personally , I love this idea .
Renewable energy , and using otherwise unusable resources ?
I do n't see what 's not to like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking billions of tons of contaminated soil, water, radioactive waste, old landfills.
What do you propose is done with it?
Where is it going to go when they "clean it up"?
Personally, I love this idea.
Renewable energy, and using otherwise unusable resources?
I don't see what's not to like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728203</id>
	<title>The next step...</title>
	<author>sexybomber</author>
	<datestamp>1255365120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>should be to retool half of Tonawanda (it's a small industrial city immediately north of Buffalo, for those who aren't from the area) to make the parts for those turbines.  There's a GM plant there that currently makes car transmissions.  I'll bet they could switch over to making turbine innards pretty easily.  I'm also quite confident that there are vacant factories large enough to accommodate making the blades.  Then, when we've got the parts built, they can be shipped up the Great Lakes to the windy parts of the country.<br>
<br>
This would: 1) create jobs where they're <i>desperately</i> needed; 2) bring some money back to a region that's been struggling mightily for the past 20-30 years; 3) get us going on the path towards green energy; 4) possibly spur more green industry to come to Buffalo and set up shop on our wonderfully ample supply of brownfields.<br>
<br>
I fail to see a downside here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>should be to retool half of Tonawanda ( it 's a small industrial city immediately north of Buffalo , for those who are n't from the area ) to make the parts for those turbines .
There 's a GM plant there that currently makes car transmissions .
I 'll bet they could switch over to making turbine innards pretty easily .
I 'm also quite confident that there are vacant factories large enough to accommodate making the blades .
Then , when we 've got the parts built , they can be shipped up the Great Lakes to the windy parts of the country .
This would : 1 ) create jobs where they 're desperately needed ; 2 ) bring some money back to a region that 's been struggling mightily for the past 20-30 years ; 3 ) get us going on the path towards green energy ; 4 ) possibly spur more green industry to come to Buffalo and set up shop on our wonderfully ample supply of brownfields .
I fail to see a downside here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>should be to retool half of Tonawanda (it's a small industrial city immediately north of Buffalo, for those who aren't from the area) to make the parts for those turbines.
There's a GM plant there that currently makes car transmissions.
I'll bet they could switch over to making turbine innards pretty easily.
I'm also quite confident that there are vacant factories large enough to accommodate making the blades.
Then, when we've got the parts built, they can be shipped up the Great Lakes to the windy parts of the country.
This would: 1) create jobs where they're desperately needed; 2) bring some money back to a region that's been struggling mightily for the past 20-30 years; 3) get us going on the path towards green energy; 4) possibly spur more green industry to come to Buffalo and set up shop on our wonderfully ample supply of brownfields.
I fail to see a downside here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729051</id>
	<title>Re:Cleanup bill</title>
	<author>Saint Fnordius</author>
	<datestamp>1255376460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, here in Germany there are lots of wind farms, and to be honest they have almost no personnel on them. Windmills and solar parks have very low maintenance costs - the only real personnel you would need full time would be perimeter guards (which the current sites need anyhow). From what I gather, this plan would be best on sites where clean-up is nigh impossible, like the toxic landfills. Places where the only real solution is to let them go fallow, or where even after clean-up remain unwanted, so why not put up a bunch of windmills?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , here in Germany there are lots of wind farms , and to be honest they have almost no personnel on them .
Windmills and solar parks have very low maintenance costs - the only real personnel you would need full time would be perimeter guards ( which the current sites need anyhow ) .
From what I gather , this plan would be best on sites where clean-up is nigh impossible , like the toxic landfills .
Places where the only real solution is to let them go fallow , or where even after clean-up remain unwanted , so why not put up a bunch of windmills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, here in Germany there are lots of wind farms, and to be honest they have almost no personnel on them.
Windmills and solar parks have very low maintenance costs - the only real personnel you would need full time would be perimeter guards (which the current sites need anyhow).
From what I gather, this plan would be best on sites where clean-up is nigh impossible, like the toxic landfills.
Places where the only real solution is to let them go fallow, or where even after clean-up remain unwanted, so why not put up a bunch of windmills?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</id>
	<title>Superfund</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255360080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a reason this green and earth-friendly administration won't clean these so-called "brownfields" up? They'd rather leave them polluted and build crucial infrastructure on top of them? And when the pollution is deemed unacceptable, they'll knock down these fabulous green investments and then rebuild them after the clean-up. Brilliant! (And possibly shovel-ready, too!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a reason this green and earth-friendly administration wo n't clean these so-called " brownfields " up ?
They 'd rather leave them polluted and build crucial infrastructure on top of them ?
And when the pollution is deemed unacceptable , they 'll knock down these fabulous green investments and then rebuild them after the clean-up .
Brilliant ! ( And possibly shovel-ready , too !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a reason this green and earth-friendly administration won't clean these so-called "brownfields" up?
They'd rather leave them polluted and build crucial infrastructure on top of them?
And when the pollution is deemed unacceptable, they'll knock down these fabulous green investments and then rebuild them after the clean-up.
Brilliant! (And possibly shovel-ready, too!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728667</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's a great idea</title>
	<author>skavenger</author>
	<datestamp>1255370340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground.</p> </div><p>
You should look into the rehabilitation of contaminated sites before stating anything quite so strongly. The undesirability of contaminated land can make it environmentally valuable and worth protecting. Environmental grounds for legal argument aren't nearly as limited as you're pretending.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground .
You should look into the rehabilitation of contaminated sites before stating anything quite so strongly .
The undesirability of contaminated land can make it environmentally valuable and worth protecting .
Environmental grounds for legal argument are n't nearly as limited as you 're pretending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground.
You should look into the rehabilitation of contaminated sites before stating anything quite so strongly.
The undesirability of contaminated land can make it environmentally valuable and worth protecting.
Environmental grounds for legal argument aren't nearly as limited as you're pretending.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728637</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>genericpoweruser</author>
	<datestamp>1255370040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not the only one with that problem. I find it extremely irritable. Especially since, for some reason (probably a misconfigured NoScript), it makes me load a new page when I click "parent."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not the only one with that problem .
I find it extremely irritable .
Especially since , for some reason ( probably a misconfigured NoScript ) , it makes me load a new page when I click " parent .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not the only one with that problem.
I find it extremely irritable.
Especially since, for some reason (probably a misconfigured NoScript), it makes me load a new page when I click "parent.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29731519</id>
	<title>Re:cool</title>
	<author>eugene ts wong</author>
	<datestamp>1255447320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't find Fort Lewis on that site. There is so much wind a there, and so much open space, that it would be a great place to set up a wind farm. The military could start earning some money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't find Fort Lewis on that site .
There is so much wind a there , and so much open space , that it would be a great place to set up a wind farm .
The military could start earning some money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't find Fort Lewis on that site.
There is so much wind a there, and so much open space, that it would be a great place to set up a wind farm.
The military could start earning some money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727945</id>
	<title>negates a selling point of renewable energy?</title>
	<author>ChipMonk</author>
	<datestamp>1255363080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't one of the selling points supposed to be lower maintenance costs? But really, doesn't that get wiped out, or at least compromised, by the higher employment cost of sending crews into contaminated sites that are still waiting for clean-up? And if the site clean-up is in progress, wouldn't that drive up the maintenance crews' costs up even higher?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't one of the selling points supposed to be lower maintenance costs ?
But really , does n't that get wiped out , or at least compromised , by the higher employment cost of sending crews into contaminated sites that are still waiting for clean-up ?
And if the site clean-up is in progress , would n't that drive up the maintenance crews ' costs up even higher ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't one of the selling points supposed to be lower maintenance costs?
But really, doesn't that get wiped out, or at least compromised, by the higher employment cost of sending crews into contaminated sites that are still waiting for clean-up?
And if the site clean-up is in progress, wouldn't that drive up the maintenance crews' costs up even higher?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727981</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1255363380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're <a href="http://www.steelwinds.com/steelwinds/" title="steelwinds.com">already doing this</a> [steelwinds.com] in Buffalo, NY, on the old Bethlehem Steel site. It used to be one of the largest steelmakers in the world; now, we get clean energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're already doing this [ steelwinds.com ] in Buffalo , NY , on the old Bethlehem Steel site .
It used to be one of the largest steelmakers in the world ; now , we get clean energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're already doing this [steelwinds.com] in Buffalo, NY, on the old Bethlehem Steel site.
It used to be one of the largest steelmakers in the world; now, we get clean energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29749313</id>
	<title>In the way of dump-mining?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255511640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't this get in the way of mining the old dumps when we realize in the coming decades just how much trace elements we've thrown away?</p><p>"Well, we could go mine all the indium we've accidentally thrown away over the years, but we'd have to take the windmills offline."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't this get in the way of mining the old dumps when we realize in the coming decades just how much trace elements we 've thrown away ?
" Well , we could go mine all the indium we 've accidentally thrown away over the years , but we 'd have to take the windmills offline .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't this get in the way of mining the old dumps when we realize in the coming decades just how much trace elements we've thrown away?
"Well, we could go mine all the indium we've accidentally thrown away over the years, but we'd have to take the windmills offline.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727729</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>Huntr</author>
	<datestamp>1255361160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're putting the windmills in post-cleanup, big boy.  Sites have to be cleaned up, but people don't necessarily want to build on them.  This is using the sites after they've been cleaned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're putting the windmills in post-cleanup , big boy .
Sites have to be cleaned up , but people do n't necessarily want to build on them .
This is using the sites after they 've been cleaned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're putting the windmills in post-cleanup, big boy.
Sites have to be cleaned up, but people don't necessarily want to build on them.
This is using the sites after they've been cleaned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728099</id>
	<title>Hey, this is great!</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1255364340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Toxic\_Avenger" title="wikipedia.org">Melvin Ferd</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.H.U.D." title="wikipedia.org">the C.H.U.D.</a> [wikipedia.org] and the <a href="http://www.ninjaturtles.com/" title="ninjaturtles.com">Turtles</a> [ninjaturtles.com] will have free, on-site power now!</p><p>And who knows?  Maybe even <i>real jobs</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now Melvin Ferd [ wikipedia.org ] , the C.H.U.D .
[ wikipedia.org ] and the Turtles [ ninjaturtles.com ] will have free , on-site power now ! And who knows ?
Maybe even real jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now Melvin Ferd [wikipedia.org], the C.H.U.D.
[wikipedia.org] and the Turtles [ninjaturtles.com] will have free, on-site power now!And who knows?
Maybe even real jobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728061</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>Jeremi</author>
	<datestamp>1255364100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>These brown sites will by nature of them be farther way from existing infrastructure resulting in higher costs to send both materials and labor to the location.</i></p><p>Precisely the opposite.  If you RTFM, you'll see that the listed benefits include:  power transmission lines are often already available on site (leftover from the site's previous use), and the sites are often located in areas with depressed economies (read:  readily available labor from nearby towns, that used to be employed by the old site)</p><p><i>Also there will need to be extra safety precatuions taken for the labourers and the waste from the zones.</i></p><p>I think they are limiting their scope to sites where the pollution has been cleaned up to minimally acceptable levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These brown sites will by nature of them be farther way from existing infrastructure resulting in higher costs to send both materials and labor to the location.Precisely the opposite .
If you RTFM , you 'll see that the listed benefits include : power transmission lines are often already available on site ( leftover from the site 's previous use ) , and the sites are often located in areas with depressed economies ( read : readily available labor from nearby towns , that used to be employed by the old site ) Also there will need to be extra safety precatuions taken for the labourers and the waste from the zones.I think they are limiting their scope to sites where the pollution has been cleaned up to minimally acceptable levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These brown sites will by nature of them be farther way from existing infrastructure resulting in higher costs to send both materials and labor to the location.Precisely the opposite.
If you RTFM, you'll see that the listed benefits include:  power transmission lines are often already available on site (leftover from the site's previous use), and the sites are often located in areas with depressed economies (read:  readily available labor from nearby towns, that used to be employed by the old site)Also there will need to be extra safety precatuions taken for the labourers and the waste from the zones.I think they are limiting their scope to sites where the pollution has been cleaned up to minimally acceptable levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29741075</id>
	<title>Good idea...</title>
	<author>wpiman</author>
	<datestamp>1255454460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good idea.  We should give him an environmental award just for coming up with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good idea .
We should give him an environmental award just for coming up with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good idea.
We should give him an environmental award just for coming up with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727705</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1255361040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because cleaning them is next to impossible or just too costly. We humans can fuck things up really well, so well that we can't always fix them afterwards.</p><p>Seems a better idea than cleaning them to whatever the maximum contamination level is by todays standards and then building houses on top. Ten years later the standards have been changed due to new research/etc and you have an entire suburb at above safe limit contamination.</p><p>One big drawback of lots of these alternative energy methods is space - you can build a nuke plant or a coal plant to provide the same amount of energy with a much smaller amount of space. Using land that is otherwise unusable seems a good idea.</p><p>And of course I'm sure the people/companies who own that worthless (in some cases negative worth since the cleanup costs dwarf the value) making lots of campaign contributions also helped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because cleaning them is next to impossible or just too costly .
We humans can fuck things up really well , so well that we ca n't always fix them afterwards.Seems a better idea than cleaning them to whatever the maximum contamination level is by todays standards and then building houses on top .
Ten years later the standards have been changed due to new research/etc and you have an entire suburb at above safe limit contamination.One big drawback of lots of these alternative energy methods is space - you can build a nuke plant or a coal plant to provide the same amount of energy with a much smaller amount of space .
Using land that is otherwise unusable seems a good idea.And of course I 'm sure the people/companies who own that worthless ( in some cases negative worth since the cleanup costs dwarf the value ) making lots of campaign contributions also helped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because cleaning them is next to impossible or just too costly.
We humans can fuck things up really well, so well that we can't always fix them afterwards.Seems a better idea than cleaning them to whatever the maximum contamination level is by todays standards and then building houses on top.
Ten years later the standards have been changed due to new research/etc and you have an entire suburb at above safe limit contamination.One big drawback of lots of these alternative energy methods is space - you can build a nuke plant or a coal plant to provide the same amount of energy with a much smaller amount of space.
Using land that is otherwise unusable seems a good idea.And of course I'm sure the people/companies who own that worthless (in some cases negative worth since the cleanup costs dwarf the value) making lots of campaign contributions also helped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728345</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1255366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhhh - you're trying to pretend that Obama has money to clean up all those sites, after several administrations have passed the buck, and done nothing?  Get real.  BTW - a lot of those sites are being cleaned up naturally anyway.  Bacteria, nematodes, wildlife, sunshine, rain and wind all work to decompose and recycle a lot of the waste that has gone into the ground.  Putting up something like a windfarm will tend to isolate those areas until nature has finished cleaning up our mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhh - you 're trying to pretend that Obama has money to clean up all those sites , after several administrations have passed the buck , and done nothing ?
Get real .
BTW - a lot of those sites are being cleaned up naturally anyway .
Bacteria , nematodes , wildlife , sunshine , rain and wind all work to decompose and recycle a lot of the waste that has gone into the ground .
Putting up something like a windfarm will tend to isolate those areas until nature has finished cleaning up our mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhh - you're trying to pretend that Obama has money to clean up all those sites, after several administrations have passed the buck, and done nothing?
Get real.
BTW - a lot of those sites are being cleaned up naturally anyway.
Bacteria, nematodes, wildlife, sunshine, rain and wind all work to decompose and recycle a lot of the waste that has gone into the ground.
Putting up something like a windfarm will tend to isolate those areas until nature has finished cleaning up our mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727699</id>
	<title>How were these determined to be economical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255360980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really they have been determined to be politcally suitable.  Government cannot calculate and determine if something is economical because they do not fall in the realm of profit/loss.  I like the idea of reusing the land but that statement cannot be correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really they have been determined to be politcally suitable .
Government can not calculate and determine if something is economical because they do not fall in the realm of profit/loss .
I like the idea of reusing the land but that statement can not be correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really they have been determined to be politcally suitable.
Government cannot calculate and determine if something is economical because they do not fall in the realm of profit/loss.
I like the idea of reusing the land but that statement cannot be correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729807</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1255431120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>kenh, you obviously do not know what it would take to "clean up" some of these situations. I used to work for a company that did hazardous waste remediation for the EPA, and I do have some idea.
<br> <br>
If effect, the Obama admistration is trying to take some things that are nearly, or in some cases absolutely, hopeless, and turn them to good.
<br> <br>
If you want to look at how "cleanup" has progressed at superfund sites, you can. The information is available on the net. Be prepared for a very depressing day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>kenh , you obviously do not know what it would take to " clean up " some of these situations .
I used to work for a company that did hazardous waste remediation for the EPA , and I do have some idea .
If effect , the Obama admistration is trying to take some things that are nearly , or in some cases absolutely , hopeless , and turn them to good .
If you want to look at how " cleanup " has progressed at superfund sites , you can .
The information is available on the net .
Be prepared for a very depressing day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kenh, you obviously do not know what it would take to "clean up" some of these situations.
I used to work for a company that did hazardous waste remediation for the EPA, and I do have some idea.
If effect, the Obama admistration is trying to take some things that are nearly, or in some cases absolutely, hopeless, and turn them to good.
If you want to look at how "cleanup" has progressed at superfund sites, you can.
The information is available on the net.
Be prepared for a very depressing day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728051</id>
	<title>Not in my backyard!</title>
	<author>igny</author>
	<datestamp>1255364040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would not let this happen on the landfill in my backyard! That would ruin the beautiful sunset over the steaming pile of crap I am enjoying here, and the price of my house will go like way down!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not let this happen on the landfill in my backyard !
That would ruin the beautiful sunset over the steaming pile of crap I am enjoying here , and the price of my house will go like way down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would not let this happen on the landfill in my backyard!
That would ruin the beautiful sunset over the steaming pile of crap I am enjoying here, and the price of my house will go like way down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728247</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>incognito84</author>
	<datestamp>1255365780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't even make it to China. They're going to drop it in the ocean a few miles off the coast and say they took it to China.
<br>
<br>
Maybe they'll make a new island and turn it into a Disneyland to draw attention away from the obvious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't even make it to China .
They 're going to drop it in the ocean a few miles off the coast and say they took it to China .
Maybe they 'll make a new island and turn it into a Disneyland to draw attention away from the obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't even make it to China.
They're going to drop it in the ocean a few miles off the coast and say they took it to China.
Maybe they'll make a new island and turn it into a Disneyland to draw attention away from the obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727689</id>
	<title>Cleanup bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255360800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do the clean, renewable energy project get to pick up the bill for the clean up?  What about the long term liability for contamination remaining after the clean up?  In the long term, is there any increased risk of illness, like cancer, to the employees of the renewable energy projects?  I'm sure these issues can be easily addressed to ensure that no liability is passed onto these projects.  I didn't see them discussed in the article and admit being too lazy to research the EPA site for answers...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the clean , renewable energy project get to pick up the bill for the clean up ?
What about the long term liability for contamination remaining after the clean up ?
In the long term , is there any increased risk of illness , like cancer , to the employees of the renewable energy projects ?
I 'm sure these issues can be easily addressed to ensure that no liability is passed onto these projects .
I did n't see them discussed in the article and admit being too lazy to research the EPA site for answers.. .    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the clean, renewable energy project get to pick up the bill for the clean up?
What about the long term liability for contamination remaining after the clean up?
In the long term, is there any increased risk of illness, like cancer, to the employees of the renewable energy projects?
I'm sure these issues can be easily addressed to ensure that no liability is passed onto these projects.
I didn't see them discussed in the article and admit being too lazy to research the EPA site for answers...
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29733829</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1255457760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Some of these places could never be truly cleaned up. You'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India, but even that's just moving the problem away from the USA.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why clean them up either? At least this policy abandons the idea that every bit of land should be returned to some sort of pristine state.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Problem is, the Earth Firsters want <b>everything</b> put back into 'pristine shape'.  This really isn't feasible in any manner. From the way they talk, seems as though they consider humanity a disease that needs wiping out. Leave it up to them, there'd be <b>maybe</b> 5,000 humans running around naked and toolless, subsisting on carrion &amp; berries while their prefered animal populations took over the Earth.</p><p>
All except <b>them</b>, of course.  They won't give up a technic lifestyle, they <b>need</b> it to pump out their propaganda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of these places could never be truly cleaned up .
You 'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India , but even that 's just moving the problem away from the USA.Why clean them up either ?
At least this policy abandons the idea that every bit of land should be returned to some sort of pristine state .
Problem is , the Earth Firsters want everything put back into 'pristine shape' .
This really is n't feasible in any manner .
From the way they talk , seems as though they consider humanity a disease that needs wiping out .
Leave it up to them , there 'd be maybe 5,000 humans running around naked and toolless , subsisting on carrion &amp; berries while their prefered animal populations took over the Earth .
All except them , of course .
They wo n't give up a technic lifestyle , they need it to pump out their propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of these places could never be truly cleaned up.
You'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India, but even that's just moving the problem away from the USA.Why clean them up either?
At least this policy abandons the idea that every bit of land should be returned to some sort of pristine state.
Problem is, the Earth Firsters want everything put back into 'pristine shape'.
This really isn't feasible in any manner.
From the way they talk, seems as though they consider humanity a disease that needs wiping out.
Leave it up to them, there'd be maybe 5,000 humans running around naked and toolless, subsisting on carrion &amp; berries while their prefered animal populations took over the Earth.
All except them, of course.
They won't give up a technic lifestyle, they need it to pump out their propaganda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729723</id>
	<title>Energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Total amount of energy is quoted assuming no losses in efficiency, power factor, transmission and of of course extra energy costs to make building on such environmentally friendly.</p><p>It is a good idea however assuming the tax payer does not pick up the tab for the last part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Total amount of energy is quoted assuming no losses in efficiency , power factor , transmission and of of course extra energy costs to make building on such environmentally friendly.It is a good idea however assuming the tax payer does not pick up the tab for the last part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total amount of energy is quoted assuming no losses in efficiency, power factor, transmission and of of course extra energy costs to make building on such environmentally friendly.It is a good idea however assuming the tax payer does not pick up the tab for the last part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728597</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1255369740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clean up is just too expensive.  Every wonder why you never hear about it on the US news?<br>Heavy metals, PCB's ect?, they did not all just vanish in the dot com boom.<br>
Better just to mix in good top soil, pave, take a few safe clean samples and build green tech on top.<br>
Any workers on the site would be see as disposable as the original workers- long term staff, mechanics, engineers.<br>
Residents are all ready gone or in cancer cluster.<br>
National sacrifice area lite for you.<br> <br>
Clean up is good for a lower middle class district before an election.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clean up is just too expensive .
Every wonder why you never hear about it on the US news ? Heavy metals , PCB 's ect ? , they did not all just vanish in the dot com boom .
Better just to mix in good top soil , pave , take a few safe clean samples and build green tech on top .
Any workers on the site would be see as disposable as the original workers- long term staff , mechanics , engineers .
Residents are all ready gone or in cancer cluster .
National sacrifice area lite for you .
Clean up is good for a lower middle class district before an election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clean up is just too expensive.
Every wonder why you never hear about it on the US news?Heavy metals, PCB's ect?, they did not all just vanish in the dot com boom.
Better just to mix in good top soil, pave, take a few safe clean samples and build green tech on top.
Any workers on the site would be see as disposable as the original workers- long term staff, mechanics, engineers.
Residents are all ready gone or in cancer cluster.
National sacrifice area lite for you.
Clean up is good for a lower middle class district before an election.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727943</id>
	<title>Eminent Domain bonanza!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255363080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will be an Eminent Domain bonanza!!!!</p><p>This is just a land grab trifecta</p><p>1) you have Kelo v. City of New London saying that any taking by the government is for "the public use", allowing the government to openly grab land at eminent domain prices and give it to their developer friends</p><p>2) you then have the EPA marking land as "brownfield" (i.e. bad bad very bad, not superfund bad, but bad), allowing the government to pay below eminent domain prices (i.e. rock bottom prices, "either your signature or brains will be on this contract" negotiation).</p><p>3) finally you have this being "Green".  So, no court or citizens can morally oppose this (or else you hate the Earth, bad person)<br>4 or 3B, because "Green" is a double, a gift that keeps on giving) because this is "Green" your developer friends will get further government subsidies for building.</p><p>Man, they are good at graft and bribery in Chicago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be an Eminent Domain bonanza ! ! !
! This is just a land grab trifecta1 ) you have Kelo v. City of New London saying that any taking by the government is for " the public use " , allowing the government to openly grab land at eminent domain prices and give it to their developer friends2 ) you then have the EPA marking land as " brownfield " ( i.e .
bad bad very bad , not superfund bad , but bad ) , allowing the government to pay below eminent domain prices ( i.e .
rock bottom prices , " either your signature or brains will be on this contract " negotiation ) .3 ) finally you have this being " Green " .
So , no court or citizens can morally oppose this ( or else you hate the Earth , bad person ) 4 or 3B , because " Green " is a double , a gift that keeps on giving ) because this is " Green " your developer friends will get further government subsidies for building.Man , they are good at graft and bribery in Chicago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be an Eminent Domain bonanza!!!
!This is just a land grab trifecta1) you have Kelo v. City of New London saying that any taking by the government is for "the public use", allowing the government to openly grab land at eminent domain prices and give it to their developer friends2) you then have the EPA marking land as "brownfield" (i.e.
bad bad very bad, not superfund bad, but bad), allowing the government to pay below eminent domain prices (i.e.
rock bottom prices, "either your signature or brains will be on this contract" negotiation).3) finally you have this being "Green".
So, no court or citizens can morally oppose this (or else you hate the Earth, bad person)4 or 3B, because "Green" is a double, a gift that keeps on giving) because this is "Green" your developer friends will get further government subsidies for building.Man, they are good at graft and bribery in Chicago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730309</id>
	<title>Dirty Secrets of the Environmental movement</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1255438320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two dirty secrets that the environmental movement does not like to talk about or engage in because either it is not politically correct among the politically correct or they do not gain much in the way of donations and support for it.</p><p>1. Population control. God for bid we would encourage people to have less Children as a way to help the environment.</p><p>2. Cleaning up a place that is already spoiled (not talking about picking up trash in the national park). Yes, there is some of this that goes on, but for the most part toxic dumps do not sell. Saving a 1,000 year old tree gets donations, but trying to cleanup a toxic site is just not sexy. It is expensive and time consuming, sometimes requiring generations and millions of dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two dirty secrets that the environmental movement does not like to talk about or engage in because either it is not politically correct among the politically correct or they do not gain much in the way of donations and support for it.1 .
Population control .
God for bid we would encourage people to have less Children as a way to help the environment.2 .
Cleaning up a place that is already spoiled ( not talking about picking up trash in the national park ) .
Yes , there is some of this that goes on , but for the most part toxic dumps do not sell .
Saving a 1,000 year old tree gets donations , but trying to cleanup a toxic site is just not sexy .
It is expensive and time consuming , sometimes requiring generations and millions of dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two dirty secrets that the environmental movement does not like to talk about or engage in because either it is not politically correct among the politically correct or they do not gain much in the way of donations and support for it.1.
Population control.
God for bid we would encourage people to have less Children as a way to help the environment.2.
Cleaning up a place that is already spoiled (not talking about picking up trash in the national park).
Yes, there is some of this that goes on, but for the most part toxic dumps do not sell.
Saving a 1,000 year old tree gets donations, but trying to cleanup a toxic site is just not sexy.
It is expensive and time consuming, sometimes requiring generations and millions of dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727641</id>
	<title>Irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255360500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's ironic that when an article on some corporation with solar aspirations is criticized (vaporware, waiting 10 years, etc.), but Obama will be hailed as Jesus Christ in the next 700+ posts without a single viable solar project under his belt.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ironic that when an article on some corporation with solar aspirations is criticized ( vaporware , waiting 10 years , etc .
) , but Obama will be hailed as Jesus Christ in the next 700 + posts without a single viable solar project under his belt .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ironic that when an article on some corporation with solar aspirations is criticized (vaporware, waiting 10 years, etc.
), but Obama will be hailed as Jesus Christ in the next 700+ posts without a single viable solar project under his belt.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29734361</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1255459920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way to truly clean a site up is to remove the contaminated material. You then either try and seperate it into hazardous and non-hazardous or you just bury it somewhere.</p><p>Either way this has a high cost (both financially and in energy terms) and in the latter case doesn't really do anything to solve the problem, just move it.</p><p>Another option is to not clean up the site but to try and seal the hazardous material in. A lot of landfills do this and it works to an extent but it means you have to be very carefull how you use the land in future to avoid releasing the contamination. You also have to be careful that you don't go sealing in gasses only to later either have them go boom (e.g. methane) or be released suddently suffocating the local population (e.g. CO2)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to truly clean a site up is to remove the contaminated material .
You then either try and seperate it into hazardous and non-hazardous or you just bury it somewhere.Either way this has a high cost ( both financially and in energy terms ) and in the latter case does n't really do anything to solve the problem , just move it.Another option is to not clean up the site but to try and seal the hazardous material in .
A lot of landfills do this and it works to an extent but it means you have to be very carefull how you use the land in future to avoid releasing the contamination .
You also have to be careful that you do n't go sealing in gasses only to later either have them go boom ( e.g .
methane ) or be released suddently suffocating the local population ( e.g .
CO2 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to truly clean a site up is to remove the contaminated material.
You then either try and seperate it into hazardous and non-hazardous or you just bury it somewhere.Either way this has a high cost (both financially and in energy terms) and in the latter case doesn't really do anything to solve the problem, just move it.Another option is to not clean up the site but to try and seal the hazardous material in.
A lot of landfills do this and it works to an extent but it means you have to be very carefull how you use the land in future to avoid releasing the contamination.
You also have to be careful that you don't go sealing in gasses only to later either have them go boom (e.g.
methane) or be released suddently suffocating the local population (e.g.
CO2)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728377</id>
	<title>Close to populated centers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255367220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the brownfields, by their very definitions, are either in or close to suburbia. Basically, by putting up wind, Solar PV|thermal, or possibly geo-thermal, these will generate power CLOSE to consumption. In addition, many of these sites already had high tension lines being brought in. Generally, a brownfield was a previous manufacturing site that used loads of electricity. So, with high tension lines already there, the increased costs of build-out as well as maintenance may be far less than doing a new site located 20-50 miles away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the brownfields , by their very definitions , are either in or close to suburbia .
Basically , by putting up wind , Solar PV | thermal , or possibly geo-thermal , these will generate power CLOSE to consumption .
In addition , many of these sites already had high tension lines being brought in .
Generally , a brownfield was a previous manufacturing site that used loads of electricity .
So , with high tension lines already there , the increased costs of build-out as well as maintenance may be far less than doing a new site located 20-50 miles away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the brownfields, by their very definitions, are either in or close to suburbia.
Basically, by putting up wind, Solar PV|thermal, or possibly geo-thermal, these will generate power CLOSE to consumption.
In addition, many of these sites already had high tension lines being brought in.
Generally, a brownfield was a previous manufacturing site that used loads of electricity.
So, with high tension lines already there, the increased costs of build-out as well as maintenance may be far less than doing a new site located 20-50 miles away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730439</id>
	<title>Cool purpose for a national brownfield register</title>
	<author>JasonBee</author>
	<datestamp>1255439820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember putting forward a thesis in an old GIS class that was a bit too grand for the time I was able to spend flwshing out the particulars, but it was essentially to start creating a map layer for the North America (yes Canada and Mexico too, cuz pollution travels no?) that we could then query for whole categories of pollutants and land use restrictions. One purpose was to make the data saleable to insurance industry for rate adjustments (yes they screw people over for where they live, but they pay good money for the data too), and have publicly available data to show what kinds of pollution was airborne vs ground-situated...accounting for such things as subsurface hydrogeology etc, etc...lots of fun to be had!</p><p>But seriously, these days, with PlaceBase being bought up by Apple, wouldn't it be nice to have a single large repository of data that federal/state/provincial/Municipal agencies could use to scope out where the next location would be for that great Green project that keeps running into NIMBY restraints?</p><p>I find that that data is well guarded when it makes no sense to do anything but open it up, let the public know what's in the ground and in the air...and to move on to either fixing it up or using the areas for other projects.</p><p>Twould be nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember putting forward a thesis in an old GIS class that was a bit too grand for the time I was able to spend flwshing out the particulars , but it was essentially to start creating a map layer for the North America ( yes Canada and Mexico too , cuz pollution travels no ?
) that we could then query for whole categories of pollutants and land use restrictions .
One purpose was to make the data saleable to insurance industry for rate adjustments ( yes they screw people over for where they live , but they pay good money for the data too ) , and have publicly available data to show what kinds of pollution was airborne vs ground-situated...accounting for such things as subsurface hydrogeology etc , etc...lots of fun to be had ! But seriously , these days , with PlaceBase being bought up by Apple , would n't it be nice to have a single large repository of data that federal/state/provincial/Municipal agencies could use to scope out where the next location would be for that great Green project that keeps running into NIMBY restraints ? I find that that data is well guarded when it makes no sense to do anything but open it up , let the public know what 's in the ground and in the air...and to move on to either fixing it up or using the areas for other projects.Twould be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember putting forward a thesis in an old GIS class that was a bit too grand for the time I was able to spend flwshing out the particulars, but it was essentially to start creating a map layer for the North America (yes Canada and Mexico too, cuz pollution travels no?
) that we could then query for whole categories of pollutants and land use restrictions.
One purpose was to make the data saleable to insurance industry for rate adjustments (yes they screw people over for where they live, but they pay good money for the data too), and have publicly available data to show what kinds of pollution was airborne vs ground-situated...accounting for such things as subsurface hydrogeology etc, etc...lots of fun to be had!But seriously, these days, with PlaceBase being bought up by Apple, wouldn't it be nice to have a single large repository of data that federal/state/provincial/Municipal agencies could use to scope out where the next location would be for that great Green project that keeps running into NIMBY restraints?I find that that data is well guarded when it makes no sense to do anything but open it up, let the public know what's in the ground and in the air...and to move on to either fixing it up or using the areas for other projects.Twould be nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737</id>
	<title>I think it's a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255361280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat.</i>

</p><p>I used to work in toxics cleanup and I think that's a brilliant idea.  A lot of hazardous materials are more risk to dig up than just leave alone.  That would put the land to some practical use and restore value to the surrounding communities, many of which were blighted by the proximity to the contamination (whether justified by actual exposure risk or not).  And, oh by the way, turn that otherwise unusable ground into jobs and non-polluting energy.

</p><p>So whatever led to the consideration of these sites, it's a winner.  The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground.

</p><p>This is a great idea.  Whoever thought it up should get a prize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat .
I used to work in toxics cleanup and I think that 's a brilliant idea .
A lot of hazardous materials are more risk to dig up than just leave alone .
That would put the land to some practical use and restore value to the surrounding communities , many of which were blighted by the proximity to the contamination ( whether justified by actual exposure risk or not ) .
And , oh by the way , turn that otherwise unusable ground into jobs and non-polluting energy .
So whatever led to the consideration of these sites , it 's a winner .
The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground .
This is a great idea .
Whoever thought it up should get a prize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat.
I used to work in toxics cleanup and I think that's a brilliant idea.
A lot of hazardous materials are more risk to dig up than just leave alone.
That would put the land to some practical use and restore value to the surrounding communities, many of which were blighted by the proximity to the contamination (whether justified by actual exposure risk or not).
And, oh by the way, turn that otherwise unusable ground into jobs and non-polluting energy.
So whatever led to the consideration of these sites, it's a winner.
The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground.
This is a great idea.
Whoever thought it up should get a prize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727615</id>
	<title>Won't be all of 'em though.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And open pit mine would be a pretty rotten place for a wind farm OR a solar field.</p><p>Might make a good site for an orbital solar power downlink rectenna, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And open pit mine would be a pretty rotten place for a wind farm OR a solar field.Might make a good site for an orbital solar power downlink rectenna , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And open pit mine would be a pretty rotten place for a wind farm OR a solar field.Might make a good site for an orbital solar power downlink rectenna, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728147</id>
	<title>Re:Cleanup bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that, as usual, it will be the taxpayers picking up the tab.  Hopefully the final result will work out better than <a href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/10/aerial-photos-of-barack-obamas-stunning.html" title="blogspot.com">Grove Parc Plaza</a> [blogspot.com], at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that , as usual , it will be the taxpayers picking up the tab .
Hopefully the final result will work out better than Grove Parc Plaza [ blogspot.com ] , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that, as usual, it will be the taxpayers picking up the tab.
Hopefully the final result will work out better than Grove Parc Plaza [blogspot.com], at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730405</id>
	<title>Re:Irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255439580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey he was hailed as Jesus Christ and given a Nobel Peace prize after having done exactly nothing, so why not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey he was hailed as Jesus Christ and given a Nobel Peace prize after having done exactly nothing , so why not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey he was hailed as Jesus Christ and given a Nobel Peace prize after having done exactly nothing, so why not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730283</id>
	<title>Good news?</title>
	<author>Richard Kirk</author>
	<datestamp>1255438020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Did you just read the summary, and think "hey - that's good news!". I just did. Then doubt began to set in. What it is actually saying is that industry crapped on so much land, that if we built windmills on it we could power the whole of the US. It does not say that they could afford the windmills, or were going to build them. No power, no windmills, just a huge amount of crapped-on land and some hope. At least, the healing may have started.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you just read the summary , and think " hey - that 's good news ! " .
I just did .
Then doubt began to set in .
What it is actually saying is that industry crapped on so much land , that if we built windmills on it we could power the whole of the US .
It does not say that they could afford the windmills , or were going to build them .
No power , no windmills , just a huge amount of crapped-on land and some hope .
At least , the healing may have started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Did you just read the summary, and think "hey - that's good news!".
I just did.
Then doubt began to set in.
What it is actually saying is that industry crapped on so much land, that if we built windmills on it we could power the whole of the US.
It does not say that they could afford the windmills, or were going to build them.
No power, no windmills, just a huge amount of crapped-on land and some hope.
At least, the healing may have started.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729991</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1255434060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the brown sites had some form of industry already using them.  That means the infrastructure is already there, originally to support the industry that used the land in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the brown sites had some form of industry already using them .
That means the infrastructure is already there , originally to support the industry that used the land in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the brown sites had some form of industry already using them.
That means the infrastructure is already there, originally to support the industry that used the land in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730811</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's a great idea</title>
	<author>Jon\_S</author>
	<datestamp>1255442940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a "good idea".  It's a "been there, done that".</p><p>Obligatory wikipedia link:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel\_Winds" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel\_Winds</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Although it it true that those turbines are not on the most contaminated portions of the old Bethlehem steel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a " good idea " .
It 's a " been there , done that " .Obligatory wikipedia link : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel \ _Winds [ wikipedia.org ] Although it it true that those turbines are not on the most contaminated portions of the old Bethlehem steel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a "good idea".
It's a "been there, done that".Obligatory wikipedia link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel\_Winds [wikipedia.org]Although it it true that those turbines are not on the most contaminated portions of the old Bethlehem steel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29733827</id>
	<title>The short answer:</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1255457760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the same answer as for why nuclear power in general hasn't taken off. It's not all that cost effective. I can't find the link now, but I read about a study that concluded that a new nuclear power plant would produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of conventional plants. Of course, solar and wind energy really need subsidies to be cost effective too, but given that a nuclear plant would be politically far more difficult to push through, I think the decision to do solar/wind/etc is pretty reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the same answer as for why nuclear power in general has n't taken off .
It 's not all that cost effective .
I ca n't find the link now , but I read about a study that concluded that a new nuclear power plant would produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of conventional plants .
Of course , solar and wind energy really need subsidies to be cost effective too , but given that a nuclear plant would be politically far more difficult to push through , I think the decision to do solar/wind/etc is pretty reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the same answer as for why nuclear power in general hasn't taken off.
It's not all that cost effective.
I can't find the link now, but I read about a study that concluded that a new nuclear power plant would produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of conventional plants.
Of course, solar and wind energy really need subsidies to be cost effective too, but given that a nuclear plant would be politically far more difficult to push through, I think the decision to do solar/wind/etc is pretty reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729407</id>
	<title>Re:president obama and congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255424580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because "the government" has a whole other branch?  and that's just the federal government...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because " the government " has a whole other branch ?
and that 's just the federal government.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because "the government" has a whole other branch?
and that's just the federal government...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727941</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's a great idea</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1255363080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The flip side of this, is those that profited by polluting the land in question will inevitably use lobbyists to inflate the price paid for the land where it matches the value of adjoining unpolluted and leave all that pollution behind. Either the contaminated land is already government land or the polluters pay to clean it up. This just sounds like another greedy arsholes dream to dump worthless land onto the taxpayer at enormous profit. </p><p> Let's see wind farms, ridge line and cliffs, both places generally completely useless for dumping of refuse or manufacturing plants, so all suitable sites are likely pollution free. Solar farms, flat land not suitable for farming, certainly plenty of desert acreage, in fact millions of acres, so plenty of pollution free available. The reality a whole bunch of polluted land not really suitable for wind or solar farms, very low energy generating capacity but, no problem they all will still be dumped on to the public purse for maximum lobbyist greased profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flip side of this , is those that profited by polluting the land in question will inevitably use lobbyists to inflate the price paid for the land where it matches the value of adjoining unpolluted and leave all that pollution behind .
Either the contaminated land is already government land or the polluters pay to clean it up .
This just sounds like another greedy arsholes dream to dump worthless land onto the taxpayer at enormous profit .
Let 's see wind farms , ridge line and cliffs , both places generally completely useless for dumping of refuse or manufacturing plants , so all suitable sites are likely pollution free .
Solar farms , flat land not suitable for farming , certainly plenty of desert acreage , in fact millions of acres , so plenty of pollution free available .
The reality a whole bunch of polluted land not really suitable for wind or solar farms , very low energy generating capacity but , no problem they all will still be dumped on to the public purse for maximum lobbyist greased profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The flip side of this, is those that profited by polluting the land in question will inevitably use lobbyists to inflate the price paid for the land where it matches the value of adjoining unpolluted and leave all that pollution behind.
Either the contaminated land is already government land or the polluters pay to clean it up.
This just sounds like another greedy arsholes dream to dump worthless land onto the taxpayer at enormous profit.
Let's see wind farms, ridge line and cliffs, both places generally completely useless for dumping of refuse or manufacturing plants, so all suitable sites are likely pollution free.
Solar farms, flat land not suitable for farming, certainly plenty of desert acreage, in fact millions of acres, so plenty of pollution free available.
The reality a whole bunch of polluted land not really suitable for wind or solar farms, very low energy generating capacity but, no problem they all will still be dumped on to the public purse for maximum lobbyist greased profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29734239</id>
	<title>You must have a different environmental movement</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1255459380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...where you live. On this planet, Greenpeace, etc, are pretty vocal about the need for population control. And this:</p><blockquote><div><p>Yes, there is some of this that goes on, but for the most part toxic dumps do not sell.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The fact that "toxic waste dumps don't sell" is a "dirty secret of the environmental movement"? WTF? Again, on this planet, environmental groups spend their time trying to force businesses to clean up their own messes, not interfering in the sale of toxic waste dumps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...where you live .
On this planet , Greenpeace , etc , are pretty vocal about the need for population control .
And this : Yes , there is some of this that goes on , but for the most part toxic dumps do not sell .
The fact that " toxic waste dumps do n't sell " is a " dirty secret of the environmental movement " ?
WTF ? Again , on this planet , environmental groups spend their time trying to force businesses to clean up their own messes , not interfering in the sale of toxic waste dumps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...where you live.
On this planet, Greenpeace, etc, are pretty vocal about the need for population control.
And this:Yes, there is some of this that goes on, but for the most part toxic dumps do not sell.
The fact that "toxic waste dumps don't sell" is a "dirty secret of the environmental movement"?
WTF? Again, on this planet, environmental groups spend their time trying to force businesses to clean up their own messes, not interfering in the sale of toxic waste dumps.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29731233</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1255445580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; We're talking billions of tons of contaminated soil, water,<br>&gt; radioactive waste, old landfills. What do you propose is done with it?</p><p>Why not build on the concept of the space elevator and "elevate" this stuff into<br>orbit on a trajectory into the sun?  Seriously - why leave it on earth at all?<br>The technology seems to be developing to make something like this plausible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We 're talking billions of tons of contaminated soil , water , &gt; radioactive waste , old landfills .
What do you propose is done with it ? Why not build on the concept of the space elevator and " elevate " this stuff intoorbit on a trajectory into the sun ?
Seriously - why leave it on earth at all ? The technology seems to be developing to make something like this plausible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; We're talking billions of tons of contaminated soil, water,&gt; radioactive waste, old landfills.
What do you propose is done with it?Why not build on the concept of the space elevator and "elevate" this stuff intoorbit on a trajectory into the sun?
Seriously - why leave it on earth at all?The technology seems to be developing to make something like this plausible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727931</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be all of 'em though.</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1255362960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like it could make a heck of a foundation for a solar concentrator mirror array...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like it could make a heck of a foundation for a solar concentrator mirror array.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like it could make a heck of a foundation for a solar concentrator mirror array...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728015</id>
	<title>president obama and congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255363620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why didnt we just say "the government"</htmltext>
<tokenext>why didnt we just say " the government "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why didnt we just say "the government"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728119</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh ffs why was this hidden by the posting system? I've got it set to not filter or hide ANYTHING and yet it still insists on FORCING me to be unable to see hidden posts until I click "parent" on an orphan post, and it won't let me move the "#full||#hidden" slider to unhide any.</p><p>Wtf slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh ffs why was this hidden by the posting system ?
I 've got it set to not filter or hide ANYTHING and yet it still insists on FORCING me to be unable to see hidden posts until I click " parent " on an orphan post , and it wo n't let me move the " # full | | # hidden " slider to unhide any.Wtf slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh ffs why was this hidden by the posting system?
I've got it set to not filter or hide ANYTHING and yet it still insists on FORCING me to be unable to see hidden posts until I click "parent" on an orphan post, and it won't let me move the "#full||#hidden" slider to unhide any.Wtf slashdot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729083</id>
	<title>Re:Liberal Bias....</title>
	<author>Saint Fnordius</author>
	<datestamp>1255376940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, this is Slashdot. Political positions are irrelevant, it's about the tech and the geek factor. Second, the slashcode ratings system doesn't delete, but allows for comments to be moderated. Most readers choose not to view comments below a certain threshold, but the comments are still there. Thus I suspect you are merely concern-trolling without actually bothering to understand how this comment system works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , this is Slashdot .
Political positions are irrelevant , it 's about the tech and the geek factor .
Second , the slashcode ratings system does n't delete , but allows for comments to be moderated .
Most readers choose not to view comments below a certain threshold , but the comments are still there .
Thus I suspect you are merely concern-trolling without actually bothering to understand how this comment system works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, this is Slashdot.
Political positions are irrelevant, it's about the tech and the geek factor.
Second, the slashcode ratings system doesn't delete, but allows for comments to be moderated.
Most readers choose not to view comments below a certain threshold, but the comments are still there.
Thus I suspect you are merely concern-trolling without actually bothering to understand how this comment system works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29739055</id>
	<title>Someone just got a prize..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255437240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well Obama did get Noblel's Peace Prize.<br>If he didn't have the idea himself, his academic and engaging style of leadership is at least putting other great people in the right positions to make a difference.</p><p>So I believe great things are in motion for the good, as long as people stand together and give their support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Obama did get Noblel 's Peace Prize.If he did n't have the idea himself , his academic and engaging style of leadership is at least putting other great people in the right positions to make a difference.So I believe great things are in motion for the good , as long as people stand together and give their support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Obama did get Noblel's Peace Prize.If he didn't have the idea himself, his academic and engaging style of leadership is at least putting other great people in the right positions to make a difference.So I believe great things are in motion for the good, as long as people stand together and give their support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728095</id>
	<title>As if electricity wasn't dangerous enough already</title>
	<author>hellop2</author>
	<datestamp>1255364340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I have to worry about it being radioactive and/or toxic?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I have to worry about it being radioactive and/or toxic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I have to worry about it being radioactive and/or toxic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729967</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1255433640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of these are sites they moved the waste <i>to</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of these are sites they moved the waste to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of these are sites they moved the waste to</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728477</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1255368060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's that bad, why not build a nuclear power plant there instead? It's not like NIMBY would be a factor anymore, would it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's that bad , why not build a nuclear power plant there instead ?
It 's not like NIMBY would be a factor anymore , would it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's that bad, why not build a nuclear power plant there instead?
It's not like NIMBY would be a factor anymore, would it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730057</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1255434840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Help and Preferences -&gt; Discussions -&gt; Use Classic system is one option. Unless you like the fancy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Help and Preferences - &gt; Discussions - &gt; Use Classic system is one option .
Unless you like the fancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Help and Preferences -&gt; Discussions -&gt; Use Classic system is one option.
Unless you like the fancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728121</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding me? My first High School was built directly on TOP of an old garbage dump. It was awesome when the wind blew. It carried that stench pretty far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding me ?
My first High School was built directly on TOP of an old garbage dump .
It was awesome when the wind blew .
It carried that stench pretty far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding me?
My first High School was built directly on TOP of an old garbage dump.
It was awesome when the wind blew.
It carried that stench pretty far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728267</id>
	<title>re:  EPA To Refuse Toxic Sites Renewable Energy</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1255366200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Geez.. Refusing Renewable energy..  that's a really harsh penalty..
</p><p>
So homes built on them go dark, when fossil fuels are exhausted.
</p><p>
Won't anyone think of the Toxic Waste Sites??
They sure deserve to have some energy too..
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geez.. Refusing Renewable energy.. that 's a really harsh penalty. . So homes built on them go dark , when fossil fuels are exhausted .
Wo n't anyone think of the Toxic Waste Sites ? ?
They sure deserve to have some energy too. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Geez.. Refusing Renewable energy..  that's a really harsh penalty..

So homes built on them go dark, when fossil fuels are exhausted.
Won't anyone think of the Toxic Waste Sites??
They sure deserve to have some energy too..
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29731733</id>
	<title>Nyanza Superfund Site</title>
	<author>crow</author>
	<datestamp>1255448280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have one of the original Superfund sites in my town of Ashland, Massachusetts.  The Nyanza dye factory dumped all sorts of waste products for decades before being shut down.  Now there's a huge field where they've sealed in most of the waste, and the owner of the property is looking at putting in a solar farm on the cap with wind turbines along the perimeter.  It seems like a perfect site for that sort of development, and there's not much else that can be done with the property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have one of the original Superfund sites in my town of Ashland , Massachusetts .
The Nyanza dye factory dumped all sorts of waste products for decades before being shut down .
Now there 's a huge field where they 've sealed in most of the waste , and the owner of the property is looking at putting in a solar farm on the cap with wind turbines along the perimeter .
It seems like a perfect site for that sort of development , and there 's not much else that can be done with the property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have one of the original Superfund sites in my town of Ashland, Massachusetts.
The Nyanza dye factory dumped all sorts of waste products for decades before being shut down.
Now there's a huge field where they've sealed in most of the waste, and the owner of the property is looking at putting in a solar farm on the cap with wind turbines along the perimeter.
It seems like a perfect site for that sort of development, and there's not much else that can be done with the property.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730655</id>
	<title>I am starting to like this guy more and more..</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1255441620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama is doing good, he is coming up with ways to save money and is showing he has more brains then the last 3 presidents put together....keep it up Mr.President!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is doing good , he is coming up with ways to save money and is showing he has more brains then the last 3 presidents put together....keep it up Mr.President !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is doing good, he is coming up with ways to save money and is showing he has more brains then the last 3 presidents put together....keep it up Mr.President!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728851</id>
	<title>Re:Eminent Domain bonanza!!!!</title>
	<author>Edmund Blackadder</author>
	<datestamp>1255372980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. You do not need eminent domain to take contaminated sites. Owners of contaminated sites are usually praying that the government will take those sites off of their hands. You see, when you own land that is contaminated you are responsible for cleaning it up, and you can pay pretty hefty fines if the contamination spreads or affects the groundwater. There have been many cases where people will sell contaminated sites for negative money (i.e., pay money for someone to get them off their hands). So yes, the owners will be quite happy to give them to the government for free.</p><p>The concern is actually quite the opposite. It is possible that the Obama admin may use this program as a hidden subsidy. That is they may let owners of contaminated land off the hook for the clean-up costs and get the federal taxpayer on the hook for the clean-up costs. But in general it seems like a good idea as long as environmental groups watch the implementation carefully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
You do not need eminent domain to take contaminated sites .
Owners of contaminated sites are usually praying that the government will take those sites off of their hands .
You see , when you own land that is contaminated you are responsible for cleaning it up , and you can pay pretty hefty fines if the contamination spreads or affects the groundwater .
There have been many cases where people will sell contaminated sites for negative money ( i.e. , pay money for someone to get them off their hands ) .
So yes , the owners will be quite happy to give them to the government for free.The concern is actually quite the opposite .
It is possible that the Obama admin may use this program as a hidden subsidy .
That is they may let owners of contaminated land off the hook for the clean-up costs and get the federal taxpayer on the hook for the clean-up costs .
But in general it seems like a good idea as long as environmental groups watch the implementation carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
You do not need eminent domain to take contaminated sites.
Owners of contaminated sites are usually praying that the government will take those sites off of their hands.
You see, when you own land that is contaminated you are responsible for cleaning it up, and you can pay pretty hefty fines if the contamination spreads or affects the groundwater.
There have been many cases where people will sell contaminated sites for negative money (i.e., pay money for someone to get them off their hands).
So yes, the owners will be quite happy to give them to the government for free.The concern is actually quite the opposite.
It is possible that the Obama admin may use this program as a hidden subsidy.
That is they may let owners of contaminated land off the hook for the clean-up costs and get the federal taxpayer on the hook for the clean-up costs.
But in general it seems like a good idea as long as environmental groups watch the implementation carefully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728947</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's a great idea</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1255375020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A lot of hazardous materials are <b>more risk to dig up than just leave alone</b>...The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply <b>speed getting the shovels into the ground</b>.</i></p><p>Wait... What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of hazardous materials are more risk to dig up than just leave alone...The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground.Wait... What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of hazardous materials are more risk to dig up than just leave alone...The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground.Wait... What?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255360380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of these places could never be truly cleaned up. You'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India, but even that's just moving the problem away from the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of these places could never be truly cleaned up .
You 'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India , but even that 's just moving the problem away from the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of these places could never be truly cleaned up.
You'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India, but even that's just moving the problem away from the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728169</id>
	<title>Re:Superfund</title>
	<author>Triela</author>
	<datestamp>1255364940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India, but even that's just moving the problem away from the USA.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I'm all for it.  Evidence predicts that it will be handled no worse, with a drop in accent comprehension, but a huge benefit in hourly wage expenditures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India , but even that 's just moving the problem away from the USA .
I 'm all for it .
Evidence predicts that it will be handled no worse , with a drop in accent comprehension , but a huge benefit in hourly wage expenditures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd essentially have to ship the top 500 feet of soil and rock of the entire areas to China or India, but even that's just moving the problem away from the USA.
I'm all for it.
Evidence predicts that it will be handled no worse, with a drop in accent comprehension, but a huge benefit in hourly wage expenditures.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729265</id>
	<title>Brownfield?</title>
	<author>codeButcher</author>
	<datestamp>1255465740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that another word for sick building syndrome?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that another word for sick building syndrome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that another word for sick building syndrome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727919</id>
	<title>Sure, but...</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1255362840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who would want to work there?  It's a good thing we'll probably get national health care, because the construction workers are gonna need it when their thyroid glands swell up to the size of a cantaloupe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would want to work there ?
It 's a good thing we 'll probably get national health care , because the construction workers are gon na need it when their thyroid glands swell up to the size of a cantaloupe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would want to work there?
It's a good thing we'll probably get national health care, because the construction workers are gonna need it when their thyroid glands swell up to the size of a cantaloupe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729975</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be all of 'em though.</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1255433820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>better use:  pumped storage facility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>better use : pumped storage facility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>better use:  pumped storage facility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29732825</id>
	<title>Re:president obama and congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255453080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the Supreme Court was out having a picnic at the time</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the Supreme Court was out having a picnic at the time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the Supreme Court was out having a picnic at the time</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728701</id>
	<title>Where?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255370940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone have a US map detailing the locations of these "brown fields" it seems to me our power should be nicely dispersed throughout the nation.</p><p>If 30\% of it is Nevada desert we may have issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have a US map detailing the locations of these " brown fields " it seems to me our power should be nicely dispersed throughout the nation.If 30 \ % of it is Nevada desert we may have issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have a US map detailing the locations of these "brown fields" it seems to me our power should be nicely dispersed throughout the nation.If 30\% of it is Nevada desert we may have issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728805</id>
	<title>What About The Connected Landowners?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"The Daily Climate reports that President Obama and Congress are pushing to identify thousands of contaminated landfills and abandoned mines -- 'brownfields' that could be repurposed to house wind farms, solar arrays, and geothermal power plants. Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat. 'In the next decade there's going to be a lot of renewable energy built, and all that has to go somewhere,' said Jessica Goad, an energy and climate change policy fellow for The Wilderness Society.</i></p><p>That's all well and good for the ducks, but what about landowners who have invested good money and hosted dozens of elbow-rubbing parties over the years to develop a relationship with congresspeople and senators? How are they supposed to get the government to buy their $60 per acre swampland for $2500 per acre? Reusing land the government has already paid for severely depresses the corrupt real estate deal market, with nothing more to show for it than reduced public spending.</p><p>Won't somebody please think of the well-connected?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Daily Climate reports that President Obama and Congress are pushing to identify thousands of contaminated landfills and abandoned mines -- 'brownfields ' that could be repurposed to house wind farms , solar arrays , and geothermal power plants .
Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat .
'In the next decade there 's going to be a lot of renewable energy built , and all that has to go somewhere, ' said Jessica Goad , an energy and climate change policy fellow for The Wilderness Society.That 's all well and good for the ducks , but what about landowners who have invested good money and hosted dozens of elbow-rubbing parties over the years to develop a relationship with congresspeople and senators ?
How are they supposed to get the government to buy their $ 60 per acre swampland for $ 2500 per acre ?
Reusing land the government has already paid for severely depresses the corrupt real estate deal market , with nothing more to show for it than reduced public spending.Wo n't somebody please think of the well-connected ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Daily Climate reports that President Obama and Congress are pushing to identify thousands of contaminated landfills and abandoned mines -- 'brownfields' that could be repurposed to house wind farms, solar arrays, and geothermal power plants.
Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat.
'In the next decade there's going to be a lot of renewable energy built, and all that has to go somewhere,' said Jessica Goad, an energy and climate change policy fellow for The Wilderness Society.That's all well and good for the ducks, but what about landowners who have invested good money and hosted dozens of elbow-rubbing parties over the years to develop a relationship with congresspeople and senators?
How are they supposed to get the government to buy their $60 per acre swampland for $2500 per acre?
Reusing land the government has already paid for severely depresses the corrupt real estate deal market, with nothing more to show for it than reduced public spending.Won't somebody please think of the well-connected?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728173</id>
	<title>FIijrst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255365000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Centra7ized models</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Centra7ized models [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Centra7ized models [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29731519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29733829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29733685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29734239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29732825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29732593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29733827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29731233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29739055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29734361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29734711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0144223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29739055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29734239
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29731733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29731519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728477
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29733685
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29733827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727951
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29733829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29734711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29730057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29732593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29731233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29734361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29727943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0144223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29728015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29729407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0144223.29732825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
