<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_1620244</id>
	<title>10\% of US Energy Derived From Old Soviet Nukes</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257871740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Nrbelex writes <i>"The New York Times reports that about 10 percent of electricity generated in the United States comes from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html">fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs</a>, mostly Russian. 'It's a great, easy source' of fuel, said Marina V. Alekseyenkova, an analyst at Renaissance Bank and an expert in the Russian nuclear industry that has profited from the arrangement since the end of the cold war. But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium isn't secured soon, the pipeline could run dry, with ramifications for consumers, as well as some American utilities and their Russian suppliers.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nrbelex writes " The New York Times reports that about 10 percent of electricity generated in the United States comes from fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs , mostly Russian .
'It 's a great , easy source ' of fuel , said Marina V. Alekseyenkova , an analyst at Renaissance Bank and an expert in the Russian nuclear industry that has profited from the arrangement since the end of the cold war .
But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium is n't secured soon , the pipeline could run dry , with ramifications for consumers , as well as some American utilities and their Russian suppliers .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nrbelex writes "The New York Times reports that about 10 percent of electricity generated in the United States comes from fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs, mostly Russian.
'It's a great, easy source' of fuel, said Marina V. Alekseyenkova, an analyst at Renaissance Bank and an expert in the Russian nuclear industry that has profited from the arrangement since the end of the cold war.
But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium isn't secured soon, the pipeline could run dry, with ramifications for consumers, as well as some American utilities and their Russian suppliers.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30052654</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257852540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really see what the big deal is.  We can just buy more from Iran.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really see what the big deal is .
We can just buy more from Iran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really see what the big deal is.
We can just buy more from Iran.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047560</id>
	<title>I feel I must apologies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right up until now I thought US foreign policy was extremely poor.  I feel I must apologise for thinking that, in fact US foreign policy is an act of unparalleled genius!  North Korea is being largely ignored by the US as is Iran, not because they are not dangerous (they are) but you are simply employing them to gather enough nulear armaments together that you will later use to generate power, whilst silmutaneously reducing your dependency on fossil fuel and also creating world stabalisation.  Outstanding work, forward thinking and downright cunning.  I salute you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right up until now I thought US foreign policy was extremely poor .
I feel I must apologise for thinking that , in fact US foreign policy is an act of unparalleled genius !
North Korea is being largely ignored by the US as is Iran , not because they are not dangerous ( they are ) but you are simply employing them to gather enough nulear armaments together that you will later use to generate power , whilst silmutaneously reducing your dependency on fossil fuel and also creating world stabalisation .
Outstanding work , forward thinking and downright cunning .
I salute you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right up until now I thought US foreign policy was extremely poor.
I feel I must apologise for thinking that, in fact US foreign policy is an act of unparalleled genius!
North Korea is being largely ignored by the US as is Iran, not because they are not dangerous (they are) but you are simply employing them to gather enough nulear armaments together that you will later use to generate power, whilst silmutaneously reducing your dependency on fossil fuel and also creating world stabalisation.
Outstanding work, forward thinking and downright cunning.
I salute you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047342</id>
	<title>In Post-Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1257875580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear weapon <em>powers</em> USA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear weapon powers USA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear weapon powers USA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047902</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1257877380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or at least the "sell by" date.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least the " sell by " date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least the "sell by" date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30063668</id>
	<title>Re:This proves the old saying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dismantle a nuclear bomb, and you can light a city for a year. Drop a nuclear bomb...</p></div><p>And it lights a city for the rest of its life!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dismantle a nuclear bomb , and you can light a city for a year .
Drop a nuclear bomb...And it lights a city for the rest of its life !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dismantle a nuclear bomb, and you can light a city for a year.
Drop a nuclear bomb...And it lights a city for the rest of its life!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30053696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048064</id>
	<title>Pet Peeve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Electricity is just one part of our energy supply, but by no means all of it. Far too often the terms energy and electricity get used as if they are interchangeable, when they are not. The summary is correct, the title is not. 10\% of our electricity is not the same as 10\% of out total energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity is just one part of our energy supply , but by no means all of it .
Far too often the terms energy and electricity get used as if they are interchangeable , when they are not .
The summary is correct , the title is not .
10 \ % of our electricity is not the same as 10 \ % of out total energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity is just one part of our energy supply, but by no means all of it.
Far too often the terms energy and electricity get used as if they are interchangeable, when they are not.
The summary is correct, the title is not.
10\% of our electricity is not the same as 10\% of out total energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30051244</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1257846960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;So the solution to the energy problems we face</p><p>We have energy problems? I guess we did have rolling brownouts a while back here in California, but California has had its collective head up its butt for a long time when it comes to power infrastructure.</p><p>And no, I'm serious. There's no real looming crisis when it comes to power. Even if we move to a completely carbon neutral energy grid, it'll raise prices by about 50\% across the board if we stick with coal, but would remain around the same if we start switching more to nuclear.</p><p>Since making a statement like that tends to draw out the Greens on Slashdot, I'll post the prices of different sources of energy. I looked at four different sources: ClimateProgress.org, a tidal power company survey of power costs, the California Energy Commission study on what wholesale prices would be for new plants built today, and the Federal DoE energy costs estimates. There's quite a bit of discrepancy between the four sources, so I'll give the range of prices between the four.</p><p>There's also subsidies and carbon/social cost adjustments, which I'll also list.</p><p>Summarizing from cheapest to most expensive:<br>1) Coal (currently 49\% of our power production): 3.15c to 9.4c/KWH. Carbon Capture or Reduction systems raise the price to around 10c to 12c/KWH.</p><p>2) Natural Gas (20\% of current production): 4.95c to 9.15c/KWH. Produces half the CO2 of coal. Carbon Capture or Reduction raises the price to 8c - 11.5c/KWH.</p><p>3) Nuclear (19\% of current production): 2.16c - 11.5c/KWH. No CO2 production. Price includes decommissioning and lawsuit costs. Federal subsidies knock about 1c/KWH off. Actual wholesale costs from existing plants runs around 4c/KWH these days.</p><p>4) Hydro (7\% of current production): 8.7c to 19.5c/KWH. No CO2 production. Federal subsidies knock off about 2c/KWH. Dams have recently become non-politically correct, with some being dynamited to free up fish runs.</p><p>5) Oil (1.7\% of current production): Roughly twice as much as natural gas, but prices have fluctuated massively in the last few years. Mainly used as a power backstop. Also puts some pressure on consumer fuel costs.</p><p>6) Biofuel (0.93\% of current production): 7.5c - 20c/KWH. No CO2 production, but produces other pollutants. Federal subsidies are large, knocking the price to 5c-15c/KWH for biofuel. Can put pressure on consumer food costs if they do something stupid like burning edible food products for power. (Braindead plans like Ethanol.)</p><p>7) Wind (0.78\% of current production): 6.5c - 14.1c/KWH. Offshore adds another 5c-10c/KWH. No CO2 production. Wind farms run into NIMBY resistance from people like the late Sen. Kennedy (who didn't want offshore wind near his estate because it'd ruin the view - what a great environmentalist, no?) Subsidies would knock the price from 13.9c/KWH to 9.9c/KWH, so it's likely the low end estimates (which came from the hippie sources) already include the subsidies.</p><p>8) Metropolitan Solid Waste (0.4\% of current production): 6.5c - 8.6c/KWH. No CO2 production. Somewhat limited sources of fuel. Subsidies reduce price to 5.4c/KWH.</p><p>9) Geothermal (0.36\% of current production): 5.5c - 13c/KWH. No CO2 production. Somewhat limited sources. Federal subsidies knock the 13c/KWH price to 9c/KWH. (It's likely the 5.5c price from the Hippie groups include the subsidies already.)</p><p>10) Solar (0.03\% of current production): 12c - 98c/KWH; discarding high and low: around 18c - 39c/KWH (counting subsidies, 36c-60c/KWH or so without). No CO2 production. Sierra Club has been blocking development of solar power in deserts for environmental reasons.</p><p>11) Wave Power (~0\% of current production): 6.5c - 137c/KWH. Note the 6.5c estimate came from a wave power company. The 137c estimate came from the State of California's estimated costs of actually building one. No CO2 production. Some people dislike tidal power plants.</p><p>Knowledge is power. Hopefully, with these numbers out there (which, again, were drawn half from hippie sources, and half fr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; So the solution to the energy problems we faceWe have energy problems ?
I guess we did have rolling brownouts a while back here in California , but California has had its collective head up its butt for a long time when it comes to power infrastructure.And no , I 'm serious .
There 's no real looming crisis when it comes to power .
Even if we move to a completely carbon neutral energy grid , it 'll raise prices by about 50 \ % across the board if we stick with coal , but would remain around the same if we start switching more to nuclear.Since making a statement like that tends to draw out the Greens on Slashdot , I 'll post the prices of different sources of energy .
I looked at four different sources : ClimateProgress.org , a tidal power company survey of power costs , the California Energy Commission study on what wholesale prices would be for new plants built today , and the Federal DoE energy costs estimates .
There 's quite a bit of discrepancy between the four sources , so I 'll give the range of prices between the four.There 's also subsidies and carbon/social cost adjustments , which I 'll also list.Summarizing from cheapest to most expensive : 1 ) Coal ( currently 49 \ % of our power production ) : 3.15c to 9.4c/KWH .
Carbon Capture or Reduction systems raise the price to around 10c to 12c/KWH.2 ) Natural Gas ( 20 \ % of current production ) : 4.95c to 9.15c/KWH .
Produces half the CO2 of coal .
Carbon Capture or Reduction raises the price to 8c - 11.5c/KWH.3 ) Nuclear ( 19 \ % of current production ) : 2.16c - 11.5c/KWH .
No CO2 production .
Price includes decommissioning and lawsuit costs .
Federal subsidies knock about 1c/KWH off .
Actual wholesale costs from existing plants runs around 4c/KWH these days.4 ) Hydro ( 7 \ % of current production ) : 8.7c to 19.5c/KWH .
No CO2 production .
Federal subsidies knock off about 2c/KWH .
Dams have recently become non-politically correct , with some being dynamited to free up fish runs.5 ) Oil ( 1.7 \ % of current production ) : Roughly twice as much as natural gas , but prices have fluctuated massively in the last few years .
Mainly used as a power backstop .
Also puts some pressure on consumer fuel costs.6 ) Biofuel ( 0.93 \ % of current production ) : 7.5c - 20c/KWH .
No CO2 production , but produces other pollutants .
Federal subsidies are large , knocking the price to 5c-15c/KWH for biofuel .
Can put pressure on consumer food costs if they do something stupid like burning edible food products for power .
( Braindead plans like Ethanol .
) 7 ) Wind ( 0.78 \ % of current production ) : 6.5c - 14.1c/KWH .
Offshore adds another 5c-10c/KWH .
No CO2 production .
Wind farms run into NIMBY resistance from people like the late Sen. Kennedy ( who did n't want offshore wind near his estate because it 'd ruin the view - what a great environmentalist , no ?
) Subsidies would knock the price from 13.9c/KWH to 9.9c/KWH , so it 's likely the low end estimates ( which came from the hippie sources ) already include the subsidies.8 ) Metropolitan Solid Waste ( 0.4 \ % of current production ) : 6.5c - 8.6c/KWH .
No CO2 production .
Somewhat limited sources of fuel .
Subsidies reduce price to 5.4c/KWH.9 ) Geothermal ( 0.36 \ % of current production ) : 5.5c - 13c/KWH .
No CO2 production .
Somewhat limited sources .
Federal subsidies knock the 13c/KWH price to 9c/KWH .
( It 's likely the 5.5c price from the Hippie groups include the subsidies already .
) 10 ) Solar ( 0.03 \ % of current production ) : 12c - 98c/KWH ; discarding high and low : around 18c - 39c/KWH ( counting subsidies , 36c-60c/KWH or so without ) .
No CO2 production .
Sierra Club has been blocking development of solar power in deserts for environmental reasons.11 ) Wave Power ( ~ 0 \ % of current production ) : 6.5c - 137c/KWH .
Note the 6.5c estimate came from a wave power company .
The 137c estimate came from the State of California 's estimated costs of actually building one .
No CO2 production .
Some people dislike tidal power plants.Knowledge is power .
Hopefully , with these numbers out there ( which , again , were drawn half from hippie sources , and half fr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;So the solution to the energy problems we faceWe have energy problems?
I guess we did have rolling brownouts a while back here in California, but California has had its collective head up its butt for a long time when it comes to power infrastructure.And no, I'm serious.
There's no real looming crisis when it comes to power.
Even if we move to a completely carbon neutral energy grid, it'll raise prices by about 50\% across the board if we stick with coal, but would remain around the same if we start switching more to nuclear.Since making a statement like that tends to draw out the Greens on Slashdot, I'll post the prices of different sources of energy.
I looked at four different sources: ClimateProgress.org, a tidal power company survey of power costs, the California Energy Commission study on what wholesale prices would be for new plants built today, and the Federal DoE energy costs estimates.
There's quite a bit of discrepancy between the four sources, so I'll give the range of prices between the four.There's also subsidies and carbon/social cost adjustments, which I'll also list.Summarizing from cheapest to most expensive:1) Coal (currently 49\% of our power production): 3.15c to 9.4c/KWH.
Carbon Capture or Reduction systems raise the price to around 10c to 12c/KWH.2) Natural Gas (20\% of current production): 4.95c to 9.15c/KWH.
Produces half the CO2 of coal.
Carbon Capture or Reduction raises the price to 8c - 11.5c/KWH.3) Nuclear (19\% of current production): 2.16c - 11.5c/KWH.
No CO2 production.
Price includes decommissioning and lawsuit costs.
Federal subsidies knock about 1c/KWH off.
Actual wholesale costs from existing plants runs around 4c/KWH these days.4) Hydro (7\% of current production): 8.7c to 19.5c/KWH.
No CO2 production.
Federal subsidies knock off about 2c/KWH.
Dams have recently become non-politically correct, with some being dynamited to free up fish runs.5) Oil (1.7\% of current production): Roughly twice as much as natural gas, but prices have fluctuated massively in the last few years.
Mainly used as a power backstop.
Also puts some pressure on consumer fuel costs.6) Biofuel (0.93\% of current production): 7.5c - 20c/KWH.
No CO2 production, but produces other pollutants.
Federal subsidies are large, knocking the price to 5c-15c/KWH for biofuel.
Can put pressure on consumer food costs if they do something stupid like burning edible food products for power.
(Braindead plans like Ethanol.
)7) Wind (0.78\% of current production): 6.5c - 14.1c/KWH.
Offshore adds another 5c-10c/KWH.
No CO2 production.
Wind farms run into NIMBY resistance from people like the late Sen. Kennedy (who didn't want offshore wind near his estate because it'd ruin the view - what a great environmentalist, no?
) Subsidies would knock the price from 13.9c/KWH to 9.9c/KWH, so it's likely the low end estimates (which came from the hippie sources) already include the subsidies.8) Metropolitan Solid Waste (0.4\% of current production): 6.5c - 8.6c/KWH.
No CO2 production.
Somewhat limited sources of fuel.
Subsidies reduce price to 5.4c/KWH.9) Geothermal (0.36\% of current production): 5.5c - 13c/KWH.
No CO2 production.
Somewhat limited sources.
Federal subsidies knock the 13c/KWH price to 9c/KWH.
(It's likely the 5.5c price from the Hippie groups include the subsidies already.
)10) Solar (0.03\% of current production): 12c - 98c/KWH; discarding high and low: around 18c - 39c/KWH (counting subsidies, 36c-60c/KWH or so without).
No CO2 production.
Sierra Club has been blocking development of solar power in deserts for environmental reasons.11) Wave Power (~0\% of current production): 6.5c - 137c/KWH.
Note the 6.5c estimate came from a wave power company.
The 137c estimate came from the State of California's estimated costs of actually building one.
No CO2 production.
Some people dislike tidal power plants.Knowledge is power.
Hopefully, with these numbers out there (which, again, were drawn half from hippie sources, and half fr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047754</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  And then from THAT you could reuse 93 percent as well, and so on and so forth, making our supplies basically last forever...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
And then from THAT you could reuse 93 percent as well , and so on and so forth , making our supplies basically last forever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
And then from THAT you could reuse 93 percent as well, and so on and so forth, making our supplies basically last forever...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047402</id>
	<title>The Reason Why U.S. Cars Don't Burn Natural Gas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the gasoline LOBBY !</p><p>Yours In Baikonur,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the gasoline LOBBY ! Yours In Baikonur,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the gasoline LOBBY !Yours In Baikonur,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30052028</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fundamental problem with doing this is that it is extremely expensive. The cost of plutonium extracted from spent fuel is equivalent to natural uranium costing $700/kg or so. The actual market price of natural uranium is about $100/kg and for $300/kg you could extract natural uranium from seawater and have a 1000 year supply.</p></div><p>Is that taking into account the cost you then <i>don't</i> have to pay to "dispose" of the non-recycled fuel?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental problem with doing this is that it is extremely expensive .
The cost of plutonium extracted from spent fuel is equivalent to natural uranium costing $ 700/kg or so .
The actual market price of natural uranium is about $ 100/kg and for $ 300/kg you could extract natural uranium from seawater and have a 1000 year supply.Is that taking into account the cost you then do n't have to pay to " dispose " of the non-recycled fuel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental problem with doing this is that it is extremely expensive.
The cost of plutonium extracted from spent fuel is equivalent to natural uranium costing $700/kg or so.
The actual market price of natural uranium is about $100/kg and for $300/kg you could extract natural uranium from seawater and have a 1000 year supply.Is that taking into account the cost you then don't have to pay to "dispose" of the non-recycled fuel?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050766</id>
	<title>Re:Unlimited Power</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257844860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So much for the argument that nukes are better than oil because the fuel is less limited.</i></p><p>Um...  recycling warheads doesn't do anything to the argument that there is more energy to be had from uranium stores than oil.  It's just a convenient, already-processed source.</p><p><i>And how cheap is this ex-Soviet fuel, while it lasts? Shouldn't we count the cost to get them, which includes $TRILLIONS on the Cold War?</i></p><p>Uh, no, you should not attribute the cost of the Cold War to nuclear power as though the whole thing was just an elaborate scheme to acquire enriched uranium.  The cost of the Cold War was to wage the Cold War.  Now that it's over, Russia is willing to sell us warheads for recycling for relatively cheap, and <i>that</i> is the cost we pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for the argument that nukes are better than oil because the fuel is less limited.Um... recycling warheads does n't do anything to the argument that there is more energy to be had from uranium stores than oil .
It 's just a convenient , already-processed source.And how cheap is this ex-Soviet fuel , while it lasts ?
Should n't we count the cost to get them , which includes $ TRILLIONS on the Cold War ? Uh , no , you should not attribute the cost of the Cold War to nuclear power as though the whole thing was just an elaborate scheme to acquire enriched uranium .
The cost of the Cold War was to wage the Cold War .
Now that it 's over , Russia is willing to sell us warheads for recycling for relatively cheap , and that is the cost we pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for the argument that nukes are better than oil because the fuel is less limited.Um...  recycling warheads doesn't do anything to the argument that there is more energy to be had from uranium stores than oil.
It's just a convenient, already-processed source.And how cheap is this ex-Soviet fuel, while it lasts?
Shouldn't we count the cost to get them, which includes $TRILLIONS on the Cold War?Uh, no, you should not attribute the cost of the Cold War to nuclear power as though the whole thing was just an elaborate scheme to acquire enriched uranium.
The cost of the Cold War was to wage the Cold War.
Now that it's over, Russia is willing to sell us warheads for recycling for relatively cheap, and that is the cost we pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047416</id>
	<title>So, what we need are . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1257875760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium isn't secured soon, the pipeline could run dry . . .</p> </div><p> . . . new, old Soviet nukes . . .
</p><p>I'm sure there must be profit for someone in there somewhere . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium is n't secured soon , the pipeline could run dry .
. .
. .
. new , old Soviet nukes .
. .
I 'm sure there must be profit for someone in there somewhere .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium isn't secured soon, the pipeline could run dry .
. .
. .
. new, old Soviet nukes .
. .
I'm sure there must be profit for someone in there somewhere .
. .
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398</id>
	<title>Correction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> For about 10 percent of electricity in the United States, it's fuel from <b>dismantled nuclear bombs</b>, INCLUDING Russian ones.</p> </div><p>
10\% from <b>all </b> not all from Russia . Dammit it is the first sentence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For about 10 percent of electricity in the United States , it 's fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs , INCLUDING Russian ones .
10 \ % from all not all from Russia .
Dammit it is the first sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> For about 10 percent of electricity in the United States, it's fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs, INCLUDING Russian ones.
10\% from all  not all from Russia .
Dammit it is the first sentence.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047720</id>
	<title>Iraqi uranium &amp; CANDU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds similar to what was done <a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/455138" title="thestar.com" rel="nofollow">with Saddam Hussein's yellowcake uranium</a> [thestar.com] a year ago.  It was shipped from Iraq to Canada and used as fuel for the Bruce nuclear plant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds similar to what was done with Saddam Hussein 's yellowcake uranium [ thestar.com ] a year ago .
It was shipped from Iraq to Canada and used as fuel for the Bruce nuclear plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds similar to what was done with Saddam Hussein's yellowcake uranium [thestar.com] a year ago.
It was shipped from Iraq to Canada and used as fuel for the Bruce nuclear plant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049268</id>
	<title>Now tell me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it better to have all that energy released gradually, instead of all at once?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it better to have all that energy released gradually , instead of all at once ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it better to have all that energy released gradually, instead of all at once?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050464</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257886740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know the solution to the existing problem... but we can thank the party and people who elected President Ronald Reagan for getting the nukes dismantled while simultaneously powering American homes.</p><p>Why we haven't built on this headway given to us is very discouraging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know the solution to the existing problem... but we can thank the party and people who elected President Ronald Reagan for getting the nukes dismantled while simultaneously powering American homes.Why we have n't built on this headway given to us is very discouraging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know the solution to the existing problem... but we can thank the party and people who elected President Ronald Reagan for getting the nukes dismantled while simultaneously powering American homes.Why we haven't built on this headway given to us is very discouraging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047996</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste of launch vehicles</title>
	<author>Conchobair</author>
	<datestamp>1257877680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should just shoot them off, like on the 4th of July or something.  Warhead or not, I'm not too picky.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should just shoot them off , like on the 4th of July or something .
Warhead or not , I 'm not too picky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should just shoot them off, like on the 4th of July or something.
Warhead or not, I'm not too picky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049014</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>SleeknStealthy</author>
	<datestamp>1257881100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sounds like someone forgot his  tags</htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like someone forgot his tags</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like someone forgot his  tags</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30067142</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1257077220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>complete combustion goes like this: CxHyOz + n O2 = x CO2 + y/2 H2O</p><p>i'm sorry, but "biofuels" obey freshman chemistry and produce CO2 when burned</p></div></blockquote><p> Ok, Mr. Freshman - simple question: where did that carbon come from to begin with?</p><p>Answer: It came from absorbing CO2 in the atmosphere.</p><p>Biofuel does produce nitrate pollution, IIRC, and forces up food prices when farmers covert their land to growing biofuel products, but it doesn't add any CO2 to the atmosphere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>complete combustion goes like this : CxHyOz + n O2 = x CO2 + y/2 H2Oi 'm sorry , but " biofuels " obey freshman chemistry and produce CO2 when burned Ok , Mr. Freshman - simple question : where did that carbon come from to begin with ? Answer : It came from absorbing CO2 in the atmosphere.Biofuel does produce nitrate pollution , IIRC , and forces up food prices when farmers covert their land to growing biofuel products , but it does n't add any CO2 to the atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>complete combustion goes like this: CxHyOz + n O2 = x CO2 + y/2 H2Oi'm sorry, but "biofuels" obey freshman chemistry and produce CO2 when burned Ok, Mr. Freshman - simple question: where did that carbon come from to begin with?Answer: It came from absorbing CO2 in the atmosphere.Biofuel does produce nitrate pollution, IIRC, and forces up food prices when farmers covert their land to growing biofuel products, but it doesn't add any CO2 to the atmosphere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30064066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... oh my goodness, I can't bring myself to do it.  Go on without me!  For great justice!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... oh my goodness , I ca n't bring myself to do it .
Go on without me !
For great justice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... oh my goodness, I can't bring myself to do it.
Go on without me!
For great justice!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050440</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>Wrath0fb0b</author>
	<datestamp>1257886620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole terrorist argument against this was bogus from the start.</p></div><p> The order not to reprocess has nothing to do with terrorism, having been passed in Jimmy Carter's time. It was about proliferation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole terrorist argument against this was bogus from the start .
The order not to reprocess has nothing to do with terrorism , having been passed in Jimmy Carter 's time .
It was about proliferation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole terrorist argument against this was bogus from the start.
The order not to reprocess has nothing to do with terrorism, having been passed in Jimmy Carter's time.
It was about proliferation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048086</id>
	<title>Iran to the rescue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I hear that our friends in Iran are progressing nicely with weapons grade material.  Perhaps we should ask them for some nicely.  If not, there's always our BFF North Korea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I hear that our friends in Iran are progressing nicely with weapons grade material .
Perhaps we should ask them for some nicely .
If not , there 's always our BFF North Korea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I hear that our friends in Iran are progressing nicely with weapons grade material.
Perhaps we should ask them for some nicely.
If not, there's always our BFF North Korea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047448</id>
	<title>What a waste...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think of all the countries they could have incinerated with those nukes!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of all the countries they could have incinerated with those nukes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of all the countries they could have incinerated with those nukes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047424</id>
	<title>Reprocessing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to reprocess.  The reasons the US doesn't are not really valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to reprocess .
The reasons the US does n't are not really valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to reprocess.
The reasons the US doesn't are not really valid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050552</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257843840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they laugh at the USA becoming the United Soviets of America.  (Don't believe?  Just read Pravda)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they laugh at the USA becoming the United Soviets of America .
( Do n't believe ?
Just read Pravda )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they laugh at the USA becoming the United Soviets of America.
(Don't believe?
Just read Pravda)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30053696</id>
	<title>This proves the old saying...</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1257858180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dismantle a nuclear bomb, and you can light a city for a year. Drop a nuclear bomb...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dismantle a nuclear bomb , and you can light a city for a year .
Drop a nuclear bomb.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dismantle a nuclear bomb, and you can light a city for a year.
Drop a nuclear bomb...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049574</id>
	<title>What's so hard?</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1257883320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The solution seems easy:  Just dismantle more nukes.  In fact, lets dismantle all of them.  It's the promise of the nuclear age finally realized without the horrible side effects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution seems easy : Just dismantle more nukes .
In fact , lets dismantle all of them .
It 's the promise of the nuclear age finally realized without the horrible side effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution seems easy:  Just dismantle more nukes.
In fact, lets dismantle all of them.
It's the promise of the nuclear age finally realized without the horrible side effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048716</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>JesseBHolmes</author>
	<datestamp>1257880020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>90\% of nuclear bomb material that's been converted comes from Russian bombs. Read PAST the first sentence.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of nuclear bomb material that 's been converted comes from Russian bombs .
Read PAST the first sentence .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of nuclear bomb material that's been converted comes from Russian bombs.
Read PAST the first sentence.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047798</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what a great idea, wonder why no one has thought of that? could it be that the price of power would have to triple to make it affordable?<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinch\_River\_Breeder\_Reactor\_Project#Technology\_costs" title="wikipedia.org">would have to increase to nearly $165 per pound in 1981 dollars before the breeder would become financially competitive</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what a great idea , wonder why no one has thought of that ?
could it be that the price of power would have to triple to make it affordable ? would have to increase to nearly $ 165 per pound in 1981 dollars before the breeder would become financially competitive [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what a great idea, wonder why no one has thought of that?
could it be that the price of power would have to triple to make it affordable?would have to increase to nearly $165 per pound in 1981 dollars before the breeder would become financially competitive [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048638</id>
	<title>Offset</title>
	<author>JesseBHolmes</author>
	<datestamp>1257879720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The power from old Russian nukes we use today does not offset the loss of energy we still suffer from as a result of the Cold War-era tapping of our precious bodily fluids!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The power from old Russian nukes we use today does not offset the loss of energy we still suffer from as a result of the Cold War-era tapping of our precious bodily fluids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The power from old Russian nukes we use today does not offset the loss of energy we still suffer from as a result of the Cold War-era tapping of our precious bodily fluids!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049550</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1257883200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... if we'd use common sense and recycle the fuel, as many other nuclear nations already do. The whole terrorist argument against this was bogus from the start. Recycle the damn fuel, and you can reuse 93 percent of it.</p></div><p>Not in any existing reactor you can't. The fissile content (U235+Pu) going into a reactor in fresh fuel is about 4\%, the rest is unusable U-238. Burning the fuel fissions about 4\% of the actinide nuclei present, and leaves a fissile content of something slightly under 1\% (due to plutonium breeding) at the end. Recycling this spent fuel would extend existing fuel supplies by only 25\%.</p><p>The fundamental problem with doing this is that it is extremely expensive. The cost of plutonium extracted from spent fuel is equivalent to natural uranium costing $700/kg or so. The actual market price of natural uranium is about $100/kg and for $300/kg you could extract natural uranium from seawater and have a 1000 year supply. Even if the extracted plutonium were free (instead of being far more expensive than the uranium) the cost of fabricating and handling plutonium-bearing fuel is so high that it would still be more expensive that uranium-only fuel. In fact the DOE has to pay utilities to use the mixed plutonium/uranium MOX fuel it makes from ex-Soviet weapons.</p><p>France has conclusively proven that a nuclear fuel cycle with recycling is more expensive than one without it. See: <a href="http://www.fas.org/press/\_docs/021507PlutoniumRecycle3L.pdf" title="fas.org">http://www.fas.org/press/\_docs/021507PlutoniumRecycle3L.pdf</a> [fas.org].</p><p>Reprocessed plutonium is that rarest of industrial products: one that it worth less than nothing (even if the extravagant production cost is completely written off). </p><p>Now a breeder reactor fuel cycle could use the U-238 to produce power in principle, but the cost would be much more than conventional nuclear power, and it is hampered by the fact that every breeder reactor project thus built has failed. It may be possible to build a workable breeder pwer reactor, but no one has yet succeeded in doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... if we 'd use common sense and recycle the fuel , as many other nuclear nations already do .
The whole terrorist argument against this was bogus from the start .
Recycle the damn fuel , and you can reuse 93 percent of it.Not in any existing reactor you ca n't .
The fissile content ( U235 + Pu ) going into a reactor in fresh fuel is about 4 \ % , the rest is unusable U-238 .
Burning the fuel fissions about 4 \ % of the actinide nuclei present , and leaves a fissile content of something slightly under 1 \ % ( due to plutonium breeding ) at the end .
Recycling this spent fuel would extend existing fuel supplies by only 25 \ % .The fundamental problem with doing this is that it is extremely expensive .
The cost of plutonium extracted from spent fuel is equivalent to natural uranium costing $ 700/kg or so .
The actual market price of natural uranium is about $ 100/kg and for $ 300/kg you could extract natural uranium from seawater and have a 1000 year supply .
Even if the extracted plutonium were free ( instead of being far more expensive than the uranium ) the cost of fabricating and handling plutonium-bearing fuel is so high that it would still be more expensive that uranium-only fuel .
In fact the DOE has to pay utilities to use the mixed plutonium/uranium MOX fuel it makes from ex-Soviet weapons.France has conclusively proven that a nuclear fuel cycle with recycling is more expensive than one without it .
See : http : //www.fas.org/press/ \ _docs/021507PlutoniumRecycle3L.pdf [ fas.org ] .Reprocessed plutonium is that rarest of industrial products : one that it worth less than nothing ( even if the extravagant production cost is completely written off ) .
Now a breeder reactor fuel cycle could use the U-238 to produce power in principle , but the cost would be much more than conventional nuclear power , and it is hampered by the fact that every breeder reactor project thus built has failed .
It may be possible to build a workable breeder pwer reactor , but no one has yet succeeded in doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if we'd use common sense and recycle the fuel, as many other nuclear nations already do.
The whole terrorist argument against this was bogus from the start.
Recycle the damn fuel, and you can reuse 93 percent of it.Not in any existing reactor you can't.
The fissile content (U235+Pu) going into a reactor in fresh fuel is about 4\%, the rest is unusable U-238.
Burning the fuel fissions about 4\% of the actinide nuclei present, and leaves a fissile content of something slightly under 1\% (due to plutonium breeding) at the end.
Recycling this spent fuel would extend existing fuel supplies by only 25\%.The fundamental problem with doing this is that it is extremely expensive.
The cost of plutonium extracted from spent fuel is equivalent to natural uranium costing $700/kg or so.
The actual market price of natural uranium is about $100/kg and for $300/kg you could extract natural uranium from seawater and have a 1000 year supply.
Even if the extracted plutonium were free (instead of being far more expensive than the uranium) the cost of fabricating and handling plutonium-bearing fuel is so high that it would still be more expensive that uranium-only fuel.
In fact the DOE has to pay utilities to use the mixed plutonium/uranium MOX fuel it makes from ex-Soviet weapons.France has conclusively proven that a nuclear fuel cycle with recycling is more expensive than one without it.
See: http://www.fas.org/press/\_docs/021507PlutoniumRecycle3L.pdf [fas.org].Reprocessed plutonium is that rarest of industrial products: one that it worth less than nothing (even if the extravagant production cost is completely written off).
Now a breeder reactor fuel cycle could use the U-238 to produce power in principle, but the cost would be much more than conventional nuclear power, and it is hampered by the fact that every breeder reactor project thus built has failed.
It may be possible to build a workable breeder pwer reactor, but no one has yet succeeded in doing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047288</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049618</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste of launch vehicles</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1257883560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard a great alternative to dismantling all those beautiful Peacekeepers.  Remove the nuclear warheads and instead fit each missile with 10 or 11 800-lb chunks of heat-shielded metal in the shape of an RV.  Find a terrorist training camp somewhere in the world?  In 30 minutes you've got a custom-made meteor shower raining right down on top of them with a CEP smaller than a football field.  No radiation.  No fallout.  Just lots of dead terrorists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard a great alternative to dismantling all those beautiful Peacekeepers .
Remove the nuclear warheads and instead fit each missile with 10 or 11 800-lb chunks of heat-shielded metal in the shape of an RV .
Find a terrorist training camp somewhere in the world ?
In 30 minutes you 've got a custom-made meteor shower raining right down on top of them with a CEP smaller than a football field .
No radiation .
No fallout .
Just lots of dead terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard a great alternative to dismantling all those beautiful Peacekeepers.
Remove the nuclear warheads and instead fit each missile with 10 or 11 800-lb chunks of heat-shielded metal in the shape of an RV.
Find a terrorist training camp somewhere in the world?
In 30 minutes you've got a custom-made meteor shower raining right down on top of them with a CEP smaller than a football field.
No radiation.
No fallout.
Just lots of dead terrorists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048290</id>
	<title>They aren't wasted.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about Russia, but the US military frequently uses it's old launch vehicles (or at least the engines) for suborbital weapons tests and satellite launches. For example, the  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur\_(rocket)" title="wikipedia.org">Minotaur</a> [wikipedia.org] series of rockets by Orbital Sciences use old Minuteman and Peacekeeper engines. I'm sure there are many other examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about Russia , but the US military frequently uses it 's old launch vehicles ( or at least the engines ) for suborbital weapons tests and satellite launches .
For example , the Minotaur [ wikipedia.org ] series of rockets by Orbital Sciences use old Minuteman and Peacekeeper engines .
I 'm sure there are many other examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about Russia, but the US military frequently uses it's old launch vehicles (or at least the engines) for suborbital weapons tests and satellite launches.
For example, the  Minotaur [wikipedia.org] series of rockets by Orbital Sciences use old Minuteman and Peacekeeper engines.
I'm sure there are many other examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554</id>
	<title>There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1257876240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if we'd use common sense and recycle the fuel, as many other nuclear nations already do. The whole terrorist argument against this was bogus from the start. Recycle the damn fuel, and you can reuse 93 percent of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if we 'd use common sense and recycle the fuel , as many other nuclear nations already do .
The whole terrorist argument against this was bogus from the start .
Recycle the damn fuel , and you can reuse 93 percent of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if we'd use common sense and recycle the fuel, as many other nuclear nations already do.
The whole terrorist argument against this was bogus from the start.
Recycle the damn fuel, and you can reuse 93 percent of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048780</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste of launch vehicles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257880200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's about time for an international spud launching competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's about time for an international spud launching competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's about time for an international spud launching competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047994</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste of launch vehicles</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1257877680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real waste is the dismantling of the launch vehicles (from both countries). We all spent billions developing reliable launch technologies and it breaks my heart to see them crushing perfectly good missiles.</p></div><p>You would seriously prefer that they use them?</p><p>(Or is there some non-offensive alternative use I'm unaware of?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real waste is the dismantling of the launch vehicles ( from both countries ) .
We all spent billions developing reliable launch technologies and it breaks my heart to see them crushing perfectly good missiles.You would seriously prefer that they use them ?
( Or is there some non-offensive alternative use I 'm unaware of ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real waste is the dismantling of the launch vehicles (from both countries).
We all spent billions developing reliable launch technologies and it breaks my heart to see them crushing perfectly good missiles.You would seriously prefer that they use them?
(Or is there some non-offensive alternative use I'm unaware of?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047642</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not very good with that reading comprehension thing, are you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not very good with that reading comprehension thing , are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not very good with that reading comprehension thing, are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047460</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on. The only reason this story got accepted was for the In Soviet Russia jokes!</p><p>In Soviet Russia, nukes energize YOU! Oh wait. Isn't that what's supposed to happen?</p><p>In Soviet Russia, YOU energize nukes! No that's not right.</p><p>In Soviet Russia, nukes get energized by YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on .
The only reason this story got accepted was for the In Soviet Russia jokes ! In Soviet Russia , nukes energize YOU !
Oh wait .
Is n't that what 's supposed to happen ? In Soviet Russia , YOU energize nukes !
No that 's not right.In Soviet Russia , nukes get energized by YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on.
The only reason this story got accepted was for the In Soviet Russia jokes!In Soviet Russia, nukes energize YOU!
Oh wait.
Isn't that what's supposed to happen?In Soviet Russia, YOU energize nukes!
No that's not right.In Soviet Russia, nukes get energized by YOU!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047610</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1257876480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah. Recycle 100\% of it. Who wouldn't want a glowing paper weight? Mobsters could give people uranium boots, so much more compact. Think of how tiny you could make the heads of hammers with something like spent uranium. The possibilities are endless!.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah .
Recycle 100 \ % of it .
Who would n't want a glowing paper weight ?
Mobsters could give people uranium boots , so much more compact .
Think of how tiny you could make the heads of hammers with something like spent uranium .
The possibilities are endless ! .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah.
Recycle 100\% of it.
Who wouldn't want a glowing paper weight?
Mobsters could give people uranium boots, so much more compact.
Think of how tiny you could make the heads of hammers with something like spent uranium.
The possibilities are endless!.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047446</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Gothic\_Walrus</author>
	<datestamp>1257875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry - I'll take one for the team.</p><p><b>In Soviet Russia, nukes derive energy from you!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry - I 'll take one for the team.In Soviet Russia , nukes derive energy from you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry - I'll take one for the team.In Soviet Russia, nukes derive energy from you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30060632</id>
	<title>Re:This proves the old saying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and you no longer have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and you no longer have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and you no longer have to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30053696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050728</id>
	<title>Re:We should do more</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1257844680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're probably giving Greenpeace too much credit. The refining and mining industries have probably played a greater, if quieter, role.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're probably giving Greenpeace too much credit .
The refining and mining industries have probably played a greater , if quieter , role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're probably giving Greenpeace too much credit.
The refining and mining industries have probably played a greater, if quieter, role.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048986</id>
	<title>want to buy some uranium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257881040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=TSE:UF.UN" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/finance?q=TSE:UF.UN</a> [google.com]</p><p>Just buy a few hundred shares of UF.UN and you make money if the price of the stuff goes up. And you can tell chicks that you own uranium!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/finance ? q = TSE : UF.UN [ google.com ] Just buy a few hundred shares of UF.UN and you make money if the price of the stuff goes up .
And you can tell chicks that you own uranium !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/finance?q=TSE:UF.UN [google.com]Just buy a few hundred shares of UF.UN and you make money if the price of the stuff goes up.
And you can tell chicks that you own uranium!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049896</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257884580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem is that you can't recycle nuclear fuel. There are always residual byproducts that last for long and have a potential to pollute eveything around them.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes you can, "spent" nuclear fuel still has 90+\% unused Uranium in them. Deep Burn reactors can destroy the dangerous actinides leaving an irreducible residue no more radioactive than uranium ore, and a small fraction of the volume of the fuel.  Make a ceramic out of it and bury it back in the mines.   And the fuel is "extended" (by not wasting most of it) by a factor close to twenty.</p><p>This is a solvable problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that you ca n't recycle nuclear fuel .
There are always residual byproducts that last for long and have a potential to pollute eveything around them.Yes you can , " spent " nuclear fuel still has 90 + \ % unused Uranium in them .
Deep Burn reactors can destroy the dangerous actinides leaving an irreducible residue no more radioactive than uranium ore , and a small fraction of the volume of the fuel .
Make a ceramic out of it and bury it back in the mines .
And the fuel is " extended " ( by not wasting most of it ) by a factor close to twenty.This is a solvable problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that you can't recycle nuclear fuel.
There are always residual byproducts that last for long and have a potential to pollute eveything around them.Yes you can, "spent" nuclear fuel still has 90+\% unused Uranium in them.
Deep Burn reactors can destroy the dangerous actinides leaving an irreducible residue no more radioactive than uranium ore, and a small fraction of the volume of the fuel.
Make a ceramic out of it and bury it back in the mines.
And the fuel is "extended" (by not wasting most of it) by a factor close to twenty.This is a solvable problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047636</id>
	<title>Gotta wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we are using so much Soviet stockpile how reliable are the sources for nuclear fuel. There are lots of quotes about how many years we can last but when a lot of it is in countries like Russia and Iran how reliable are the supplies? I know Africa has reserves but it's not the most stable place. Are we trading one unstable resource, oil mostly comes from the middle east, for another one? This isn't a pro or against issue it's a serious concern. Reprocessing can last us for a time but it requires more infrastructure and time to put in place. The one benefit to alternative sources is they tend to be homegrown. Like I say not speaking out against nuclear just wondering if we might be asking for trouble if the world becomes more unstable again. Do we end up invading Africa or Iran for nuclear fuel? I know there are other supplies and even some domestic quantities I'm just wondering how reliable the foreign ones are in fact. We can cannibalize our own nuclear reserves for a time but since we've been downsizing I tend to think this has already happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we are using so much Soviet stockpile how reliable are the sources for nuclear fuel .
There are lots of quotes about how many years we can last but when a lot of it is in countries like Russia and Iran how reliable are the supplies ?
I know Africa has reserves but it 's not the most stable place .
Are we trading one unstable resource , oil mostly comes from the middle east , for another one ?
This is n't a pro or against issue it 's a serious concern .
Reprocessing can last us for a time but it requires more infrastructure and time to put in place .
The one benefit to alternative sources is they tend to be homegrown .
Like I say not speaking out against nuclear just wondering if we might be asking for trouble if the world becomes more unstable again .
Do we end up invading Africa or Iran for nuclear fuel ?
I know there are other supplies and even some domestic quantities I 'm just wondering how reliable the foreign ones are in fact .
We can cannibalize our own nuclear reserves for a time but since we 've been downsizing I tend to think this has already happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we are using so much Soviet stockpile how reliable are the sources for nuclear fuel.
There are lots of quotes about how many years we can last but when a lot of it is in countries like Russia and Iran how reliable are the supplies?
I know Africa has reserves but it's not the most stable place.
Are we trading one unstable resource, oil mostly comes from the middle east, for another one?
This isn't a pro or against issue it's a serious concern.
Reprocessing can last us for a time but it requires more infrastructure and time to put in place.
The one benefit to alternative sources is they tend to be homegrown.
Like I say not speaking out against nuclear just wondering if we might be asking for trouble if the world becomes more unstable again.
Do we end up invading Africa or Iran for nuclear fuel?
I know there are other supplies and even some domestic quantities I'm just wondering how reliable the foreign ones are in fact.
We can cannibalize our own nuclear reserves for a time but since we've been downsizing I tend to think this has already happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048766</id>
	<title>Re:Unlimited Power</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257880200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And how cheap is this ex-Soviet fuel, while it lasts? Shouldn't we count the cost to get them, which includes $TRILLIONS on the Cold War?</p></div></blockquote><p>In economic terms, that's a sunk or opportunity cost.  Those trillions have been paid.  Whether we decide to use the material or knowledge or not doesn't change the amount of money put in, and the incremental cost of actually using that is all that we should continue to worry about.</p><p>If we can take all those trillions and turn them into something good, why not do it?  Ignoring the inherent benefit of breeder reactor, or fuel recycling, what do you think should be done with all that material?  Bury it in the ground because it's bad?  Or maybe spend it and offset the amount of radiation we're introducing into the atmosphere (from coal)?</p><p>I want to see every coal plant in the world shut down and recycled.  I think a combination of nuclear, solar (photovoltaic and thermal) and wind can do the job just as well, while costing the same or even less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how cheap is this ex-Soviet fuel , while it lasts ?
Should n't we count the cost to get them , which includes $ TRILLIONS on the Cold War ? In economic terms , that 's a sunk or opportunity cost .
Those trillions have been paid .
Whether we decide to use the material or knowledge or not does n't change the amount of money put in , and the incremental cost of actually using that is all that we should continue to worry about.If we can take all those trillions and turn them into something good , why not do it ?
Ignoring the inherent benefit of breeder reactor , or fuel recycling , what do you think should be done with all that material ?
Bury it in the ground because it 's bad ?
Or maybe spend it and offset the amount of radiation we 're introducing into the atmosphere ( from coal ) ? I want to see every coal plant in the world shut down and recycled .
I think a combination of nuclear , solar ( photovoltaic and thermal ) and wind can do the job just as well , while costing the same or even less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how cheap is this ex-Soviet fuel, while it lasts?
Shouldn't we count the cost to get them, which includes $TRILLIONS on the Cold War?In economic terms, that's a sunk or opportunity cost.
Those trillions have been paid.
Whether we decide to use the material or knowledge or not doesn't change the amount of money put in, and the incremental cost of actually using that is all that we should continue to worry about.If we can take all those trillions and turn them into something good, why not do it?
Ignoring the inherent benefit of breeder reactor, or fuel recycling, what do you think should be done with all that material?
Bury it in the ground because it's bad?
Or maybe spend it and offset the amount of radiation we're introducing into the atmosphere (from coal)?I want to see every coal plant in the world shut down and recycled.
I think a combination of nuclear, solar (photovoltaic and thermal) and wind can do the job just as well, while costing the same or even less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047808</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>BESTouff</author>
	<datestamp>1257877080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Recycle the damn fuel, and you can reuse 93 percent of it.</p></div><p>The problem is that you can't recycle nuclear fuel. There are always residual byproducts that last for long and have a potential to pollute eveything around them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recycle the damn fuel , and you can reuse 93 percent of it.The problem is that you ca n't recycle nuclear fuel .
There are always residual byproducts that last for long and have a potential to pollute eveything around them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recycle the damn fuel, and you can reuse 93 percent of it.The problem is that you can't recycle nuclear fuel.
There are always residual byproducts that last for long and have a potential to pollute eveything around them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30052928</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually anti-hydrogen is the rarest of industrial products. Anti-hydrogen costs roughly $62,500,000,000,000 per gram.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually anti-hydrogen is the rarest of industrial products .
Anti-hydrogen costs roughly $ 62,500,000,000,000 per gram .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually anti-hydrogen is the rarest of industrial products.
Anti-hydrogen costs roughly $62,500,000,000,000 per gram.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048158</id>
	<title>There is, however, plenty of plutonium left.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257878160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047852</id>
	<title>Alternatives</title>
	<author>travisco\_nabisco</author>
	<datestamp>1257877260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rather than trying to secure more weapon grade uranium why don't they consider either licensing the design or designing their own reactors that do not need the enriched uranium. Off the top of my head there are the 2nd generation CANDU reactors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than trying to secure more weapon grade uranium why do n't they consider either licensing the design or designing their own reactors that do not need the enriched uranium .
Off the top of my head there are the 2nd generation CANDU reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than trying to secure more weapon grade uranium why don't they consider either licensing the design or designing their own reactors that do not need the enriched uranium.
Off the top of my head there are the 2nd generation CANDU reactors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30072286</id>
	<title>Re:We should do more</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1258039860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>The biggest obstacle keeping us from using the greenest energy source we have is the pushback from groups like greenpeace.</b> Yea and fuck the police too, never produce anything useful.... oh wait I'm getting shot 1 second. <br> <br> Ever notice that greenpeace never actually does research or other work to make the world a greener place? The research they do is politically motivated and centered around preventing others from doing things they are politically intolerant of. When's the last time you read a press release from greenpeace about a new technological development they made? If groups such as greenpeace were actually serious about the environment they would be all over themselves in doing everything they could in order to increase the use of nuclear energy.<br> <br> Perhaps Greenpeace understands that environmentalism will eventually be entirely focused on population control, slowing down the date when this is the case is their motive? But speculating on the long term mentality is pretty silly, if we'd gone Nuclear we wouldn't have solar and we still haven't done enough research on Geothermal, which seems like it would be a really good source of free energy.<br> <br> Why build our own nucear reactor when the centre of our planet is constantly on fire... We're just getting heat pipe technology up and running, we've got superconductors for the first time. Cheaper in the short term isn't always better and while groups like Greenpeace may seem fanatical in some instances their purpose of long term sustainability isn't all bad.<br> <br> Ask why you'd rather be in a field than a cubicle and you can perhaps understand their perspective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest obstacle keeping us from using the greenest energy source we have is the pushback from groups like greenpeace .
Yea and fuck the police too , never produce anything useful.... oh wait I 'm getting shot 1 second .
Ever notice that greenpeace never actually does research or other work to make the world a greener place ?
The research they do is politically motivated and centered around preventing others from doing things they are politically intolerant of .
When 's the last time you read a press release from greenpeace about a new technological development they made ?
If groups such as greenpeace were actually serious about the environment they would be all over themselves in doing everything they could in order to increase the use of nuclear energy .
Perhaps Greenpeace understands that environmentalism will eventually be entirely focused on population control , slowing down the date when this is the case is their motive ?
But speculating on the long term mentality is pretty silly , if we 'd gone Nuclear we would n't have solar and we still have n't done enough research on Geothermal , which seems like it would be a really good source of free energy .
Why build our own nucear reactor when the centre of our planet is constantly on fire... We 're just getting heat pipe technology up and running , we 've got superconductors for the first time .
Cheaper in the short term is n't always better and while groups like Greenpeace may seem fanatical in some instances their purpose of long term sustainability is n't all bad .
Ask why you 'd rather be in a field than a cubicle and you can perhaps understand their perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest obstacle keeping us from using the greenest energy source we have is the pushback from groups like greenpeace.
Yea and fuck the police too, never produce anything useful.... oh wait I'm getting shot 1 second.
Ever notice that greenpeace never actually does research or other work to make the world a greener place?
The research they do is politically motivated and centered around preventing others from doing things they are politically intolerant of.
When's the last time you read a press release from greenpeace about a new technological development they made?
If groups such as greenpeace were actually serious about the environment they would be all over themselves in doing everything they could in order to increase the use of nuclear energy.
Perhaps Greenpeace understands that environmentalism will eventually be entirely focused on population control, slowing down the date when this is the case is their motive?
But speculating on the long term mentality is pretty silly, if we'd gone Nuclear we wouldn't have solar and we still haven't done enough research on Geothermal, which seems like it would be a really good source of free energy.
Why build our own nucear reactor when the centre of our planet is constantly on fire... We're just getting heat pipe technology up and running, we've got superconductors for the first time.
Cheaper in the short term isn't always better and while groups like Greenpeace may seem fanatical in some instances their purpose of long term sustainability isn't all bad.
Ask why you'd rather be in a field than a cubicle and you can perhaps understand their perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049234</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia, nuclear weapons disassemble YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , nuclear weapons disassemble YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, nuclear weapons disassemble YOU!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047360</id>
	<title>well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats because in mother russia, power generates itself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats because in mother russia , power generates itself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats because in mother russia, power generates itself</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30066720</id>
	<title>Hey just a minute...10\%??</title>
	<author>dkathrens77</author>
	<datestamp>1257074880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>     The last I heard, we weren't producing even 3\% of our electricity from nuclear. So where did they GET this 10\% figure??</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last I heard , we were n't producing even 3 \ % of our electricity from nuclear .
So where did they GET this 10 \ % figure ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     The last I heard, we weren't producing even 3\% of our electricity from nuclear.
So where did they GET this 10\% figure?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047856</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1257877260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>45\% of the current uranium comes from Russian and 5\% from American. That is 50\% of about 19-20\% of our energy matrix. That means that roughly 10\% of energy comes from old bombs, of which 9\% of the total US energy is from Russian Bombs.<br> <br>
In the end, who cares? It is cheap energy.  Hopefully, this line will go away and America can get back to using Western American Uranium, which new mines and processing is starting up in Colorado.</htmltext>
<tokenext>45 \ % of the current uranium comes from Russian and 5 \ % from American .
That is 50 \ % of about 19-20 \ % of our energy matrix .
That means that roughly 10 \ % of energy comes from old bombs , of which 9 \ % of the total US energy is from Russian Bombs .
In the end , who cares ?
It is cheap energy .
Hopefully , this line will go away and America can get back to using Western American Uranium , which new mines and processing is starting up in Colorado .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>45\% of the current uranium comes from Russian and 5\% from American.
That is 50\% of about 19-20\% of our energy matrix.
That means that roughly 10\% of energy comes from old bombs, of which 9\% of the total US energy is from Russian Bombs.
In the end, who cares?
It is cheap energy.
Hopefully, this line will go away and America can get back to using Western American Uranium, which new mines and processing is starting up in Colorado.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047982</id>
	<title>We should do more</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1257877620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anything we should increase the amount of energy created by using nuclear fuel in this country. Every form of 'green' power has some kind of drawback that makes it less than ideal, hyrdo affects fish, solar requires nasty chemicals, geothermal is accused of causing earthquakes, wind power kills birds and so on. Point being if we're going to have widespread energy production it needs to be done on a feasible basis that responds to economy of scale. I'd love to have solar panels for my house (and will probably have them within a couple years), but that doesn't mean where I live is a good location for building solar power plants.</p><p>The biggest obstacle keeping us from using the greenest energy source we have is the pushback from groups like greenpeace. Ever notice that greenpeace never actually does research or other work to make the world a greener place? The research they do is politically motivated and centered around preventing others from doing things they are politically intolerant of. When's the last time you read a press release from greenpeace about a new technological development they made? If groups such as greenpeace were actually serious about the environment they would be all over themselves in doing everything they could in order to increase the use of nuclear energy.</p><p>The fact that the government feels it had to keep this story below the radar in the first place shows how much damage these groups have done to nuclear power. It's time for greenpeace to stand up, do the right thing, and make amends for decades of harm to the environment they have caused. They are no better than some of the old factories that dumped chemicals into rivers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything we should increase the amount of energy created by using nuclear fuel in this country .
Every form of 'green ' power has some kind of drawback that makes it less than ideal , hyrdo affects fish , solar requires nasty chemicals , geothermal is accused of causing earthquakes , wind power kills birds and so on .
Point being if we 're going to have widespread energy production it needs to be done on a feasible basis that responds to economy of scale .
I 'd love to have solar panels for my house ( and will probably have them within a couple years ) , but that does n't mean where I live is a good location for building solar power plants.The biggest obstacle keeping us from using the greenest energy source we have is the pushback from groups like greenpeace .
Ever notice that greenpeace never actually does research or other work to make the world a greener place ?
The research they do is politically motivated and centered around preventing others from doing things they are politically intolerant of .
When 's the last time you read a press release from greenpeace about a new technological development they made ?
If groups such as greenpeace were actually serious about the environment they would be all over themselves in doing everything they could in order to increase the use of nuclear energy.The fact that the government feels it had to keep this story below the radar in the first place shows how much damage these groups have done to nuclear power .
It 's time for greenpeace to stand up , do the right thing , and make amends for decades of harm to the environment they have caused .
They are no better than some of the old factories that dumped chemicals into rivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anything we should increase the amount of energy created by using nuclear fuel in this country.
Every form of 'green' power has some kind of drawback that makes it less than ideal, hyrdo affects fish, solar requires nasty chemicals, geothermal is accused of causing earthquakes, wind power kills birds and so on.
Point being if we're going to have widespread energy production it needs to be done on a feasible basis that responds to economy of scale.
I'd love to have solar panels for my house (and will probably have them within a couple years), but that doesn't mean where I live is a good location for building solar power plants.The biggest obstacle keeping us from using the greenest energy source we have is the pushback from groups like greenpeace.
Ever notice that greenpeace never actually does research or other work to make the world a greener place?
The research they do is politically motivated and centered around preventing others from doing things they are politically intolerant of.
When's the last time you read a press release from greenpeace about a new technological development they made?
If groups such as greenpeace were actually serious about the environment they would be all over themselves in doing everything they could in order to increase the use of nuclear energy.The fact that the government feels it had to keep this story below the radar in the first place shows how much damage these groups have done to nuclear power.
It's time for greenpeace to stand up, do the right thing, and make amends for decades of harm to the environment they have caused.
They are no better than some of the old factories that dumped chemicals into rivers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047434</id>
	<title>Next fuel source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tougher job is to figure out how to make a fuel source out of the next thing poised to destroy the U.S.</p><p>Maybe burn the paper health care bill is written on? Or do we go to the source and put all of congress in hamster wheels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tougher job is to figure out how to make a fuel source out of the next thing poised to destroy the U.S.Maybe burn the paper health care bill is written on ?
Or do we go to the source and put all of congress in hamster wheels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tougher job is to figure out how to make a fuel source out of the next thing poised to destroy the U.S.Maybe burn the paper health care bill is written on?
Or do we go to the source and put all of congress in hamster wheels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047392</id>
	<title>Quick, Another Cold War . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>before we run out of uranium!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>before we run out of uranium !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before we run out of uranium!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048610</id>
	<title>I don't believe it</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1257879600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The New York Times reports that about 10 percent of electricity generated in the United States comes from fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs, mostly Russian.</p></div><p>Wow, that Bono really has a global impact!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The New York Times reports that about 10 percent of electricity generated in the United States comes from fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs , mostly Russian.Wow , that Bono really has a global impact !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The New York Times reports that about 10 percent of electricity generated in the United States comes from fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs, mostly Russian.Wow, that Bono really has a global impact!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048142</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste of launch vehicles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With an upper stage added, space launch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With an upper stage added , space launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With an upper stage added, space launch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048156</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1257878160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You got your path all wrong. The path is Uranium -&gt; Nuclear Fuel -&gt; Nukes. Going from A to C then back to B is not cost effective. See how much easier it is when you get things right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You got your path all wrong .
The path is Uranium - &gt; Nuclear Fuel - &gt; Nukes .
Going from A to C then back to B is not cost effective .
See how much easier it is when you get things right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got your path all wrong.
The path is Uranium -&gt; Nuclear Fuel -&gt; Nukes.
Going from A to C then back to B is not cost effective.
See how much easier it is when you get things right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048908</id>
	<title>Solar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257880800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As US-born unemployed engineer whose job has been displaced by an H1-B visa holder, I'm installing and wiring solar panels in the meantime; hopefully it's helping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As US-born unemployed engineer whose job has been displaced by an H1-B visa holder , I 'm installing and wiring solar panels in the meantime ; hopefully it 's helping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As US-born unemployed engineer whose job has been displaced by an H1-B visa holder, I'm installing and wiring solar panels in the meantime; hopefully it's helping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30054424</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste...</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257863040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And think of the children they could have annihilated!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And think of the children they could have annihilated !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And think of the children they could have annihilated!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048546</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta wonder</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1257879420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Reprocessing can last us for a time but it requires more infrastructure and time to put in place."</p><p>The various estimates I've seen indicate that Reprocessing can last us a *very long* time (hundreds of years, possibly thousands of years). In the meantime, we should be working on solar (both terrestrial and space), wind, etc, and Fusion. Once we can make the leap to fusion, we don't really need any more Uranium (or only relatively small quantities) - fusion just needs water, and most countries on Earth have access to large supplies of water (of course, there are some land-locked semi-arid nations without access to much water, but you don't even really need *much* water for fusion, just some). The water doesn't even need to be fresh water, I believe - places like Israel, Palestine, Southern California, where fresh water is in short supply, still have access to lots of salt water from the Mediterranean (or other Seas/Oceans, for other countries in similar situations).</p><p>Heck, once we've unlocked fusion, you could potentially create Fusion-powered desalination plants that could solve the fresh water crises in lots of places like that - instead of using the energy to create electricity, use it to desalinate ocean water; or maybe do both simultaneously (could you create an efficient electric plant, I wonder, which uses the heat energy to boil off water from salt water, generating fresh steam, run the fresh steam through your electric turbines, condense the steam into fresh water, and pump that fresh water out of the electric plant into a water treatment plant for clorination, softening, etc)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Reprocessing can last us for a time but it requires more infrastructure and time to put in place .
" The various estimates I 've seen indicate that Reprocessing can last us a * very long * time ( hundreds of years , possibly thousands of years ) .
In the meantime , we should be working on solar ( both terrestrial and space ) , wind , etc , and Fusion .
Once we can make the leap to fusion , we do n't really need any more Uranium ( or only relatively small quantities ) - fusion just needs water , and most countries on Earth have access to large supplies of water ( of course , there are some land-locked semi-arid nations without access to much water , but you do n't even really need * much * water for fusion , just some ) .
The water does n't even need to be fresh water , I believe - places like Israel , Palestine , Southern California , where fresh water is in short supply , still have access to lots of salt water from the Mediterranean ( or other Seas/Oceans , for other countries in similar situations ) .Heck , once we 've unlocked fusion , you could potentially create Fusion-powered desalination plants that could solve the fresh water crises in lots of places like that - instead of using the energy to create electricity , use it to desalinate ocean water ; or maybe do both simultaneously ( could you create an efficient electric plant , I wonder , which uses the heat energy to boil off water from salt water , generating fresh steam , run the fresh steam through your electric turbines , condense the steam into fresh water , and pump that fresh water out of the electric plant into a water treatment plant for clorination , softening , etc ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Reprocessing can last us for a time but it requires more infrastructure and time to put in place.
"The various estimates I've seen indicate that Reprocessing can last us a *very long* time (hundreds of years, possibly thousands of years).
In the meantime, we should be working on solar (both terrestrial and space), wind, etc, and Fusion.
Once we can make the leap to fusion, we don't really need any more Uranium (or only relatively small quantities) - fusion just needs water, and most countries on Earth have access to large supplies of water (of course, there are some land-locked semi-arid nations without access to much water, but you don't even really need *much* water for fusion, just some).
The water doesn't even need to be fresh water, I believe - places like Israel, Palestine, Southern California, where fresh water is in short supply, still have access to lots of salt water from the Mediterranean (or other Seas/Oceans, for other countries in similar situations).Heck, once we've unlocked fusion, you could potentially create Fusion-powered desalination plants that could solve the fresh water crises in lots of places like that - instead of using the energy to create electricity, use it to desalinate ocean water; or maybe do both simultaneously (could you create an efficient electric plant, I wonder, which uses the heat energy to boil off water from salt water, generating fresh steam, run the fresh steam through your electric turbines, condense the steam into fresh water, and pump that fresh water out of the electric plant into a water treatment plant for clorination, softening, etc)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048596</id>
	<title>Re:Unlimited Power</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1257879540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you count the cost of the original coke can when the aluminum is recycled and resold and then made into a new coke can in an infinite loop until you say we shouldn't recycle because now that coke can costs $20,000 or do you simply count the cost of the aluminum the recyclers sells you versus the cost the freshly mined/processed aluminum?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you count the cost of the original coke can when the aluminum is recycled and resold and then made into a new coke can in an infinite loop until you say we should n't recycle because now that coke can costs $ 20,000 or do you simply count the cost of the aluminum the recyclers sells you versus the cost the freshly mined/processed aluminum ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you count the cost of the original coke can when the aluminum is recycled and resold and then made into a new coke can in an infinite loop until you say we shouldn't recycle because now that coke can costs $20,000 or do you simply count the cost of the aluminum the recyclers sells you versus the cost the freshly mined/processed aluminum?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049768</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason Why U.S. Cars Don't Burn Natural Gas</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1257884040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason US cars don't burn plutonium is the green lobby.</p><p>Actually when you read about nuclear propulsion it could have powered some truly awesome things e.g.</p><p><a href="http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html" title="merkle.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html</a> [merkle.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>What they came up with was SLAM, for Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile. SLAM was to use a revolutionary new type of propulsion: nuclear ramjet power. The project to build the weapon's nuclear reactor was given the code name "Pluto," which also came to refer to the weapon itself.</p><p>Pluto's namesake was Roman mythology's ruler of the underworld -- seemingly an apt inspiration for a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead. Pluto's designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground. Then there was the problem of fallout. In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto's nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by. (One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset: he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs.)</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason US cars do n't burn plutonium is the green lobby.Actually when you read about nuclear propulsion it could have powered some truly awesome things e.g.http : //www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html [ merkle.com ] What they came up with was SLAM , for Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile .
SLAM was to use a revolutionary new type of propulsion : nuclear ramjet power .
The project to build the weapon 's nuclear reactor was given the code name " Pluto , " which also came to refer to the weapon itself.Pluto 's namesake was Roman mythology 's ruler of the underworld -- seemingly an apt inspiration for a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound , tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead .
Pluto 's designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground .
Then there was the problem of fallout .
In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor , Pluto 's nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by .
( One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset : he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason US cars don't burn plutonium is the green lobby.Actually when you read about nuclear propulsion it could have powered some truly awesome things e.g.http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html [merkle.com] What they came up with was SLAM, for Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile.
SLAM was to use a revolutionary new type of propulsion: nuclear ramjet power.
The project to build the weapon's nuclear reactor was given the code name "Pluto," which also came to refer to the weapon itself.Pluto's namesake was Roman mythology's ruler of the underworld -- seemingly an apt inspiration for a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead.
Pluto's designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground.
Then there was the problem of fallout.
In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto's nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by.
(One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset: he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048684</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1257879900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In soviet russia, dismantled nuke moves zig?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In soviet russia , dismantled nuke moves zig ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In soviet russia, dismantled nuke moves zig?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049996</id>
	<title>Does this make Iran credible...</title>
	<author>droopycom</author>
	<datestamp>1257884820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... when they say all this nuke stuff are just for electricity ?</p><p>"Sure, we get nukes from North Korea, but come on, they are so bad they are only good for generating electricity, just like the Americans do with the Soviet nukes!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... when they say all this nuke stuff are just for electricity ?
" Sure , we get nukes from North Korea , but come on , they are so bad they are only good for generating electricity , just like the Americans do with the Soviet nukes !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... when they say all this nuke stuff are just for electricity ?
"Sure, we get nukes from North Korea, but come on, they are so bad they are only good for generating electricity, just like the Americans do with the Soviet nukes!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047914</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just a very roundabout way of nuking the States, I think.</p><p>1) In America, you receive nuclear material from missiles from Russia<br>2) Cause meltdown with nuclear material<br>3) In Soviet Russia, America returns nuclear material from missiles to YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a very roundabout way of nuking the States , I think.1 ) In America , you receive nuclear material from missiles from Russia2 ) Cause meltdown with nuclear material3 ) In Soviet Russia , America returns nuclear material from missiles to YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a very roundabout way of nuking the States, I think.1) In America, you receive nuclear material from missiles from Russia2) Cause meltdown with nuclear material3) In Soviet Russia, America returns nuclear material from missiles to YOU!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30055066</id>
	<title>Re:We are running out of 'x'</title>
	<author>klingens</author>
	<datestamp>1257866340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't. However: building new Uranium mines and enrichment facilities takes many years and lots and lots of money. In the early 90s when all that uranium from the USSR (and NATO) became available for civilian uses, the price of uranium dropped sharply. Mining companies could not justify investing in new mines cause it simply wouldn't turn a profit.<br>Now that this "uranium peace dividend" is running out, there are not enough mines anymore to cover the uranium needs of all the nuclear power plants. The situation is made worse by the planned switch to nuclear power to meet CO2 emission targets all over the world. We definitely don't have the capacity to cover all of those with current and planned mines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't .
However : building new Uranium mines and enrichment facilities takes many years and lots and lots of money .
In the early 90s when all that uranium from the USSR ( and NATO ) became available for civilian uses , the price of uranium dropped sharply .
Mining companies could not justify investing in new mines cause it simply would n't turn a profit.Now that this " uranium peace dividend " is running out , there are not enough mines anymore to cover the uranium needs of all the nuclear power plants .
The situation is made worse by the planned switch to nuclear power to meet CO2 emission targets all over the world .
We definitely do n't have the capacity to cover all of those with current and planned mines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't.
However: building new Uranium mines and enrichment facilities takes many years and lots and lots of money.
In the early 90s when all that uranium from the USSR (and NATO) became available for civilian uses, the price of uranium dropped sharply.
Mining companies could not justify investing in new mines cause it simply wouldn't turn a profit.Now that this "uranium peace dividend" is running out, there are not enough mines anymore to cover the uranium needs of all the nuclear power plants.
The situation is made worse by the planned switch to nuclear power to meet CO2 emission targets all over the world.
We definitely don't have the capacity to cover all of those with current and planned mines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048496</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste of launch vehicles</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1257879300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The real waste is the dismantling of the launch vehicles (from both countries).</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnepr-1&amp;oldid=316871548" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dnepr\_rocket</a> [wikipedia.org] reuses SS-18 Satan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real waste is the dismantling of the launch vehicles ( from both countries ) .
Dnepr \ _rocket [ wikipedia.org ] reuses SS-18 Satan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real waste is the dismantling of the launch vehicles (from both countries).
Dnepr\_rocket [wikipedia.org] reuses SS-18 Satan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30064066</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>complete combustion goes like this: CxHyOz + n O2 = x CO2 + y/2 H2O</p><p>i'm sorry, but "biofuels" obey freshman chemistry and produce CO2 when burned</p><p>i have to admit that I'm shocked to see that burning wood is considered as a renewable source of energy<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable\_energy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>complete combustion goes like this : CxHyOz + n O2 = x CO2 + y/2 H2Oi 'm sorry , but " biofuels " obey freshman chemistry and produce CO2 when burnedi have to admit that I 'm shocked to see that burning wood is considered as a renewable source of energyhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable \ _energy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>complete combustion goes like this: CxHyOz + n O2 = x CO2 + y/2 H2Oi'm sorry, but "biofuels" obey freshman chemistry and produce CO2 when burnedi have to admit that I'm shocked to see that burning wood is considered as a renewable source of energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable\_energy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30051244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344</id>
	<title>So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the solution to the energy problems we face, is to stockpile more nukes so we can use them for fuel when they get past their "best used by" date?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the solution to the energy problems we face , is to stockpile more nukes so we can use them for fuel when they get past their " best used by " date ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the solution to the energy problems we face, is to stockpile more nukes so we can use them for fuel when they get past their "best used by" date?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047606</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. In the path uranium -&gt; nukes -&gt; nuclear fuel, it is cheaper to go directly from A to C. This is talking about going from B to C only because people already went overbroad going from A to B as a solution to "security" problems. You can't justify going from A to B from an energy standpoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
In the path uranium - &gt; nukes - &gt; nuclear fuel , it is cheaper to go directly from A to C. This is talking about going from B to C only because people already went overbroad going from A to B as a solution to " security " problems .
You ca n't justify going from A to B from an energy standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
In the path uranium -&gt; nukes -&gt; nuclear fuel, it is cheaper to go directly from A to C. This is talking about going from B to C only because people already went overbroad going from A to B as a solution to "security" problems.
You can't justify going from A to B from an energy standpoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049438</id>
	<title>Re:There would BE no supply problem...</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1257882780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can burn up the long-lived actinides resulting in waste that's 'hot' for 100's of years instead of 100's of thousands, not to mention reduce the volume of waste by a factor of almost 100. See <a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html" title="nationalcenter.org">this paper</a> [nationalcenter.org] for some really good information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can burn up the long-lived actinides resulting in waste that 's 'hot ' for 100 's of years instead of 100 's of thousands , not to mention reduce the volume of waste by a factor of almost 100 .
See this paper [ nationalcenter.org ] for some really good information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can burn up the long-lived actinides resulting in waste that's 'hot' for 100's of years instead of 100's of thousands, not to mention reduce the volume of waste by a factor of almost 100.
See this paper [nationalcenter.org] for some really good information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050092</id>
	<title>Re:I feel I must apologies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257885120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modded "Interesting"?  Did you all miss the dripping sarcasm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modded " Interesting " ?
Did you all miss the dripping sarcasm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modded "Interesting"?
Did you all miss the dripping sarcasm?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047506</id>
	<title>It's about money, as usual</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1257876060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The United States Enrichment Corporation, a private company spun off from the Department of Energy in the 1990s, is the treaty-designated agent on the Russian imports. It, in turn, sells the fuel to utilities at prevailing market prices, an arrangement that at times has angered the Russians.</p></div></blockquote><p>So the most likely thing to happen will be that instead of a bunch of US government-connected fatcats reaping a windfall, some Russian government-connected fatcats will reap a windfall (or at least the balance shifts their way), but the fuel keeps flowing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The United States Enrichment Corporation , a private company spun off from the Department of Energy in the 1990s , is the treaty-designated agent on the Russian imports .
It , in turn , sells the fuel to utilities at prevailing market prices , an arrangement that at times has angered the Russians.So the most likely thing to happen will be that instead of a bunch of US government-connected fatcats reaping a windfall , some Russian government-connected fatcats will reap a windfall ( or at least the balance shifts their way ) , but the fuel keeps flowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United States Enrichment Corporation, a private company spun off from the Department of Energy in the 1990s, is the treaty-designated agent on the Russian imports.
It, in turn, sells the fuel to utilities at prevailing market prices, an arrangement that at times has angered the Russians.So the most likely thing to happen will be that instead of a bunch of US government-connected fatcats reaping a windfall, some Russian government-connected fatcats will reap a windfall (or at least the balance shifts their way), but the fuel keeps flowing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048534</id>
	<title>We are running out of 'x'</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1257879360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are there so many articles about how we are running out of something? Are old soviet nukes the only method of supplying power now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are there so many articles about how we are running out of something ?
Are old soviet nukes the only method of supplying power now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are there so many articles about how we are running out of something?
Are old soviet nukes the only method of supplying power now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732</id>
	<title>What a waste of launch vehicles</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1257876840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real waste is the dismantling of the launch vehicles (from both countries). We all spent billions developing reliable launch technologies and it breaks my heart to see them crushing perfectly good missiles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real waste is the dismantling of the launch vehicles ( from both countries ) .
We all spent billions developing reliable launch technologies and it breaks my heart to see them crushing perfectly good missiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real waste is the dismantling of the launch vehicles (from both countries).
We all spent billions developing reliable launch technologies and it breaks my heart to see them crushing perfectly good missiles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047778</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1257877020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bingo.  "mostly Russian" is bullshit.<blockquote><div><p>But <b>at times</b>, recycled Soviet bomb cores <b>have</b> made up the majority of the American market for low-enriched uranium fuel. <b>Today</b>, former bomb material from Russia accounts for 45 percent of the fuel in American nuclear reactors</p></div></blockquote><p>I guess it's easier to get past the Slashduh "editors" if you inject a suitable dose of hyperbole.  It's not like they're going to check, is it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo .
" mostly Russian " is bullshit.But at times , recycled Soviet bomb cores have made up the majority of the American market for low-enriched uranium fuel .
Today , former bomb material from Russia accounts for 45 percent of the fuel in American nuclear reactorsI guess it 's easier to get past the Slashduh " editors " if you inject a suitable dose of hyperbole .
It 's not like they 're going to check , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.
"mostly Russian" is bullshit.But at times, recycled Soviet bomb cores have made up the majority of the American market for low-enriched uranium fuel.
Today, former bomb material from Russia accounts for 45 percent of the fuel in American nuclear reactorsI guess it's easier to get past the Slashduh "editors" if you inject a suitable dose of hyperbole.
It's not like they're going to check, is it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30052042</id>
	<title>Real Numbers</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1257850020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are about 30,000 deployable nuclear warheads (strategic and tactical) on this planet. 45\% of them are "in storage", mostly referring to those dismantled enough to satisfy SALT definitions but able to be rebuilt in short order should it be necessary. If the 14,000 in storage were dismantled and turned to fuel there would be no shortage. The number of warheads dismantled since 1980, whether turned to fuel or any other use, is 10,000. The "lack of funds for dismantling" is a fiction narrative that pops up regularly, probably in attempt to boost the price of the liberated fuel and/or the price of energy generated from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are about 30,000 deployable nuclear warheads ( strategic and tactical ) on this planet .
45 \ % of them are " in storage " , mostly referring to those dismantled enough to satisfy SALT definitions but able to be rebuilt in short order should it be necessary .
If the 14,000 in storage were dismantled and turned to fuel there would be no shortage .
The number of warheads dismantled since 1980 , whether turned to fuel or any other use , is 10,000 .
The " lack of funds for dismantling " is a fiction narrative that pops up regularly , probably in attempt to boost the price of the liberated fuel and/or the price of energy generated from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are about 30,000 deployable nuclear warheads (strategic and tactical) on this planet.
45\% of them are "in storage", mostly referring to those dismantled enough to satisfy SALT definitions but able to be rebuilt in short order should it be necessary.
If the 14,000 in storage were dismantled and turned to fuel there would be no shortage.
The number of warheads dismantled since 1980, whether turned to fuel or any other use, is 10,000.
The "lack of funds for dismantling" is a fiction narrative that pops up regularly, probably in attempt to boost the price of the liberated fuel and/or the price of energy generated from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30053156</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1257855180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, you should buy the stuff in yellow cake form from us in Australia, up in the beautiful tropical North.  You can also use this as an IQ and literacy test for your outsourced mining company.  For example, determining whether they can follow written safety procedures can be tested by confronting them with one of our many attractive "Danger - Crocodile Infested Waters - Do Not Swim" warning signs, handing them a towel and a pair of bathers and seeing if they can handle the conflict.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you should buy the stuff in yellow cake form from us in Australia , up in the beautiful tropical North .
You can also use this as an IQ and literacy test for your outsourced mining company .
For example , determining whether they can follow written safety procedures can be tested by confronting them with one of our many attractive " Danger - Crocodile Infested Waters - Do Not Swim " warning signs , handing them a towel and a pair of bathers and seeing if they can handle the conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you should buy the stuff in yellow cake form from us in Australia, up in the beautiful tropical North.
You can also use this as an IQ and literacy test for your outsourced mining company.
For example, determining whether they can follow written safety procedures can be tested by confronting them with one of our many attractive "Danger - Crocodile Infested Waters - Do Not Swim" warning signs, handing them a towel and a pair of bathers and seeing if they can handle the conflict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047894</id>
	<title>Unlimited Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So much for the argument that nukes are better than oil because the fuel is less limited.</p><p>And how cheap is this ex-Soviet fuel, while it lasts? Shouldn't we count the cost to get them, which includes $TRILLIONS on the Cold War?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for the argument that nukes are better than oil because the fuel is less limited.And how cheap is this ex-Soviet fuel , while it lasts ?
Should n't we count the cost to get them , which includes $ TRILLIONS on the Cold War ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for the argument that nukes are better than oil because the fuel is less limited.And how cheap is this ex-Soviet fuel, while it lasts?
Shouldn't we count the cost to get them, which includes $TRILLIONS on the Cold War?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047548</id>
	<title>Re:So... the solution is more nukes?</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1257876240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, some people have tried to freeze them, but with mixed results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , some people have tried to freeze them , but with mixed results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, some people have tried to freeze them, but with mixed results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30053156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30060632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30053696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30052928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30055066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30054424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30067142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30064066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30051244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30052028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30063668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30053696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30072286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1620244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30055066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30072286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30052028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30052928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30053156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048156
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30049014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30051244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30064066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30067142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30054424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30053696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30060632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30063668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30050766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30048766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1620244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1620244.30047392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
