<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_22_221230</id>
	<title>Nuclear Reactors As Art</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261489320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Hemos recommends the coverage over at Wired of a project to <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/reactors-gallery/all/1">digitize nuclear reactor art</a>. <i>"Not all nuclear reactors are built alike. Power plant designs can vary in their fuels, coolants, and configurations, a fact beautifully illustrated by a series of reactor wall charts originally published in issues of <em>Nuclear Engineering International</em> during the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, the charts have been lovingly collected by Ronald Knief, a nuclear engineer at Sandia National Laboratory. Recently, he completed his collection... and began to digitize the drawings. The first eight out of more than 100 have now been permanently archived online... 'This is not a CAD/CAM-type thing,' Knief said. 'This really is art.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hemos recommends the coverage over at Wired of a project to digitize nuclear reactor art .
" Not all nuclear reactors are built alike .
Power plant designs can vary in their fuels , coolants , and configurations , a fact beautifully illustrated by a series of reactor wall charts originally published in issues of Nuclear Engineering International during the 1970s and 1980s .
Since then , the charts have been lovingly collected by Ronald Knief , a nuclear engineer at Sandia National Laboratory .
Recently , he completed his collection... and began to digitize the drawings .
The first eight out of more than 100 have now been permanently archived online... 'This is not a CAD/CAM-type thing, ' Knief said .
'This really is art .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hemos recommends the coverage over at Wired of a project to digitize nuclear reactor art.
"Not all nuclear reactors are built alike.
Power plant designs can vary in their fuels, coolants, and configurations, a fact beautifully illustrated by a series of reactor wall charts originally published in issues of Nuclear Engineering International during the 1970s and 1980s.
Since then, the charts have been lovingly collected by Ronald Knief, a nuclear engineer at Sandia National Laboratory.
Recently, he completed his collection... and began to digitize the drawings.
The first eight out of more than 100 have now been permanently archived online... 'This is not a CAD/CAM-type thing,' Knief said.
'This really is art.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532212</id>
	<title>Boiling-Water Reactors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261498560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA: "Boiling-water reactors are a common form of American reactor."</p><p>The hell?  As a more dangerous form of reactor, I'm pretty sure they're uncommon in America.  I believe having two closed loops of high-pressure water that never boils is the norm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " Boiling-water reactors are a common form of American reactor .
" The hell ?
As a more dangerous form of reactor , I 'm pretty sure they 're uncommon in America .
I believe having two closed loops of high-pressure water that never boils is the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: "Boiling-water reactors are a common form of American reactor.
"The hell?
As a more dangerous form of reactor, I'm pretty sure they're uncommon in America.
I believe having two closed loops of high-pressure water that never boils is the norm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532952</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>TiberSeptm</author>
	<datestamp>1261508400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb. You can use a breeder reactor to create fissionable material, but breeder reactors are also useful because they can take many different kinds of fuel and produce power from it, whereas conventional reactors can only use fissile uranium and it degrades to useless and highly toxic byproducts relatively quickly.</p></div><p>*blinks* Oh how you would have failed my fuel cycles class.  Plutonium is present in spent fuel from even non-breeder reactors.  Though it only represents 1\% or so of the spent fuel, there are some potential advantages to using plutonium from spent fuel over highly enriched uranium.  Plutonium can be extracted chemically from spent fuel while U235 can not be separated from U238 without enrichment facilities.  The process of chemically removing the plutonium requires much less infustructure than enrichment of uranium.  That being said, the byproducts are much more of a nuisance.  Still, if a country wanted to claim to be using nuclear technology for power while steadily stockpiling weapons grade material, a power reactor and PUREX-like (Plutonium - URanium EXtraction ) reprocessing system would be one way to do it.  That is why there have always been such large concerns over PUREX reprocessing.</p><p>One type of power reactor could be of particular interest to countries wishing to produce weapons grade material without performan ANY enrichment.  Those are natural-uranium reactors which burn un-enriched uranium as their fuel.  They require moderation by heavy water though, which tends to offset some of the cost benefits of not requiring enriched material.  Still, being able to use only mechanical and chemical processing of uranium ore and leaving out the whole enrichment step does have its advantage.  That is probably why India produced its plutonium through chemically reprocessed spent-fuel from a natural uranium reactor (CIRUS).  That's also probably why <b>Iran built a heavy water plant near Arak and is currently building a 40MW light-water moderated reactor as well</b>.  This is not a power reactor of course but is not particularly special.  The reason a reactor like this would be used instead of a larger scale power reactor is because it is much cheaper if you leave off all those multi-million dollar power side components like tubrines and don't have to scale the system up to something that can light a city.  To argue that "conventional" reactors can not be used to produce weapons grade fuel is incorrect.  While most reactors used to do so are not power reactors, they are also not particularly unconventional in any way that makes them more difficult to build.  In fact, they can be built much more cheaply than a power reactor and with a much smaller footprint.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device.</p></div><p>This part is true enough for some of the more efficient bomb designs like those that evolved from "Fat Man." While one can use a technically simple gun-type bomb with highly-enriched uranium, this is not practical for a plutonium bomb.  If a country wants to use plutonium from spent fuel then they must decide between a more technically challenging design with higher efficiency or a simple but low efficiency device like a two-point linear implosion bomb.  The latter is not particularly appealing for a large scale and long term weapons program due to the relatively low yield, but has been considered a potential "suite-case nuke" design since it can be built to an extremely small diameter  That definately doesn't sound like a design someone worried about terrorism would be concerned with, right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>India has the raw resources, but it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future.</p></div><p>
I think the main reason they are unlikely to develop a nuclear weapons program in the near future is that they had already conducted one test in 1974 and 5 more in 1998.  They already have a nuclear weapons program, the nuclear infrastructure to produce the refined materials for them, and have built and tested nuclear weapons.  They have, however, declared a moratorium on further testing.  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Iran and most of the middle-east, for all its bravado and sabre-rattling lacks the infrastructure to make a serious attempt at nuclear weapons research.</p></div><p>  A large scale heavy water plant and a 40MW research reactor sound like the infrastructure required to make a serious attempt.  India was able to produce its initial plutonium stockpiles and conduct its 1974 "Smiling Buddha" nuclear test using the material output from its... 40MW research reactor and heavy water production facilities.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* blinks * You ca n't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you 'll get is a dirty bomb .
You can use a breeder reactor to create fissionable material , but breeder reactors are also useful because they can take many different kinds of fuel and produce power from it , whereas conventional reactors can only use fissile uranium and it degrades to useless and highly toxic byproducts relatively quickly .
* blinks * Oh how you would have failed my fuel cycles class .
Plutonium is present in spent fuel from even non-breeder reactors .
Though it only represents 1 \ % or so of the spent fuel , there are some potential advantages to using plutonium from spent fuel over highly enriched uranium .
Plutonium can be extracted chemically from spent fuel while U235 can not be separated from U238 without enrichment facilities .
The process of chemically removing the plutonium requires much less infustructure than enrichment of uranium .
That being said , the byproducts are much more of a nuisance .
Still , if a country wanted to claim to be using nuclear technology for power while steadily stockpiling weapons grade material , a power reactor and PUREX-like ( Plutonium - URanium EXtraction ) reprocessing system would be one way to do it .
That is why there have always been such large concerns over PUREX reprocessing.One type of power reactor could be of particular interest to countries wishing to produce weapons grade material without performan ANY enrichment .
Those are natural-uranium reactors which burn un-enriched uranium as their fuel .
They require moderation by heavy water though , which tends to offset some of the cost benefits of not requiring enriched material .
Still , being able to use only mechanical and chemical processing of uranium ore and leaving out the whole enrichment step does have its advantage .
That is probably why India produced its plutonium through chemically reprocessed spent-fuel from a natural uranium reactor ( CIRUS ) .
That 's also probably why Iran built a heavy water plant near Arak and is currently building a 40MW light-water moderated reactor as well .
This is not a power reactor of course but is not particularly special .
The reason a reactor like this would be used instead of a larger scale power reactor is because it is much cheaper if you leave off all those multi-million dollar power side components like tubrines and do n't have to scale the system up to something that can light a city .
To argue that " conventional " reactors can not be used to produce weapons grade fuel is incorrect .
While most reactors used to do so are not power reactors , they are also not particularly unconventional in any way that makes them more difficult to build .
In fact , they can be built much more cheaply than a power reactor and with a much smaller footprint.requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device.This part is true enough for some of the more efficient bomb designs like those that evolved from " Fat Man .
" While one can use a technically simple gun-type bomb with highly-enriched uranium , this is not practical for a plutonium bomb .
If a country wants to use plutonium from spent fuel then they must decide between a more technically challenging design with higher efficiency or a simple but low efficiency device like a two-point linear implosion bomb .
The latter is not particularly appealing for a large scale and long term weapons program due to the relatively low yield , but has been considered a potential " suite-case nuke " design since it can be built to an extremely small diameter That definately does n't sound like a design someone worried about terrorism would be concerned with , right ? India has the raw resources , but it 's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future .
I think the main reason they are unlikely to develop a nuclear weapons program in the near future is that they had already conducted one test in 1974 and 5 more in 1998 .
They already have a nuclear weapons program , the nuclear infrastructure to produce the refined materials for them , and have built and tested nuclear weapons .
They have , however , declared a moratorium on further testing .
Iran and most of the middle-east , for all its bravado and sabre-rattling lacks the infrastructure to make a serious attempt at nuclear weapons research .
A large scale heavy water plant and a 40MW research reactor sound like the infrastructure required to make a serious attempt .
India was able to produce its initial plutonium stockpiles and conduct its 1974 " Smiling Buddha " nuclear test using the material output from its... 40MW research reactor and heavy water production facilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb.
You can use a breeder reactor to create fissionable material, but breeder reactors are also useful because they can take many different kinds of fuel and produce power from it, whereas conventional reactors can only use fissile uranium and it degrades to useless and highly toxic byproducts relatively quickly.
*blinks* Oh how you would have failed my fuel cycles class.
Plutonium is present in spent fuel from even non-breeder reactors.
Though it only represents 1\% or so of the spent fuel, there are some potential advantages to using plutonium from spent fuel over highly enriched uranium.
Plutonium can be extracted chemically from spent fuel while U235 can not be separated from U238 without enrichment facilities.
The process of chemically removing the plutonium requires much less infustructure than enrichment of uranium.
That being said, the byproducts are much more of a nuisance.
Still, if a country wanted to claim to be using nuclear technology for power while steadily stockpiling weapons grade material, a power reactor and PUREX-like (Plutonium - URanium EXtraction ) reprocessing system would be one way to do it.
That is why there have always been such large concerns over PUREX reprocessing.One type of power reactor could be of particular interest to countries wishing to produce weapons grade material without performan ANY enrichment.
Those are natural-uranium reactors which burn un-enriched uranium as their fuel.
They require moderation by heavy water though, which tends to offset some of the cost benefits of not requiring enriched material.
Still, being able to use only mechanical and chemical processing of uranium ore and leaving out the whole enrichment step does have its advantage.
That is probably why India produced its plutonium through chemically reprocessed spent-fuel from a natural uranium reactor (CIRUS).
That's also probably why Iran built a heavy water plant near Arak and is currently building a 40MW light-water moderated reactor as well.
This is not a power reactor of course but is not particularly special.
The reason a reactor like this would be used instead of a larger scale power reactor is because it is much cheaper if you leave off all those multi-million dollar power side components like tubrines and don't have to scale the system up to something that can light a city.
To argue that "conventional" reactors can not be used to produce weapons grade fuel is incorrect.
While most reactors used to do so are not power reactors, they are also not particularly unconventional in any way that makes them more difficult to build.
In fact, they can be built much more cheaply than a power reactor and with a much smaller footprint.requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device.This part is true enough for some of the more efficient bomb designs like those that evolved from "Fat Man.
" While one can use a technically simple gun-type bomb with highly-enriched uranium, this is not practical for a plutonium bomb.
If a country wants to use plutonium from spent fuel then they must decide between a more technically challenging design with higher efficiency or a simple but low efficiency device like a two-point linear implosion bomb.
The latter is not particularly appealing for a large scale and long term weapons program due to the relatively low yield, but has been considered a potential "suite-case nuke" design since it can be built to an extremely small diameter  That definately doesn't sound like a design someone worried about terrorism would be concerned with, right?India has the raw resources, but it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future.
I think the main reason they are unlikely to develop a nuclear weapons program in the near future is that they had already conducted one test in 1974 and 5 more in 1998.
They already have a nuclear weapons program, the nuclear infrastructure to produce the refined materials for them, and have built and tested nuclear weapons.
They have, however, declared a moratorium on further testing.
Iran and most of the middle-east, for all its bravado and sabre-rattling lacks the infrastructure to make a serious attempt at nuclear weapons research.
A large scale heavy water plant and a 40MW research reactor sound like the infrastructure required to make a serious attempt.
India was able to produce its initial plutonium stockpiles and conduct its 1974 "Smiling Buddha" nuclear test using the material output from its... 40MW research reactor and heavy water production facilities.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534256</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1259761620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh no, he's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works. The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff. Hang him.</p></div><p>*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb. </p></div><p>Somebody missed the  tag.</p><p>As a side note, I remember those drawings well; they really were a work of art.  Technical illustration is a very under appreciated art form.  I had a friend who did that; he also was a scale model rocket builder par excellance.</p><p>Another art form was the scale models built for checking piping routing - miniature models of the entire plant.  We had one in the visitor's center.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , he 's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works .
The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff .
Hang him .
* blinks * You ca n't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you 'll get is a dirty bomb .
Somebody missed the tag.As a side note , I remember those drawings well ; they really were a work of art .
Technical illustration is a very under appreciated art form .
I had a friend who did that ; he also was a scale model rocket builder par excellance.Another art form was the scale models built for checking piping routing - miniature models of the entire plant .
We had one in the visitor 's center .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, he's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works.
The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff.
Hang him.
*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb.
Somebody missed the  tag.As a side note, I remember those drawings well; they really were a work of art.
Technical illustration is a very under appreciated art form.
I had a friend who did that; he also was a scale model rocket builder par excellance.Another art form was the scale models built for checking piping routing - miniature models of the entire plant.
We had one in the visitor's center.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533592</id>
	<title>Re:Links to all drawings</title>
	<author>Arvisp</author>
	<datestamp>1259747220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you can find full size (5017 x 3055) images on flickr <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bibliodyssey/4194965542/in/photostream/" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/bibliodyssey/4194965542/in/photostream/</a> [flickr.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can find full size ( 5017 x 3055 ) images on flickr http : //www.flickr.com/photos/bibliodyssey/4194965542/in/photostream/ [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can find full size (5017 x 3055) images on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bibliodyssey/4194965542/in/photostream/ [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533228</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1259784060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The math and engineering is well-understood and not technically challenging for a well-funded organization.</p><p>It requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device. Specifically, the critical function is how to model the compression shock wave in the fissile material that begins the chain reaction.</p></div><p>You're forgetting about "gun type" bombs, which are basically a sawn-off naval cannon, and are so trivial to build that the Americans didn't even bother testing the design before dropping it on Japan.</p><p>They were easy to build in the <i>forties</i>, and the only reason they aren't used now is because they're inefficient and too heavy for most launch vehicles.</p><p>A rogue state that just wants to build a "few" nukes could easily make these. As long as the intended use was terrorism, and not strategic ICBM warfare, then the weight is not an issue. Several analysts have pointed out that one could simply ship such a weapon to any major city in a standard shipping container, and it's unlikely to be detected, as the gamma radiation scanning devices installed in US ports are trivially defeated by several types of shielding, including the natural Uranium casing used for most gun type bombs!</p><p>Just about the only 'hard' part is the purification of Uranium, but even that's getting progressively easier as new techniques are discovered and related industries bring costs down by using the same underlying technologies at a large scale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The math and engineering is well-understood and not technically challenging for a well-funded organization.It requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device .
Specifically , the critical function is how to model the compression shock wave in the fissile material that begins the chain reaction.You 're forgetting about " gun type " bombs , which are basically a sawn-off naval cannon , and are so trivial to build that the Americans did n't even bother testing the design before dropping it on Japan.They were easy to build in the forties , and the only reason they are n't used now is because they 're inefficient and too heavy for most launch vehicles.A rogue state that just wants to build a " few " nukes could easily make these .
As long as the intended use was terrorism , and not strategic ICBM warfare , then the weight is not an issue .
Several analysts have pointed out that one could simply ship such a weapon to any major city in a standard shipping container , and it 's unlikely to be detected , as the gamma radiation scanning devices installed in US ports are trivially defeated by several types of shielding , including the natural Uranium casing used for most gun type bombs ! Just about the only 'hard ' part is the purification of Uranium , but even that 's getting progressively easier as new techniques are discovered and related industries bring costs down by using the same underlying technologies at a large scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The math and engineering is well-understood and not technically challenging for a well-funded organization.It requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device.
Specifically, the critical function is how to model the compression shock wave in the fissile material that begins the chain reaction.You're forgetting about "gun type" bombs, which are basically a sawn-off naval cannon, and are so trivial to build that the Americans didn't even bother testing the design before dropping it on Japan.They were easy to build in the forties, and the only reason they aren't used now is because they're inefficient and too heavy for most launch vehicles.A rogue state that just wants to build a "few" nukes could easily make these.
As long as the intended use was terrorism, and not strategic ICBM warfare, then the weight is not an issue.
Several analysts have pointed out that one could simply ship such a weapon to any major city in a standard shipping container, and it's unlikely to be detected, as the gamma radiation scanning devices installed in US ports are trivially defeated by several types of shielding, including the natural Uranium casing used for most gun type bombs!Just about the only 'hard' part is the purification of Uranium, but even that's getting progressively easier as new techniques are discovered and related industries bring costs down by using the same underlying technologies at a large scale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533028</id>
	<title>Fulton HTGR plant</title>
	<author>calidoscope</author>
	<datestamp>1261509360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Fulton plant shows two HTGR's. Alas HTGR construction ended with the Ft St Vrain plant in Colorado, so the Fulton plant was not built.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Fulton plant shows two HTGR 's .
Alas HTGR construction ended with the Ft St Vrain plant in Colorado , so the Fulton plant was not built .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Fulton plant shows two HTGR's.
Alas HTGR construction ended with the Ft St Vrain plant in Colorado, so the Fulton plant was not built.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533326</id>
	<title>Re:Links to all drawings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259785560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had to have these for my background rotation, in case anyone else wants them too here are the JPGs from those PDFs:<br> <br>

<a href="http://kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Scaled.zip" title="kuliukas.com">http://kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Scaled.zip</a> [kuliukas.com] - Scaled to a little larger than desktop size, 90\% quality (artifacts not noticeable) 6mb<br>
<a href="http://kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Full.zip" title="kuliukas.com">http://kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Full.zip</a> [kuliukas.com] - Full size 100\% quality 55mb (will take ~30 minutes)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to have these for my background rotation , in case anyone else wants them too here are the JPGs from those PDFs : http : //kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Scaled.zip [ kuliukas.com ] - Scaled to a little larger than desktop size , 90 \ % quality ( artifacts not noticeable ) 6mb http : //kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Full.zip [ kuliukas.com ] - Full size 100 \ % quality 55mb ( will take ~ 30 minutes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to have these for my background rotation, in case anyone else wants them too here are the JPGs from those PDFs: 

http://kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Scaled.zip [kuliukas.com] - Scaled to a little larger than desktop size, 90\% quality (artifacts not noticeable) 6mb
http://kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Full.zip [kuliukas.com] - Full size 100\% quality 55mb (will take ~30 minutes)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535284</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>jackbird</author>
	<datestamp>1259770020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, for an implosion bomb with a higher yield.  However, a gun-type fission bomb isn't the least bit complicated.  The US didn't even test the design for the Hiroshima bomb - The implosion bomb design (the type dropped on Nagasaki)was the one used for the Trinity test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , for an implosion bomb with a higher yield .
However , a gun-type fission bomb is n't the least bit complicated .
The US did n't even test the design for the Hiroshima bomb - The implosion bomb design ( the type dropped on Nagasaki ) was the one used for the Trinity test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, for an implosion bomb with a higher yield.
However, a gun-type fission bomb isn't the least bit complicated.
The US didn't even test the design for the Hiroshima bomb - The implosion bomb design (the type dropped on Nagasaki)was the one used for the Trinity test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534236</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259761380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb."</p><p>This has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIRUS" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">empirically been shown to be wrong</a> [wikipedia.org].  Canada and the U.S. were rather miffed, given that the original agreement specifically said India was not supposed to use that reactor for weapons research or development.  It was used by India generate the weapons-grade plutonium used in their first test in 1974, and in subsequent tests.</p><p>If you mean that you can't used a conventional <i>commercial power generation</i> reactor to produce weapons, you might be right because of the way that most of them are designed and the type of fuel and refueling cycle they use.  But I wouldn't discount the possibility, especially if the design and fuel load were tweaked so that it was suitable (allowing rapid fuel swapping is the main issue to get the right mix of plutonium isotopes in the result).  Furthermore, in the case of Iran, coincidentally they are building a heavy-water "research" reactor that could be employed in almost the same way as the infamous CIRUS reactor used by India.  If safeguards and inspections were not in place to make sure it wasn't used that way, they could follow practically the same route.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" * blinks * You ca n't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you 'll get is a dirty bomb .
" This has empirically been shown to be wrong [ wikipedia.org ] .
Canada and the U.S. were rather miffed , given that the original agreement specifically said India was not supposed to use that reactor for weapons research or development .
It was used by India generate the weapons-grade plutonium used in their first test in 1974 , and in subsequent tests.If you mean that you ca n't used a conventional commercial power generation reactor to produce weapons , you might be right because of the way that most of them are designed and the type of fuel and refueling cycle they use .
But I would n't discount the possibility , especially if the design and fuel load were tweaked so that it was suitable ( allowing rapid fuel swapping is the main issue to get the right mix of plutonium isotopes in the result ) .
Furthermore , in the case of Iran , coincidentally they are building a heavy-water " research " reactor that could be employed in almost the same way as the infamous CIRUS reactor used by India .
If safeguards and inspections were not in place to make sure it was n't used that way , they could follow practically the same route .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb.
"This has empirically been shown to be wrong [wikipedia.org].
Canada and the U.S. were rather miffed, given that the original agreement specifically said India was not supposed to use that reactor for weapons research or development.
It was used by India generate the weapons-grade plutonium used in their first test in 1974, and in subsequent tests.If you mean that you can't used a conventional commercial power generation reactor to produce weapons, you might be right because of the way that most of them are designed and the type of fuel and refueling cycle they use.
But I wouldn't discount the possibility, especially if the design and fuel load were tweaked so that it was suitable (allowing rapid fuel swapping is the main issue to get the right mix of plutonium isotopes in the result).
Furthermore, in the case of Iran, coincidentally they are building a heavy-water "research" reactor that could be employed in almost the same way as the infamous CIRUS reactor used by India.
If safeguards and inspections were not in place to make sure it wasn't used that way, they could follow practically the same route.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533826</id>
	<title>Trawsfynydd power station</title>
	<author>Bralkein</author>
	<datestamp>1259751840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me of a recent feature in The Guardian, which calls for the preservation of a nuclear power plant in Snowdonia, Wales since it was designed by the British modernist architect Sir Basil Spence. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/dec/21/snowdonia-nuclear-power-station-wales-architecture" title="guardian.co.uk">Linky</a> [guardian.co.uk].</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of a recent feature in The Guardian , which calls for the preservation of a nuclear power plant in Snowdonia , Wales since it was designed by the British modernist architect Sir Basil Spence .
Linky [ guardian.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of a recent feature in The Guardian, which calls for the preservation of a nuclear power plant in Snowdonia, Wales since it was designed by the British modernist architect Sir Basil Spence.
Linky [guardian.co.uk].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532042</id>
	<title>Links to all drawings</title>
	<author>condition-label-red</author>
	<datestamp>1261496100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=\%2Fnuceng/" title="unm.edu" rel="nofollow">http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=\%2Fnuceng/</a> [unm.edu]
<ul>
<li> <a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=1&amp;filename=1.pdf/" title="unm.edu" rel="nofollow">http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=1&amp;filename=1.pdf/</a> [unm.edu] </li><li> <a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=0&amp;filename=2.pdf/" title="unm.edu" rel="nofollow">http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=0&amp;filename=2.pdf/</a> [unm.edu] </li><li> <a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=6&amp;filename=3.pdf/" title="unm.edu" rel="nofollow">http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=6&amp;filename=3.pdf/</a> [unm.edu] </li><li> <a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=7&amp;filename=4.pdf/" title="unm.edu" rel="nofollow">http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=7&amp;filename=4.pdf/</a> [unm.edu] </li><li> <a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=3&amp;filename=5.pdf/" title="unm.edu" rel="nofollow">http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=3&amp;filename=5.pdf/</a> [unm.edu] </li><li> <a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=2&amp;filename=6.pdf/" title="unm.edu" rel="nofollow">http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=2&amp;filename=6.pdf/</a> [unm.edu] </li><li> <a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=4&amp;filename=7.pdf/" title="unm.edu" rel="nofollow">http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=4&amp;filename=7.pdf/</a> [unm.edu] </li><li> <a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=5&amp;filename=8.pdf/" title="unm.edu" rel="nofollow">http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=5&amp;filename=8.pdf/</a> [unm.edu] </li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //econtent.unm.edu/cdm4/browse.php ? CISOROOT = \ % 2Fnuceng/ [ unm.edu ] http : //econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe ? CISOROOT = /nuceng&amp;CISOPTR = 1&amp;filename = 1.pdf/ [ unm.edu ] http : //econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe ? CISOROOT = /nuceng&amp;CISOPTR = 0&amp;filename = 2.pdf/ [ unm.edu ] http : //econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe ? CISOROOT = /nuceng&amp;CISOPTR = 6&amp;filename = 3.pdf/ [ unm.edu ] http : //econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe ? CISOROOT = /nuceng&amp;CISOPTR = 7&amp;filename = 4.pdf/ [ unm.edu ] http : //econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe ? CISOROOT = /nuceng&amp;CISOPTR = 3&amp;filename = 5.pdf/ [ unm.edu ] http : //econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe ? CISOROOT = /nuceng&amp;CISOPTR = 2&amp;filename = 6.pdf/ [ unm.edu ] http : //econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe ? CISOROOT = /nuceng&amp;CISOPTR = 4&amp;filename = 7.pdf/ [ unm.edu ] http : //econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe ? CISOROOT = /nuceng&amp;CISOPTR = 5&amp;filename = 8.pdf/ [ unm.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=\%2Fnuceng/ [unm.edu]

 http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=1&amp;filename=1.pdf/ [unm.edu]  http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=0&amp;filename=2.pdf/ [unm.edu]  http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=6&amp;filename=3.pdf/ [unm.edu]  http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=7&amp;filename=4.pdf/ [unm.edu]  http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=3&amp;filename=5.pdf/ [unm.edu]  http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=2&amp;filename=6.pdf/ [unm.edu]  http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=4&amp;filename=7.pdf/ [unm.edu]  http://econtent.unm.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/nuceng&amp;CISOPTR=5&amp;filename=8.pdf/ [unm.edu] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532628</id>
	<title>Re:Guangdong plant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261503660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter what covers the turbines.  They're on the low-pressure, non-radioactive side of a heat exchanger.  Nothing really dangerous happens there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter what covers the turbines .
They 're on the low-pressure , non-radioactive side of a heat exchanger .
Nothing really dangerous happens there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter what covers the turbines.
They're on the low-pressure, non-radioactive side of a heat exchanger.
Nothing really dangerous happens there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531878</id>
	<title>Where is SNPP?</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261494000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is SNPP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is SNPP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is SNPP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904</id>
	<title>Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261494360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh no, he's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works. The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff. Hang him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , he 's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works .
The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff .
Hang him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, he's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works.
The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff.
Hang him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532654</id>
	<title>AREVA Ad</title>
	<author>catherder\_finleyd</author>
	<datestamp>1261504080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What might be another example of "Reactor Art", or at least "Nuclear Fuel Cycle" art, is the AREVA Funky Town ad:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgZsamFWyBI" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgZsamFWyBI</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>More broadly, Royskopp used this sort of "Engineering Diagram art" in their "Remind Me" video:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBvaHZIrt0o" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBvaHZIrt0o</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Both were done by the same company, <a href="http://www.h5.fr/" title="h5.fr">H5</a> [h5.fr]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What might be another example of " Reactor Art " , or at least " Nuclear Fuel Cycle " art , is the AREVA Funky Town ad : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = GgZsamFWyBI [ youtube.com ] More broadly , Royskopp used this sort of " Engineering Diagram art " in their " Remind Me " video : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = lBvaHZIrt0o [ youtube.com ] Both were done by the same company , H5 [ h5.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What might be another example of "Reactor Art", or at least "Nuclear Fuel Cycle" art, is the AREVA Funky Town ad:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgZsamFWyBI [youtube.com]More broadly, Royskopp used this sort of "Engineering Diagram art" in their "Remind Me" video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBvaHZIrt0o [youtube.com]Both were done by the same company, H5 [h5.fr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532766</id>
	<title>Re:The variability is bad</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1261505820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand you can get multiple copies of a poor design (Chernobyl), oh, wait, the Soviet Union does have multiple copies of a bad design...<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/interactive\_resources/tutorials/failurecases/hs2.html" title="plym.ac.uk">Details of poor design</a> [plym.ac.uk] <br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK" title="wikipedia.org">At least 12 operating in Russia and Lithuania</a> [wikipedia.org] at least they stopped using the design.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand you can get multiple copies of a poor design ( Chernobyl ) , oh , wait , the Soviet Union does have multiple copies of a bad design.. . Details of poor design [ plym.ac.uk ] At least 12 operating in Russia and Lithuania [ wikipedia.org ] at least they stopped using the design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand you can get multiple copies of a poor design (Chernobyl), oh, wait, the Soviet Union does have multiple copies of a bad design... 

Details of poor design [plym.ac.uk]  

At least 12 operating in Russia and Lithuania [wikipedia.org] at least they stopped using the design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532084</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261496520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great - what moron would post a complete guide for terrorists to use as a guide showing the innards of such critical systems?....  who cares about the "Artistic" value?  Surely this can't be the only reason why one would be stupid enough to post this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great - what moron would post a complete guide for terrorists to use as a guide showing the innards of such critical systems ? ... .
who cares about the " Artistic " value ?
Surely this ca n't be the only reason why one would be stupid enough to post this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great - what moron would post a complete guide for terrorists to use as a guide showing the innards of such critical systems?....
who cares about the "Artistic" value?
Surely this can't be the only reason why one would be stupid enough to post this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531956</id>
	<title>What about graphite modulated reactors?</title>
	<author>FlyingHuck</author>
	<datestamp>1261495260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if he has a diagram of our favorite graphite-modulated open-roof model reactor.

Oh wait... the open roof now has a concrete sarcophagus over it.  My bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if he has a diagram of our favorite graphite-modulated open-roof model reactor .
Oh wait... the open roof now has a concrete sarcophagus over it .
My bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if he has a diagram of our favorite graphite-modulated open-roof model reactor.
Oh wait... the open roof now has a concrete sarcophagus over it.
My bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30541530</id>
	<title>Who's next</title>
	<author>smee2</author>
	<datestamp>1259771640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time for a little Tom Lehrer - Who's Next.  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for a little Tom Lehrer - Who 's Next .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = oRLON3ddZIw [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for a little Tom Lehrer - Who's Next.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531810</id>
	<title>Nuclear Art</title>
	<author>solid\_liq</author>
	<datestamp>1261493220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Featuring racing electrons?
<br> <br>
btw, first post!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Featuring racing electrons ?
btw , first post !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Featuring racing electrons?
btw, first post!
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534686</id>
	<title>Re:Links to all drawings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259766120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>here is how they all look after fission completes:<br>http://cdn-write.demandstudios.com/upload//5000/100/50/4/15154.jpg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>here is how they all look after fission completes : http : //cdn-write.demandstudios.com/upload//5000/100/50/4/15154.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here is how they all look after fission completes:http://cdn-write.demandstudios.com/upload//5000/100/50/4/15154.jpg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532250</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261499160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that India has had nuclear weapons for many years already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that India has had nuclear weapons for many years already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that India has had nuclear weapons for many years already?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533030</id>
	<title>Re:I had Palisades, and I wondered...</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1261509360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And even then, I wondered... Why they don't make them essentially the same... like the Saturn V.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, they *are* essentially the same.  They differ greatly in details because the technology was evolving at a fairly good clip.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And even then , I wondered... Why they do n't make them essentially the same... like the Saturn V.Well , they * are * essentially the same .
They differ greatly in details because the technology was evolving at a fairly good clip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And even then, I wondered... Why they don't make them essentially the same... like the Saturn V.Well, they *are* essentially the same.
They differ greatly in details because the technology was evolving at a fairly good clip.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533268</id>
	<title>Um Physical OPSEC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259784480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this one of those things which, while not difficult to acquire with greased palms, might be best kept low-key? No, they're not blueprints. But the information certainly poses</p><p>Kinda along the lines of why the NSA doesn't have network diagrams of their internal networks made available - even if they're just illustrated with cute penguins, flying Windows, and hostnames.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this one of those things which , while not difficult to acquire with greased palms , might be best kept low-key ?
No , they 're not blueprints .
But the information certainly posesKinda along the lines of why the NSA does n't have network diagrams of their internal networks made available - even if they 're just illustrated with cute penguins , flying Windows , and hostnames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this one of those things which, while not difficult to acquire with greased palms, might be best kept low-key?
No, they're not blueprints.
But the information certainly posesKinda along the lines of why the NSA doesn't have network diagrams of their internal networks made available - even if they're just illustrated with cute penguins, flying Windows, and hostnames.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532330</id>
	<title>Let the dice roll!</title>
	<author>Haxamanish</author>
	<datestamp>1261500060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I just found what will be (part of) the setting of my next tabletop RP campaign.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I just found what will be ( part of ) the setting of my next tabletop RP campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I just found what will be (part of) the setting of my next tabletop RP campaign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533730</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Tolaris</author>
	<datestamp>1259749500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>India already has nuclear weapons.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>India already has nuclear weapons.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India \ _and \ _weapons \ _of \ _mass \ _destruction [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>India already has nuclear weapons.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533946</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259755260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>
The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology. This would allow them to bypass the development and testing stages and move directly to production, which is much more difficult to prevent and many aspects of the production process can be accomplished covertly. Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.
<p>
So Pakistan is not plausible source. Right. A.Q.Khan, is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology .
This would allow them to bypass the development and testing stages and move directly to production , which is much more difficult to prevent and many aspects of the production process can be accomplished covertly .
Right now , Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized .
So Pakistan is not plausible source .
Right. A.Q.Khan , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology.
This would allow them to bypass the development and testing stages and move directly to production, which is much more difficult to prevent and many aspects of the production process can be accomplished covertly.
Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.
So Pakistan is not plausible source.
Right. A.Q.Khan, is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532532</id>
	<title>Re:Boiling-Water Reactors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261502400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so much.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling\_water\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling\_water\_reactor</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so much.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling \ _water \ _reactor [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so much.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling\_water\_reactor [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533122</id>
	<title>I love this kind of stuff</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1261510740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I didn't see any links to a project where I could really look at the digitized images. Am I just missing something? Will these eventually end up on wikipedia or something like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I did n't see any links to a project where I could really look at the digitized images .
Am I just missing something ?
Will these eventually end up on wikipedia or something like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I didn't see any links to a project where I could really look at the digitized images.
Am I just missing something?
Will these eventually end up on wikipedia or something like that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533272</id>
	<title>There is no "Sandia National Laboratory"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259784480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ronald Knief, is a nuclear engineer at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandia\_National\_Laboratories" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Sandia National Laboratories</a> [wikipedia.org]. He is <b>not</b> a nuclear engineer at "Sandia National Laboratory", because there is no such place, company, or entity with that name. Sandia National Laboratories, known as <a href="http://www.sandia.gov/" title="sandia.gov" rel="nofollow">Sandia</a> [sandia.gov], has two main sites in Albuquerque, NM and Livermore, CA along with several smaller locations. None of the sites is called "Sandia National Laboratory" even when referred to as a single site entity. Sandia's largest site is located in Albuquerque, NM and is known as Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico or SNL/NM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ronald Knief , is a nuclear engineer at Sandia National Laboratories [ wikipedia.org ] .
He is not a nuclear engineer at " Sandia National Laboratory " , because there is no such place , company , or entity with that name .
Sandia National Laboratories , known as Sandia [ sandia.gov ] , has two main sites in Albuquerque , NM and Livermore , CA along with several smaller locations .
None of the sites is called " Sandia National Laboratory " even when referred to as a single site entity .
Sandia 's largest site is located in Albuquerque , NM and is known as Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico or SNL/NM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ronald Knief, is a nuclear engineer at Sandia National Laboratories [wikipedia.org].
He is not a nuclear engineer at "Sandia National Laboratory", because there is no such place, company, or entity with that name.
Sandia National Laboratories, known as Sandia [sandia.gov], has two main sites in Albuquerque, NM and Livermore, CA along with several smaller locations.
None of the sites is called "Sandia National Laboratory" even when referred to as a single site entity.
Sandia's largest site is located in Albuquerque, NM and is known as Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico or SNL/NM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534480</id>
	<title>Expensive</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1259764200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why Nuke plants are so expensive. Each plant is a one off.</p><p>Better to have one, or just a few designs, approved and immunized against lawsuits challenging their safety. Components could then be manufactured in factories, providing better quality control and reduced costs.</p><p>They could even save costs on the posters!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why Nuke plants are so expensive .
Each plant is a one off.Better to have one , or just a few designs , approved and immunized against lawsuits challenging their safety .
Components could then be manufactured in factories , providing better quality control and reduced costs.They could even save costs on the posters !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why Nuke plants are so expensive.
Each plant is a one off.Better to have one, or just a few designs, approved and immunized against lawsuits challenging their safety.
Components could then be manufactured in factories, providing better quality control and reduced costs.They could even save costs on the posters!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532122</id>
	<title>Reactor Porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261497060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hard-core. Lead-lined.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard-core .
Lead-lined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard-core.
Lead-lined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532272</id>
	<title>It better not be art!</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1261499400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it comes to the old glow-in-the-dark I want there to be Science, real Science!</p><p>Sure, inspiration is a boon but there has to be some serious number crunching afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to the old glow-in-the-dark I want there to be Science , real Science ! Sure , inspiration is a boon but there has to be some serious number crunching afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to the old glow-in-the-dark I want there to be Science, real Science!Sure, inspiration is a boon but there has to be some serious number crunching afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532316</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>dakameleon</author>
	<datestamp>1261500000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology... Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.</p></div><p>Err... have you forgotten about Pakistan? They've got nukes already, and would be far more like to be unstable and also inclined to share with the "rogue states". And if you do some research, you'll find that they were allegedly helped to that point by China (for more details see the background on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Q\_Khan" title="wikipedia.org">A.Q. Khan of Pakistan</a> [wikipedia.org]), which might indicate that the threat is not so much from Russia but from China.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>India has the raw resources, it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future.</p></div><p>... errrrrr I think you need to do your research again: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction#Current\_arsenal\_and\_estimates\_of\_inventory" title="wikipedia.org">India's already got a nuclear weapons program.</a> [wikipedia.org]. India's had a nuclear program since 1974. Indeed, it's in reaction too India's nuclear program that Pakistan did whatever it could to develop its own nuclear arsenal, as detailed in the link above.</p><p>In fact just make sure you take a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_proliferation" title="wikipedia.org">which countries have nukes</a> [wikipedia.org] before you comment on this again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology... Right now , Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.Err... have you forgotten about Pakistan ?
They 've got nukes already , and would be far more like to be unstable and also inclined to share with the " rogue states " .
And if you do some research , you 'll find that they were allegedly helped to that point by China ( for more details see the background on A.Q .
Khan of Pakistan [ wikipedia.org ] ) , which might indicate that the threat is not so much from Russia but from China.India has the raw resources , it 's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future.... errrrrr I think you need to do your research again : India 's already got a nuclear weapons program .
[ wikipedia.org ] . India 's had a nuclear program since 1974 .
Indeed , it 's in reaction too India 's nuclear program that Pakistan did whatever it could to develop its own nuclear arsenal , as detailed in the link above.In fact just make sure you take a look at which countries have nukes [ wikipedia.org ] before you comment on this again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology... Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.Err... have you forgotten about Pakistan?
They've got nukes already, and would be far more like to be unstable and also inclined to share with the "rogue states".
And if you do some research, you'll find that they were allegedly helped to that point by China (for more details see the background on A.Q.
Khan of Pakistan [wikipedia.org]), which might indicate that the threat is not so much from Russia but from China.India has the raw resources, it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future.... errrrrr I think you need to do your research again: India's already got a nuclear weapons program.
[wikipedia.org]. India's had a nuclear program since 1974.
Indeed, it's in reaction too India's nuclear program that Pakistan did whatever it could to develop its own nuclear arsenal, as detailed in the link above.In fact just make sure you take a look at which countries have nukes [wikipedia.org] before you comment on this again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30536368</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259776680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You're forgetting about "gun type" bombs,"</p><p>I read this years ago, I think it was in the \_Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists\_ 3-4 years ago, which had an article where they were talking about how easy this is, so I figured I'd throw this out there.  They were talking about shoulder launched nukes, and it was mentioned in the article that someone had done a back of the envelope sort of calculation to figure out what sort of force was necessary for a small uranium bomb...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and found reaching critical mass for a partial explosion (not efficient, between a dirty bomb and a full blown atomic explosion) was sufficiently met by dropping off one of the pieces off a small building (6-8 floors up) to the other piece of the sidewalk below.</p><p>Fortunately, the world has no such buildings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You 're forgetting about " gun type " bombs , " I read this years ago , I think it was in the \ _Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists \ _ 3-4 years ago , which had an article where they were talking about how easy this is , so I figured I 'd throw this out there .
They were talking about shoulder launched nukes , and it was mentioned in the article that someone had done a back of the envelope sort of calculation to figure out what sort of force was necessary for a small uranium bomb... ...and found reaching critical mass for a partial explosion ( not efficient , between a dirty bomb and a full blown atomic explosion ) was sufficiently met by dropping off one of the pieces off a small building ( 6-8 floors up ) to the other piece of the sidewalk below.Fortunately , the world has no such buildings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You're forgetting about "gun type" bombs,"I read this years ago, I think it was in the \_Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists\_ 3-4 years ago, which had an article where they were talking about how easy this is, so I figured I'd throw this out there.
They were talking about shoulder launched nukes, and it was mentioned in the article that someone had done a back of the envelope sort of calculation to figure out what sort of force was necessary for a small uranium bomb... ...and found reaching critical mass for a partial explosion (not efficient, between a dirty bomb and a full blown atomic explosion) was sufficiently met by dropping off one of the pieces off a small building (6-8 floors up) to the other piece of the sidewalk below.Fortunately, the world has no such buildings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534300</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>NouberNou</author>
	<datestamp>1259762160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You also realize the evidence of an active weapons program in North Korea is two nuclear tests in the last 3 year? This has to be one of the most uninformed posts I have ever read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You also realize the evidence of an active weapons program in North Korea is two nuclear tests in the last 3 year ?
This has to be one of the most uninformed posts I have ever read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also realize the evidence of an active weapons program in North Korea is two nuclear tests in the last 3 year?
This has to be one of the most uninformed posts I have ever read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532364</id>
	<title>part of me</title>
	<author>phrostie</author>
	<datestamp>1261500480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the Engineer side of me Ooooooooooh that's cool, the another part of my brain is wondering if it's such a great idea to make this stuff so accessible in this day and age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Engineer side of me Ooooooooooh that 's cool , the another part of my brain is wondering if it 's such a great idea to make this stuff so accessible in this day and age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Engineer side of me Ooooooooooh that's cool, the another part of my brain is wondering if it's such a great idea to make this stuff so accessible in this day and age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535608</id>
	<title>Re:Expensive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't true. There are many sister plants around the country and the initial designs were almost identical. What caused the price to explode were the seismic rating of the safety structures and changes in safety requirements that occurred when many plants were being built. One example is fire separation: older plants were grandfathered in if they could show that they could implement improved fire separation requirements--new ones weren't. So a requirement of keeping safety related trains (this could be piping, switchgear, electronics, etc.) separate from each other required extensive design modifications of these seismically rated buildings and of the safety systems. Other requirements, such as high energy line breaks and flooding, also required changes. There were also a lot of changes that occurred after TMI. Plants were required to prove protection for a much wider variety of casualties and to a much greater extent (and with accident rated instrumentation, some of which was new). This required a redesign of many safety systems, tons of electrical switchgear work, and millions of engineer man-hours of evaluation. These requirements continue to increase as industry experience gives guidance: for example, after the Davis-Bessie head corrosion incident, reactor vessel head inspection requirements have become so burdensome that many plants are simply buying new heads.</p><p>This, of course, doesn't describe location specific requirements, which can add to the cost. Each plant started out the same in initial design, but each company operating the plants decided on how to meet the increased safety standards, sometimes with help from the reactor vendor that could apply to sister plants, and sometimes not.</p><p>If new 3rd generation plants are built, they are going to have some of the same issues. Their safety systems are more robust as designed, so the impact will be less, but it will still cause issues. The first AP1000 will have one design and the 14th will have another. And the plant operators will determine how to meet any changes. Unlike other nuclear plants, though, the 3rd generation plants were designed to be built with this in mind. So the x2 or x3 cost estimate scenarios are probably unlikely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't true .
There are many sister plants around the country and the initial designs were almost identical .
What caused the price to explode were the seismic rating of the safety structures and changes in safety requirements that occurred when many plants were being built .
One example is fire separation : older plants were grandfathered in if they could show that they could implement improved fire separation requirements--new ones were n't .
So a requirement of keeping safety related trains ( this could be piping , switchgear , electronics , etc .
) separate from each other required extensive design modifications of these seismically rated buildings and of the safety systems .
Other requirements , such as high energy line breaks and flooding , also required changes .
There were also a lot of changes that occurred after TMI .
Plants were required to prove protection for a much wider variety of casualties and to a much greater extent ( and with accident rated instrumentation , some of which was new ) .
This required a redesign of many safety systems , tons of electrical switchgear work , and millions of engineer man-hours of evaluation .
These requirements continue to increase as industry experience gives guidance : for example , after the Davis-Bessie head corrosion incident , reactor vessel head inspection requirements have become so burdensome that many plants are simply buying new heads.This , of course , does n't describe location specific requirements , which can add to the cost .
Each plant started out the same in initial design , but each company operating the plants decided on how to meet the increased safety standards , sometimes with help from the reactor vendor that could apply to sister plants , and sometimes not.If new 3rd generation plants are built , they are going to have some of the same issues .
Their safety systems are more robust as designed , so the impact will be less , but it will still cause issues .
The first AP1000 will have one design and the 14th will have another .
And the plant operators will determine how to meet any changes .
Unlike other nuclear plants , though , the 3rd generation plants were designed to be built with this in mind .
So the x2 or x3 cost estimate scenarios are probably unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't true.
There are many sister plants around the country and the initial designs were almost identical.
What caused the price to explode were the seismic rating of the safety structures and changes in safety requirements that occurred when many plants were being built.
One example is fire separation: older plants were grandfathered in if they could show that they could implement improved fire separation requirements--new ones weren't.
So a requirement of keeping safety related trains (this could be piping, switchgear, electronics, etc.
) separate from each other required extensive design modifications of these seismically rated buildings and of the safety systems.
Other requirements, such as high energy line breaks and flooding, also required changes.
There were also a lot of changes that occurred after TMI.
Plants were required to prove protection for a much wider variety of casualties and to a much greater extent (and with accident rated instrumentation, some of which was new).
This required a redesign of many safety systems, tons of electrical switchgear work, and millions of engineer man-hours of evaluation.
These requirements continue to increase as industry experience gives guidance: for example, after the Davis-Bessie head corrosion incident, reactor vessel head inspection requirements have become so burdensome that many plants are simply buying new heads.This, of course, doesn't describe location specific requirements, which can add to the cost.
Each plant started out the same in initial design, but each company operating the plants decided on how to meet the increased safety standards, sometimes with help from the reactor vendor that could apply to sister plants, and sometimes not.If new 3rd generation plants are built, they are going to have some of the same issues.
Their safety systems are more robust as designed, so the impact will be less, but it will still cause issues.
The first AP1000 will have one design and the 14th will have another.
And the plant operators will determine how to meet any changes.
Unlike other nuclear plants, though, the 3rd generation plants were designed to be built with this in mind.
So the x2 or x3 cost estimate scenarios are probably unlikely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531840</id>
	<title>Oblig Simpson's ref</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261493580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like "Smilin' Joe Fission" - now that's art!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like " Smilin ' Joe Fission " - now that 's art !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like "Smilin' Joe Fission" - now that's art!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30539016</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1259749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're forgetting about "gun type" bombs, which are basically a sawn-off naval cannon, and are so trivial to build that the Americans didn't even bother testing the design before dropping it on Japan.</p></div></blockquote><p>They're trivial to build, once you've done the non trivial tasks of designing them and creating the infrastructure to obtain the fuel.  But the real reason the American's didn't test the design is that they used a generous amount of design margin to ensure it didn't need to be tested.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>A rogue state that just wants to build a "few" nukes could easily make these. As long as the intended use was terrorism, and not strategic ICBM warfare, then the weight is not an issue. Several analysts have pointed out that one could simply ship such a weapon to any major city in a standard shipping container, and it's unlikely to be detected, as the gamma radiation scanning devices installed in US ports are trivially defeated by several types of shielding, including the natural Uranium casing used for most gun type bombs!</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem with the above is multi fold:  First, if a state is using them weapons, then it is warfare rather than terrorism.  Secondly, letting a nuclear weapon leave the tight control of a highly trusted group of people is an exercise few dictators are likely to indulge in.  (There's way too high a chance that the weapons will be used against them.)  Lastly, no gun type bomb uses natural Uranium.  (Fission reactions don't produce neutrons of the energy range needed to fission raw Uranium - that takes fusion reactions.)<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Just about the only 'hard' part is the purification of Uranium, but even that's getting progressively easier as new techniques are discovered and related industries bring costs down by using the same underlying technologies at a large scale.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, given that no major new technique has been discovered in a couple of decades, and that no industry significantly uses any of the enrichment technologies/systems...  (Some use related technologies, but outside of nuclear fuel reprocessing there is no dual use.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting about " gun type " bombs , which are basically a sawn-off naval cannon , and are so trivial to build that the Americans did n't even bother testing the design before dropping it on Japan.They 're trivial to build , once you 've done the non trivial tasks of designing them and creating the infrastructure to obtain the fuel .
But the real reason the American 's did n't test the design is that they used a generous amount of design margin to ensure it did n't need to be tested .
  A rogue state that just wants to build a " few " nukes could easily make these .
As long as the intended use was terrorism , and not strategic ICBM warfare , then the weight is not an issue .
Several analysts have pointed out that one could simply ship such a weapon to any major city in a standard shipping container , and it 's unlikely to be detected , as the gamma radiation scanning devices installed in US ports are trivially defeated by several types of shielding , including the natural Uranium casing used for most gun type bombs ! The problem with the above is multi fold : First , if a state is using them weapons , then it is warfare rather than terrorism .
Secondly , letting a nuclear weapon leave the tight control of a highly trusted group of people is an exercise few dictators are likely to indulge in .
( There 's way too high a chance that the weapons will be used against them .
) Lastly , no gun type bomb uses natural Uranium .
( Fission reactions do n't produce neutrons of the energy range needed to fission raw Uranium - that takes fusion reactions .
)   Just about the only 'hard ' part is the purification of Uranium , but even that 's getting progressively easier as new techniques are discovered and related industries bring costs down by using the same underlying technologies at a large scale.Well , given that no major new technique has been discovered in a couple of decades , and that no industry significantly uses any of the enrichment technologies/systems... ( Some use related technologies , but outside of nuclear fuel reprocessing there is no dual use .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting about "gun type" bombs, which are basically a sawn-off naval cannon, and are so trivial to build that the Americans didn't even bother testing the design before dropping it on Japan.They're trivial to build, once you've done the non trivial tasks of designing them and creating the infrastructure to obtain the fuel.
But the real reason the American's didn't test the design is that they used a generous amount of design margin to ensure it didn't need to be tested.
  A rogue state that just wants to build a "few" nukes could easily make these.
As long as the intended use was terrorism, and not strategic ICBM warfare, then the weight is not an issue.
Several analysts have pointed out that one could simply ship such a weapon to any major city in a standard shipping container, and it's unlikely to be detected, as the gamma radiation scanning devices installed in US ports are trivially defeated by several types of shielding, including the natural Uranium casing used for most gun type bombs!The problem with the above is multi fold:  First, if a state is using them weapons, then it is warfare rather than terrorism.
Secondly, letting a nuclear weapon leave the tight control of a highly trusted group of people is an exercise few dictators are likely to indulge in.
(There's way too high a chance that the weapons will be used against them.
)  Lastly, no gun type bomb uses natural Uranium.
(Fission reactions don't produce neutrons of the energy range needed to fission raw Uranium - that takes fusion reactions.
)
  Just about the only 'hard' part is the purification of Uranium, but even that's getting progressively easier as new techniques are discovered and related industries bring costs down by using the same underlying technologies at a large scale.Well, given that no major new technique has been discovered in a couple of decades, and that no industry significantly uses any of the enrichment technologies/systems...  (Some use related technologies, but outside of nuclear fuel reprocessing there is no dual use.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532472</id>
	<title>The variability is bad</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1261501680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Starglider29a asked why they is a lack of uniformity. In the US at least there was no standard design. Each was basically as "one off" because the company that won the contract changed from reactor to reactor. A low bid contract method. This meant each reactor was a "one off".</p><p>My understanding is that in France the government commissioned a standard design which it then licensed out.  This had some benefits:<br>1) The design allowed better project management. Everyone knew what needed to be done. This made estimation of effort easier.</p><p>2) Due to point #1, each company had a better idea of it took to build a reactor and bid accordingly.<br>This also helped the costs to be budgeted.</p><p>3) Lessons learned from one reactor can be incorporated into the newer, yet to be built, reactors. It is also easier to retrofit older reactors with lessons learned. In short, incremental improvement.</p><p>4) Related to pint 3, it is easier to QA a standard design. You know what to expect and if the expectations are not met something is wrong.</p><p>Making every reactor a "one off" is crazy. I googled +ISO +"nuclear reactor design" and came up without a comprehensive spec. Having a standard might be a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Starglider29a asked why they is a lack of uniformity .
In the US at least there was no standard design .
Each was basically as " one off " because the company that won the contract changed from reactor to reactor .
A low bid contract method .
This meant each reactor was a " one off " .My understanding is that in France the government commissioned a standard design which it then licensed out .
This had some benefits : 1 ) The design allowed better project management .
Everyone knew what needed to be done .
This made estimation of effort easier.2 ) Due to point # 1 , each company had a better idea of it took to build a reactor and bid accordingly.This also helped the costs to be budgeted.3 ) Lessons learned from one reactor can be incorporated into the newer , yet to be built , reactors .
It is also easier to retrofit older reactors with lessons learned .
In short , incremental improvement.4 ) Related to pint 3 , it is easier to QA a standard design .
You know what to expect and if the expectations are not met something is wrong.Making every reactor a " one off " is crazy .
I googled + ISO + " nuclear reactor design " and came up without a comprehensive spec .
Having a standard might be a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starglider29a asked why they is a lack of uniformity.
In the US at least there was no standard design.
Each was basically as "one off" because the company that won the contract changed from reactor to reactor.
A low bid contract method.
This meant each reactor was a "one off".My understanding is that in France the government commissioned a standard design which it then licensed out.
This had some benefits:1) The design allowed better project management.
Everyone knew what needed to be done.
This made estimation of effort easier.2) Due to point #1, each company had a better idea of it took to build a reactor and bid accordingly.This also helped the costs to be budgeted.3) Lessons learned from one reactor can be incorporated into the newer, yet to be built, reactors.
It is also easier to retrofit older reactors with lessons learned.
In short, incremental improvement.4) Related to pint 3, it is easier to QA a standard design.
You know what to expect and if the expectations are not met something is wrong.Making every reactor a "one off" is crazy.
I googled +ISO +"nuclear reactor design" and came up without a comprehensive spec.
Having a standard might be a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534542</id>
	<title>Re:No Chernobyl?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259764740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't believe that there's no Chernobyl reactor as art!</p></div><p>See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi" title="wikipedia.org">Wabi-Sabi</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe that there 's no Chernobyl reactor as art ! See also : Wabi-Sabi [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe that there's no Chernobyl reactor as art!See also: Wabi-Sabi [wikipedia.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533626</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig Simpson's ref</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259747520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You referenced Smilin' Joe Fission from the Simpsons but not the episode where Homer designs a nuclear power plant for a children's contest?</p><p>It had race stripes and wings I believe. It won first prize! He showed those kids who's boss!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You referenced Smilin ' Joe Fission from the Simpsons but not the episode where Homer designs a nuclear power plant for a children 's contest ? It had race stripes and wings I believe .
It won first prize !
He showed those kids who 's boss !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You referenced Smilin' Joe Fission from the Simpsons but not the episode where Homer designs a nuclear power plant for a children's contest?It had race stripes and wings I believe.
It won first prize!
He showed those kids who's boss!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144</id>
	<title>Guangdong plant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261497300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section, where others use poured concrete and I-beams?</p><p>Did they skimp on anything else, I wonder?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section , where others use poured concrete and I-beams ? Did they skimp on anything else , I wonder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section, where others use poured concrete and I-beams?Did they skimp on anything else, I wonder?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532094</id>
	<title>Everything I see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261496580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reminds me of her.</p><p>http://www.panoramio.com/photo/17343737</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reminds me of her.http : //www.panoramio.com/photo/17343737</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reminds me of her.http://www.panoramio.com/photo/17343737</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532216</id>
	<title>Great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261498560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I give this a glowing review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I give this a glowing review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I give this a glowing review.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535886</id>
	<title>Re:Boiling-Water Reactors?</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1259773800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you go <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWR#List\_of\_BWRs" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWR#List\_of\_BWRs</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWR # List \ _of \ _BWRs [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWR#List\_of\_BWRs [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1261496340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh no, he's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works. The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff. Hang him.</p></div><p>*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb. You can use a breeder reactor to create fissionable material, but breeder reactors are also useful because they can take many different kinds of fuel and produce power from it, whereas conventional reactors can only use fissile uranium and it degrades to useless and highly toxic byproducts relatively quickly. Anyone who studies physics and engineering could build most any reactor design. The math and engineering is well-understood and not technically challenging for a well-funded organization.</p><p>It requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device. Specifically, the critical function is how to model the compression shock wave in the fissile material that begins the chain reaction. If this is not perfectly timed, it's a dud. There is little danger of a country that uses nuclear reactors suddenly leap-frogging to that technology. As well, there are many ways of detecting such research and the US and its allies are constantly conducting surveillance to identify and confirm those factors. That said, such surveillance resources have diminished since the cold war ended.</p><p>The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology. This would allow them to bypass the development and testing stages and move directly to production, which is much more difficult to prevent and many aspects of the production process can be accomplished covertly. Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.</p><p>Iran and most of the middle-east, for all its bravado and sabre-rattling lacks the infrastructure to make a serious attempt at nuclear weapons research. North Korea and India, on the other hand, are another can of worms entirely. India has the raw resources, but it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future. North Korea, however lacks those inhibitions and there's been a lot of evidence they have an active weapons program -- and ties to Russia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , he 's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works .
The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff .
Hang him .
* blinks * You ca n't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you 'll get is a dirty bomb .
You can use a breeder reactor to create fissionable material , but breeder reactors are also useful because they can take many different kinds of fuel and produce power from it , whereas conventional reactors can only use fissile uranium and it degrades to useless and highly toxic byproducts relatively quickly .
Anyone who studies physics and engineering could build most any reactor design .
The math and engineering is well-understood and not technically challenging for a well-funded organization.It requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device .
Specifically , the critical function is how to model the compression shock wave in the fissile material that begins the chain reaction .
If this is not perfectly timed , it 's a dud .
There is little danger of a country that uses nuclear reactors suddenly leap-frogging to that technology .
As well , there are many ways of detecting such research and the US and its allies are constantly conducting surveillance to identify and confirm those factors .
That said , such surveillance resources have diminished since the cold war ended.The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology .
This would allow them to bypass the development and testing stages and move directly to production , which is much more difficult to prevent and many aspects of the production process can be accomplished covertly .
Right now , Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.Iran and most of the middle-east , for all its bravado and sabre-rattling lacks the infrastructure to make a serious attempt at nuclear weapons research .
North Korea and India , on the other hand , are another can of worms entirely .
India has the raw resources , but it 's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future .
North Korea , however lacks those inhibitions and there 's been a lot of evidence they have an active weapons program -- and ties to Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, he's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works.
The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff.
Hang him.
*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb.
You can use a breeder reactor to create fissionable material, but breeder reactors are also useful because they can take many different kinds of fuel and produce power from it, whereas conventional reactors can only use fissile uranium and it degrades to useless and highly toxic byproducts relatively quickly.
Anyone who studies physics and engineering could build most any reactor design.
The math and engineering is well-understood and not technically challenging for a well-funded organization.It requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device.
Specifically, the critical function is how to model the compression shock wave in the fissile material that begins the chain reaction.
If this is not perfectly timed, it's a dud.
There is little danger of a country that uses nuclear reactors suddenly leap-frogging to that technology.
As well, there are many ways of detecting such research and the US and its allies are constantly conducting surveillance to identify and confirm those factors.
That said, such surveillance resources have diminished since the cold war ended.The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology.
This would allow them to bypass the development and testing stages and move directly to production, which is much more difficult to prevent and many aspects of the production process can be accomplished covertly.
Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.Iran and most of the middle-east, for all its bravado and sabre-rattling lacks the infrastructure to make a serious attempt at nuclear weapons research.
North Korea and India, on the other hand, are another can of worms entirely.
India has the raw resources, but it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future.
North Korea, however lacks those inhibitions and there's been a lot of evidence they have an active weapons program -- and ties to Russia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534270</id>
	<title>Re:Guangdong plant</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1259761920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section, where others use poured concrete and I-beams?</p><p>Did they skimp on anything else, I wonder?</p></div><p> Uh, San Onofree has an open air turbine. Gives a beautiful view of the Pacific just north of San Diego.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section , where others use poured concrete and I-beams ? Did they skimp on anything else , I wonder ?
Uh , San Onofree has an open air turbine .
Gives a beautiful view of the Pacific just north of San Diego .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section, where others use poured concrete and I-beams?Did they skimp on anything else, I wonder?
Uh, San Onofree has an open air turbine.
Gives a beautiful view of the Pacific just north of San Diego.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535194</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>DaFallus</author>
	<datestamp>1259769540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In fact just make sure you take a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_proliferation" title="wikipedia.org">which countries have nukes</a> [wikipedia.org] before you comment on this again.</p></div></blockquote><p>

How about linking to the actual <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_with\_nuclear\_weapons" title="wikipedia.org">list</a> [wikipedia.org] instead of just the article on nuclear proliferation</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact just make sure you take a look at which countries have nukes [ wikipedia.org ] before you comment on this again .
How about linking to the actual list [ wikipedia.org ] instead of just the article on nuclear proliferation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact just make sure you take a look at which countries have nukes [wikipedia.org] before you comment on this again.
How about linking to the actual list [wikipedia.org] instead of just the article on nuclear proliferation
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532046</id>
	<title>Ah, nostalgia</title>
	<author>a0schweitzer</author>
	<datestamp>1261496100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you consider this art, chances are you were the kid that always got the cross-section books from the library in elementary school too. Good times indeed...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you consider this art , chances are you were the kid that always got the cross-section books from the library in elementary school too .
Good times indeed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you consider this art, chances are you were the kid that always got the cross-section books from the library in elementary school too.
Good times indeed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532878</id>
	<title>Re:Guangdong plant</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1261507560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really.  You just need to keep the rain out as in the turbine hall of a coal fired power station.<br>By the time you get that far it's just normal steam.  The worst that can happen if a turbine loses a blade is dead people that happened to be close to it and a very big expensive hole in the ground.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
You just need to keep the rain out as in the turbine hall of a coal fired power station.By the time you get that far it 's just normal steam .
The worst that can happen if a turbine loses a blade is dead people that happened to be close to it and a very big expensive hole in the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
You just need to keep the rain out as in the turbine hall of a coal fired power station.By the time you get that far it's just normal steam.
The worst that can happen if a turbine loses a blade is dead people that happened to be close to it and a very big expensive hole in the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533660</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259748360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb.</p><p>As a matter of fact, you can.</p><p><a href="http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm" title="fas.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm</a> [fas.org]</p><p>There has been at least one successful US weapons test that used reactor plutonium, precisely to clarify that question, in 1962, in Nevada, underground, with a yield  20 kT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You ca n't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you 'll get is a dirty bomb.As a matter of fact , you can.http : //www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm [ fas.org ] There has been at least one successful US weapons test that used reactor plutonium , precisely to clarify that question , in 1962 , in Nevada , underground , with a yield 20 kT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb.As a matter of fact, you can.http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm [fas.org]There has been at least one successful US weapons test that used reactor plutonium, precisely to clarify that question, in 1962, in Nevada, underground, with a yield  20 kT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533012</id>
	<title>Re:Guangdong plant</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1261509180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section, where others use poured concrete and I-beams?</p></div></blockquote><p>Given that the others mostly use simple trusses or lightweight I-beams, I don't see what there is to be frightened about.  Doubly so since you don't need anything more than light construction over the turbine hall.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section , where others use poured concrete and I-beams ? Given that the others mostly use simple trusses or lightweight I-beams , I do n't see what there is to be frightened about .
Doubly so since you do n't need anything more than light construction over the turbine hall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section, where others use poured concrete and I-beams?Given that the others mostly use simple trusses or lightweight I-beams, I don't see what there is to be frightened about.
Doubly so since you don't need anything more than light construction over the turbine hall.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533404</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>wmac</author>
	<datestamp>1259787000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know everyone would say Iran is not able to put a satellite into orbit and they did it 8 months ago. Before that everyone would say N.Korea provides the technology to Iran. N.Korea tried to put its satellite into orbit 3 months after Iran and they failed.<br> <br>

They have already designed two reactors and one of them is being completed (50MW) in 2 years. The other 250MW reactor's design has been completed and designs are approved by a company in Switzerland.<br> <br>

Iran currently has 3 million university students (you may be able to calculate how many graduates are already out) of which 60\% are women. In some countries in middle east women do not even go to university. You can easily observe the difference in the case of Iran.<br> <br>

Besides you lack to mention India and N.Korea have already built and tested their nuclear bombs. India has done it decades ago and they even have very small battle field nukes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know everyone would say Iran is not able to put a satellite into orbit and they did it 8 months ago .
Before that everyone would say N.Korea provides the technology to Iran .
N.Korea tried to put its satellite into orbit 3 months after Iran and they failed .
They have already designed two reactors and one of them is being completed ( 50MW ) in 2 years .
The other 250MW reactor 's design has been completed and designs are approved by a company in Switzerland .
Iran currently has 3 million university students ( you may be able to calculate how many graduates are already out ) of which 60 \ % are women .
In some countries in middle east women do not even go to university .
You can easily observe the difference in the case of Iran .
Besides you lack to mention India and N.Korea have already built and tested their nuclear bombs .
India has done it decades ago and they even have very small battle field nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know everyone would say Iran is not able to put a satellite into orbit and they did it 8 months ago.
Before that everyone would say N.Korea provides the technology to Iran.
N.Korea tried to put its satellite into orbit 3 months after Iran and they failed.
They have already designed two reactors and one of them is being completed (50MW) in 2 years.
The other 250MW reactor's design has been completed and designs are approved by a company in Switzerland.
Iran currently has 3 million university students (you may be able to calculate how many graduates are already out) of which 60\% are women.
In some countries in middle east women do not even go to university.
You can easily observe the difference in the case of Iran.
Besides you lack to mention India and N.Korea have already built and tested their nuclear bombs.
India has done it decades ago and they even have very small battle field nukes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30541000</id>
	<title>Re:The variability is bad</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259764620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a lame-o link:<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/exploreap1000.html" title="westinghousenuclear.com">http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/exploreap1000.html</a> [westinghousenuclear.com] <br> <br>

According to an "insider" friend, this is pretty much a standard design that Westinghouse is working on. More detailed info if you want and can contact me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a lame-o link : http : //www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/exploreap1000.html [ westinghousenuclear.com ] According to an " insider " friend , this is pretty much a standard design that Westinghouse is working on .
More detailed info if you want and can contact me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a lame-o link: 

http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/exploreap1000.html [westinghousenuclear.com]  

According to an "insider" friend, this is pretty much a standard design that Westinghouse is working on.
More detailed info if you want and can contact me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534186</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259760300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"India has the raw resources, but it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future."</p><p>Um.... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling\_Buddha" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">are you sure about that</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>"North Korea, however lacks those inhibitions and there's been a lot of evidence they have an active weapons program -- and ties to Russia."</p><p>What, did you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006\_North\_Korean\_nuclear\_test" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">step out of a time machine or something</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" India has the raw resources , but it 's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future. " Um... .
are you sure about that [ wikipedia.org ] ?
" North Korea , however lacks those inhibitions and there 's been a lot of evidence they have an active weapons program -- and ties to Russia .
" What , did you step out of a time machine or something [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"India has the raw resources, but it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future."Um....
are you sure about that [wikipedia.org]?
"North Korea, however lacks those inhibitions and there's been a lot of evidence they have an active weapons program -- and ties to Russia.
"What, did you step out of a time machine or something [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30539396</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259751960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Iran gets nukes. Won't they be surprised when they realize they aren't of much use in any practical manner.</p><p>That said, why they hell aren't we building thorium reactors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Iran gets nukes .
Wo n't they be surprised when they realize they are n't of much use in any practical manner.That said , why they hell are n't we building thorium reactors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Iran gets nukes.
Won't they be surprised when they realize they aren't of much use in any practical manner.That said, why they hell aren't we building thorium reactors?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531858</id>
	<title>More art in science posters</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1261493820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For you electronics geeks out there who are into this kind of thing and want some cool posters to decorate your thinking space, There's <a href="http://www.synthesysresearch.com/Images/poster\_eye.jpg" title="synthesysresearch.com" rel="nofollow">this,</a> [synthesysresearch.com] <a href="http://www.synthesysresearch.com/Images/poster\_clkA.jpg" title="synthesysresearch.com" rel="nofollow">this, </a> [synthesysresearch.com], and <a href="http://www.synthesysresearch.com/Images/poster\_clkB.jpg" title="synthesysresearch.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [synthesysresearch.com] which are all made by Synthesys Reasearch. They will send you a poster for free if you ask.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For you electronics geeks out there who are into this kind of thing and want some cool posters to decorate your thinking space , There 's this , [ synthesysresearch.com ] this , [ synthesysresearch.com ] , and this [ synthesysresearch.com ] which are all made by Synthesys Reasearch .
They will send you a poster for free if you ask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For you electronics geeks out there who are into this kind of thing and want some cool posters to decorate your thinking space, There's this, [synthesysresearch.com] this,  [synthesysresearch.com], and this [synthesysresearch.com] which are all made by Synthesys Reasearch.
They will send you a poster for free if you ask.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533584</id>
	<title>WTB: enriched uranium</title>
	<author>Arvisp</author>
	<datestamp>1259747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>please call</htmltext>
<tokenext>please call</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please call</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535414</id>
	<title>Re:Expensive</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1259770740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the rate of construction was always pretty low and they where still trying out new ideas all the time. Even conventional plants tended to be one offs at that time.<br>You are right though when the number of reactors built is high. The Navy did exactly that with subs.<br>All of the Skipjack, Permit, Sturgeon, George Washington, Ethan Allen, and Lafayette class subs use the same reactor design. There was a a few one offs in that time to try new ideas but the vast majority where standardized reactors. The Navy then went with two reactors one for attack subs and a different one for SSBNs.<br>I will make on correction to your statment. that is why Nuke Plants where so expensive. The new nuke plants are being planed to use a standardized family for reactors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the rate of construction was always pretty low and they where still trying out new ideas all the time .
Even conventional plants tended to be one offs at that time.You are right though when the number of reactors built is high .
The Navy did exactly that with subs.All of the Skipjack , Permit , Sturgeon , George Washington , Ethan Allen , and Lafayette class subs use the same reactor design .
There was a a few one offs in that time to try new ideas but the vast majority where standardized reactors .
The Navy then went with two reactors one for attack subs and a different one for SSBNs.I will make on correction to your statment .
that is why Nuke Plants where so expensive .
The new nuke plants are being planed to use a standardized family for reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the rate of construction was always pretty low and they where still trying out new ideas all the time.
Even conventional plants tended to be one offs at that time.You are right though when the number of reactors built is high.
The Navy did exactly that with subs.All of the Skipjack, Permit, Sturgeon, George Washington, Ethan Allen, and Lafayette class subs use the same reactor design.
There was a a few one offs in that time to try new ideas but the vast majority where standardized reactors.
The Navy then went with two reactors one for attack subs and a different one for SSBNs.I will make on correction to your statment.
that is why Nuke Plants where so expensive.
The new nuke plants are being planed to use a standardized family for reactors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532302</id>
	<title>I had Palisades, and I wondered...</title>
	<author>starglider29a</author>
	<datestamp>1261499700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>two things... Why the Missile Shield only covered the top.<br> <br>

My dad worked in Nuclear Fuel Supply, and I learned how arduous the process can be, and lengthy. But I also waited with bated breath for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland\_Cogeneration\_Venture" title="wikipedia.org">Midland plant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</a> [wikipedia.org]  to come online... 1972 was the date in "Our Friend, the Atom", a comic book produced to educate the youth like me.<br> <br>
And even then, I wondered... Why they don't make them essentially the same... like the Saturn V. I still wonder.<br> <br>
I also wonder how many anti-nuke activists are wishing that they'd kept their mouths shut and given us a fighting chance with carbon emissions. Or how many are driving SUVs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>two things... Why the Missile Shield only covered the top .
My dad worked in Nuclear Fuel Supply , and I learned how arduous the process can be , and lengthy .
But I also waited with bated breath for the Midland plant : ( [ wikipedia.org ] to come online... 1972 was the date in " Our Friend , the Atom " , a comic book produced to educate the youth like me .
And even then , I wondered... Why they do n't make them essentially the same... like the Saturn V. I still wonder .
I also wonder how many anti-nuke activists are wishing that they 'd kept their mouths shut and given us a fighting chance with carbon emissions .
Or how many are driving SUVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>two things... Why the Missile Shield only covered the top.
My dad worked in Nuclear Fuel Supply, and I learned how arduous the process can be, and lengthy.
But I also waited with bated breath for the Midland plant :( [wikipedia.org]  to come online... 1972 was the date in "Our Friend, the Atom", a comic book produced to educate the youth like me.
And even then, I wondered... Why they don't make them essentially the same... like the Saturn V. I still wonder.
I also wonder how many anti-nuke activists are wishing that they'd kept their mouths shut and given us a fighting chance with carbon emissions.
Or how many are driving SUVs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531982</id>
	<title>Old News</title>
	<author>dukeofurl01</author>
	<datestamp>1261495500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wired copied this story from io9, who originally brought attention to this blog 4 days ago.</p><p><a href="http://io9.com/5429963/know-your-nuclear-reactors-with-illustrated-wall-charts/" title="io9.com" rel="nofollow">http://io9.com/5429963/know-your-nuclear-reactors-with-illustrated-wall-charts/</a> [io9.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wired copied this story from io9 , who originally brought attention to this blog 4 days ago.http : //io9.com/5429963/know-your-nuclear-reactors-with-illustrated-wall-charts/ [ io9.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wired copied this story from io9, who originally brought attention to this blog 4 days ago.http://io9.com/5429963/know-your-nuclear-reactors-with-illustrated-wall-charts/ [io9.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533866</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259752860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the post from 1999, but could you please file it back pre India and Pakistan having tested nukes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the post from 1999 , but could you please file it back pre India and Pakistan having tested nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the post from 1999, but could you please file it back pre India and Pakistan having tested nukes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532456</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig Simpson's ref</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261501560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was second post, how the fuck can it be redundant...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was second post , how the fuck can it be redundant.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was second post, how the fuck can it be redundant...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533108</id>
	<title>No Chernobyl?</title>
	<author>WidescreenFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1261510440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe that there's no Chernobyl reactor as art!  I think that in its current state it has a very Dali-melted-watch look to it with a bit of Picasso thrown in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe that there 's no Chernobyl reactor as art !
I think that in its current state it has a very Dali-melted-watch look to it with a bit of Picasso thrown in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe that there's no Chernobyl reactor as art!
I think that in its current state it has a very Dali-melted-watch look to it with a bit of Picasso thrown in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533768</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken Little</title>
	<author>wmac</author>
	<datestamp>1259750100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Terrorists don't build reactors!
<br> <br>
Iranians are a nation and they are not terrorists because another nation(s) claim so.
<br> <br>
If by terrorist you mean people (countries) which kill other people (from their own or other countries) for unjust reasons, then you can list more eligible countries.
<br> <br>
Iran has never started a war in last 150 years.
<br> <br>
Another country has started/participated in more than 50 wars and has killed millions (including those killed by atomic bombs!).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists do n't build reactors !
Iranians are a nation and they are not terrorists because another nation ( s ) claim so .
If by terrorist you mean people ( countries ) which kill other people ( from their own or other countries ) for unjust reasons , then you can list more eligible countries .
Iran has never started a war in last 150 years .
Another country has started/participated in more than 50 wars and has killed millions ( including those killed by atomic bombs !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists don't build reactors!
Iranians are a nation and they are not terrorists because another nation(s) claim so.
If by terrorist you mean people (countries) which kill other people (from their own or other countries) for unjust reasons, then you can list more eligible countries.
Iran has never started a war in last 150 years.
Another country has started/participated in more than 50 wars and has killed millions (including those killed by atomic bombs!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534012</id>
	<title>It's not nuclear...</title>
	<author>(pvb)charon</author>
	<datestamp>1259756700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nucular, the word is 'nucular'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nucular , the word is 'nucular' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nucular, the word is 'nucular'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532334</id>
	<title>Reder Digest's Books.</title>
	<author>bronney</author>
	<datestamp>1261500180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to love these style of drawings in Reader Digest's Book's.  About space pods, or sea pods.  When I was small, I would imagine myself in one of these and float around.  I used to make lego models of them.  Am I sick, pedobear?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to love these style of drawings in Reader Digest 's Book 's .
About space pods , or sea pods .
When I was small , I would imagine myself in one of these and float around .
I used to make lego models of them .
Am I sick , pedobear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to love these style of drawings in Reader Digest's Book's.
About space pods, or sea pods.
When I was small, I would imagine myself in one of these and float around.
I used to make lego models of them.
Am I sick, pedobear?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30539016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30536368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30541000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30539396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_221230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30541000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30539396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533228
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30539016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30536368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30535284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30531956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30532042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30534686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_221230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_221230.30533826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
