<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_177240</id>
	<title>Entergy Admits 2005 Tritium Leak</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266948240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mdsolar writes <i>"The <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/06/156236/Tritium-Leak-At-Vermont-Nuclear-Plant-Grows">leaking Vermont Yankee</a> nuclear power plant was hit last week by a whistleblower allegation that <a href="http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190323">a previous tritium leak had occurred</a>. Now the parent company, Entergy, has <a href="http://www.reformer.com/ci\_14453833">admitted the occurrence of at least one prior leak</a> to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is particularly significant for three reasons: because the leak occurred in pipes that company officials later <a href="http://www.reformer.com/ci\_14453838">testified under oath did not exist</a>, because the Vermont Senate will likely soon vote to deny Entergy a needed approval to extend the power plant's license for another 20 years, and because President Obama just put taxpayers <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/02/17/1324213/US-To-Build-Nuclear-Power-Plants">on the hook for new nuclear power plants</a> in Georgia."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mdsolar writes " The leaking Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was hit last week by a whistleblower allegation that a previous tritium leak had occurred .
Now the parent company , Entergy , has admitted the occurrence of at least one prior leak to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
This is particularly significant for three reasons : because the leak occurred in pipes that company officials later testified under oath did not exist , because the Vermont Senate will likely soon vote to deny Entergy a needed approval to extend the power plant 's license for another 20 years , and because President Obama just put taxpayers on the hook for new nuclear power plants in Georgia .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mdsolar writes "The leaking Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was hit last week by a whistleblower allegation that a previous tritium leak had occurred.
Now the parent company, Entergy, has admitted the occurrence of at least one prior leak to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This is particularly significant for three reasons: because the leak occurred in pipes that company officials later testified under oath did not exist, because the Vermont Senate will likely soon vote to deny Entergy a needed approval to extend the power plant's license for another 20 years, and because President Obama just put taxpayers on the hook for new nuclear power plants in Georgia.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251574</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1266923880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but there is another angle to this:</p><p>The very nature of fission (at least the designs we currently have; <i>possibly</i> pebble bed or screw-reflector designs <i>might</i> sidestep some of this problem but I'm dubious) lends itself to centralisation. Because fission is a process which is fundamentally hazardous and produces toxic byproducts (radioactive isotopes) which we don't have good natural biological detection and defence against, it requires a certain minimum amount of high-tech monitoring protocols to be used with any degree of safety. A fire, you can burn yourself, but your skin will detect the heat and you can fairly easily learn to stay way. Poisonous industrial chemicals are worse, you could breathe fumes like the Bhopal disaster (though there'll often be visible cloud/mist to warn you to stay clear). But a piece of 'hot' uranium or a radioactive cloud, your body won't necessarily give you any cues until it's too late; if you see a blue flash from a criticality incident up close, you're probably already dying.</p><p>This means that to deploy fission successfully, it really can't be decentralised beyond a certain point because the operators have to be trained, monitored, etc. So there's a certain minimum of high-tech, high capital civilisation required to keep it running. And this has a big effect: it forces the shape of the power generation infrastructure to be like a pyramid, with a few big operators (even with international government/military involvement due to weapon proliferation or terrorism concerns).</p><p>Because of this pyramid structure forced by monitoring and safety concerns, it means big decisions must be made by a few people at the top - corporate executives, DOE officers, etc. And unfortunately, this means that the potential for corporate/governmental corruption - or even just the ordinary level of big-organisation blindness - is bigger than in an industry (like say, Internet development) where the technology is relatively safe and it would be okay for there to be lots of small semi-skilled players.</p><p>So now we have an environment where the technology itself forces big installations, big organisations, with all the inefficiencies that implies, and the potential for big mistakes made by a few. That's not really an ideal situation; the technology is driving the shape of the social organisation that creates it rather than the other way around.</p><p>A lot of these problems go away, or are minimised, if we don't look at fission as the solution but look at more decentralised energy alternatives like solar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but there is another angle to this : The very nature of fission ( at least the designs we currently have ; possibly pebble bed or screw-reflector designs might sidestep some of this problem but I 'm dubious ) lends itself to centralisation .
Because fission is a process which is fundamentally hazardous and produces toxic byproducts ( radioactive isotopes ) which we do n't have good natural biological detection and defence against , it requires a certain minimum amount of high-tech monitoring protocols to be used with any degree of safety .
A fire , you can burn yourself , but your skin will detect the heat and you can fairly easily learn to stay way .
Poisonous industrial chemicals are worse , you could breathe fumes like the Bhopal disaster ( though there 'll often be visible cloud/mist to warn you to stay clear ) .
But a piece of 'hot ' uranium or a radioactive cloud , your body wo n't necessarily give you any cues until it 's too late ; if you see a blue flash from a criticality incident up close , you 're probably already dying.This means that to deploy fission successfully , it really ca n't be decentralised beyond a certain point because the operators have to be trained , monitored , etc .
So there 's a certain minimum of high-tech , high capital civilisation required to keep it running .
And this has a big effect : it forces the shape of the power generation infrastructure to be like a pyramid , with a few big operators ( even with international government/military involvement due to weapon proliferation or terrorism concerns ) .Because of this pyramid structure forced by monitoring and safety concerns , it means big decisions must be made by a few people at the top - corporate executives , DOE officers , etc .
And unfortunately , this means that the potential for corporate/governmental corruption - or even just the ordinary level of big-organisation blindness - is bigger than in an industry ( like say , Internet development ) where the technology is relatively safe and it would be okay for there to be lots of small semi-skilled players.So now we have an environment where the technology itself forces big installations , big organisations , with all the inefficiencies that implies , and the potential for big mistakes made by a few .
That 's not really an ideal situation ; the technology is driving the shape of the social organisation that creates it rather than the other way around.A lot of these problems go away , or are minimised , if we do n't look at fission as the solution but look at more decentralised energy alternatives like solar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but there is another angle to this:The very nature of fission (at least the designs we currently have; possibly pebble bed or screw-reflector designs might sidestep some of this problem but I'm dubious) lends itself to centralisation.
Because fission is a process which is fundamentally hazardous and produces toxic byproducts (radioactive isotopes) which we don't have good natural biological detection and defence against, it requires a certain minimum amount of high-tech monitoring protocols to be used with any degree of safety.
A fire, you can burn yourself, but your skin will detect the heat and you can fairly easily learn to stay way.
Poisonous industrial chemicals are worse, you could breathe fumes like the Bhopal disaster (though there'll often be visible cloud/mist to warn you to stay clear).
But a piece of 'hot' uranium or a radioactive cloud, your body won't necessarily give you any cues until it's too late; if you see a blue flash from a criticality incident up close, you're probably already dying.This means that to deploy fission successfully, it really can't be decentralised beyond a certain point because the operators have to be trained, monitored, etc.
So there's a certain minimum of high-tech, high capital civilisation required to keep it running.
And this has a big effect: it forces the shape of the power generation infrastructure to be like a pyramid, with a few big operators (even with international government/military involvement due to weapon proliferation or terrorism concerns).Because of this pyramid structure forced by monitoring and safety concerns, it means big decisions must be made by a few people at the top - corporate executives, DOE officers, etc.
And unfortunately, this means that the potential for corporate/governmental corruption - or even just the ordinary level of big-organisation blindness - is bigger than in an industry (like say, Internet development) where the technology is relatively safe and it would be okay for there to be lots of small semi-skilled players.So now we have an environment where the technology itself forces big installations, big organisations, with all the inefficiencies that implies, and the potential for big mistakes made by a few.
That's not really an ideal situation; the technology is driving the shape of the social organisation that creates it rather than the other way around.A lot of these problems go away, or are minimised, if we don't look at fission as the solution but look at more decentralised energy alternatives like solar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776</id>
	<title>dear market place fundamentalists and libertarians</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1266953820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the market does not take care of itself</p><p>repeat: the market does NOT take care of itself</p><p>with things like energy utilities, you do NOT privatize. you heavily involve the government and you heavily regulate</p><p>no, it is not red tape that interferes with the normal functioning of the marketplace, it is the only way things fucking work right</p><p>for examples like this, for the example of the economic meltdown in 2008, for the example of healthcare, and for examples like enron</p><p>no, it does make you a fucking communist to admit that the market does not solve ALL problems. it simply makes you wise and intelligent for simply recognizing that THE. MARKET. DOES. NOT. SOLVE. ALL. PROBLEMS. full stop</p><p>for most sectors of society, indeed, a market free of most regulations IS the ideal. but even then, in something like food, for example, you still want the government running around, and you still want to spend tax money on all those pesky government employees and their horrid, horrid bureaucracy, to fucking make sure you're not eating melamine or toxic e coli. yes, you want to pay fuckign taxes for that, asshole</p><p>if you had no inspectors, the manufacturers would likely suffer business wise. true. BUT THEY WOULD ALSO KILL PEOPLE. get it? in other words, some failures that market players can suffer are so severe, a simple market correction is not the only way they should be punished. furthermore, some "failures", such as leaking tritium, or overindulging on bad mortgage loans, are so horribly disruptive as to kill people or destroy an entire economy</p><p>then you need government bailouts. after which some of you assholes will still blame the government for that, as fucking blind as you are, when it was YOUR FUCKING THINKING THAT LED TO THE DISMANTLING OF THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS THAT CREATED THE MELTDOWN</p><p>please adjust your idiotic simplistic worship of market forces: they are not the fucking answer to everything. really. welcome to reality assholes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the market does not take care of itselfrepeat : the market does NOT take care of itselfwith things like energy utilities , you do NOT privatize .
you heavily involve the government and you heavily regulateno , it is not red tape that interferes with the normal functioning of the marketplace , it is the only way things fucking work rightfor examples like this , for the example of the economic meltdown in 2008 , for the example of healthcare , and for examples like enronno , it does make you a fucking communist to admit that the market does not solve ALL problems .
it simply makes you wise and intelligent for simply recognizing that THE .
MARKET. DOES .
NOT. SOLVE .
ALL. PROBLEMS .
full stopfor most sectors of society , indeed , a market free of most regulations IS the ideal .
but even then , in something like food , for example , you still want the government running around , and you still want to spend tax money on all those pesky government employees and their horrid , horrid bureaucracy , to fucking make sure you 're not eating melamine or toxic e coli .
yes , you want to pay fuckign taxes for that , assholeif you had no inspectors , the manufacturers would likely suffer business wise .
true. BUT THEY WOULD ALSO KILL PEOPLE .
get it ?
in other words , some failures that market players can suffer are so severe , a simple market correction is not the only way they should be punished .
furthermore , some " failures " , such as leaking tritium , or overindulging on bad mortgage loans , are so horribly disruptive as to kill people or destroy an entire economythen you need government bailouts .
after which some of you assholes will still blame the government for that , as fucking blind as you are , when it was YOUR FUCKING THINKING THAT LED TO THE DISMANTLING OF THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS THAT CREATED THE MELTDOWNplease adjust your idiotic simplistic worship of market forces : they are not the fucking answer to everything .
really. welcome to reality assholes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the market does not take care of itselfrepeat: the market does NOT take care of itselfwith things like energy utilities, you do NOT privatize.
you heavily involve the government and you heavily regulateno, it is not red tape that interferes with the normal functioning of the marketplace, it is the only way things fucking work rightfor examples like this, for the example of the economic meltdown in 2008, for the example of healthcare, and for examples like enronno, it does make you a fucking communist to admit that the market does not solve ALL problems.
it simply makes you wise and intelligent for simply recognizing that THE.
MARKET. DOES.
NOT. SOLVE.
ALL. PROBLEMS.
full stopfor most sectors of society, indeed, a market free of most regulations IS the ideal.
but even then, in something like food, for example, you still want the government running around, and you still want to spend tax money on all those pesky government employees and their horrid, horrid bureaucracy, to fucking make sure you're not eating melamine or toxic e coli.
yes, you want to pay fuckign taxes for that, assholeif you had no inspectors, the manufacturers would likely suffer business wise.
true. BUT THEY WOULD ALSO KILL PEOPLE.
get it?
in other words, some failures that market players can suffer are so severe, a simple market correction is not the only way they should be punished.
furthermore, some "failures", such as leaking tritium, or overindulging on bad mortgage loans, are so horribly disruptive as to kill people or destroy an entire economythen you need government bailouts.
after which some of you assholes will still blame the government for that, as fucking blind as you are, when it was YOUR FUCKING THINKING THAT LED TO THE DISMANTLING OF THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS THAT CREATED THE MELTDOWNplease adjust your idiotic simplistic worship of market forces: they are not the fucking answer to everything.
really. welcome to reality assholes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247602</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>ChefInnocent</author>
	<datestamp>1266953280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not condoning their cover-up, but with some of the anti-nuke people out their, perhaps they thought it was just a white lie that would have been better for the industry if they kept it hush-hush.  I don't really know as I don't work for VY, Entergy, or the NRC, but that would seem plausible.  Nuclear energy is trying to get a rebirth as a safe, clean technology and regardless of how small this is, the NIMBYs and BANANAs will point and shout, "See!  See!  I told you this nukular stuff is evil!".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not condoning their cover-up , but with some of the anti-nuke people out their , perhaps they thought it was just a white lie that would have been better for the industry if they kept it hush-hush .
I do n't really know as I do n't work for VY , Entergy , or the NRC , but that would seem plausible .
Nuclear energy is trying to get a rebirth as a safe , clean technology and regardless of how small this is , the NIMBYs and BANANAs will point and shout , " See !
See ! I told you this nukular stuff is evil !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not condoning their cover-up, but with some of the anti-nuke people out their, perhaps they thought it was just a white lie that would have been better for the industry if they kept it hush-hush.
I don't really know as I don't work for VY, Entergy, or the NRC, but that would seem plausible.
Nuclear energy is trying to get a rebirth as a safe, clean technology and regardless of how small this is, the NIMBYs and BANANAs will point and shout, "See!
See!  I told you this nukular stuff is evil!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254068</id>
	<title>Re:Tritium</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1266935820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> and is a gas lighter than air.</p></div><p>Bad assumption. In reality it is heavy water. Molecular weight of 20 - still lighter than air, but heavier than regular water vapour.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and is a gas lighter than air.Bad assumption .
In reality it is heavy water .
Molecular weight of 20 - still lighter than air , but heavier than regular water vapour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and is a gas lighter than air.Bad assumption.
In reality it is heavy water.
Molecular weight of 20 - still lighter than air, but heavier than regular water vapour.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247566</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was no big deal then why did they lie about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was no big deal then why did they lie about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was no big deal then why did they lie about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372</id>
	<title>New Plants have nothing to do with old...</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1266952500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just love how the anti-nuclear comes out every time. Yes, it is significant that this leak was hidden from the NRC. Yes, it should affect that company from getting an extension. And yes, because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed (since they obviously covered up the previous leak), they should get heavy fines (to the individuals, not just the corporation), and even jail time. And absolutely should get denied operating license extension, and possibly even have their existing license revoked. <br> <br>But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATE. It would be like arresting every person in the country who owns a Silver or Gray car because a Silver/Gray car was involved in a hit and run Rhode Island.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just love how the anti-nuclear comes out every time .
Yes , it is significant that this leak was hidden from the NRC .
Yes , it should affect that company from getting an extension .
And yes , because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed ( since they obviously covered up the previous leak ) , they should get heavy fines ( to the individuals , not just the corporation ) , and even jail time .
And absolutely should get denied operating license extension , and possibly even have their existing license revoked .
But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy , and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATE .
It would be like arresting every person in the country who owns a Silver or Gray car because a Silver/Gray car was involved in a hit and run Rhode Island .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just love how the anti-nuclear comes out every time.
Yes, it is significant that this leak was hidden from the NRC.
Yes, it should affect that company from getting an extension.
And yes, because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed (since they obviously covered up the previous leak), they should get heavy fines (to the individuals, not just the corporation), and even jail time.
And absolutely should get denied operating license extension, and possibly even have their existing license revoked.
But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATE.
It would be like arresting every person in the country who owns a Silver or Gray car because a Silver/Gray car was involved in a hit and run Rhode Island.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251074</id>
	<title>Problems with plants that got 20 year extentions</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1266922140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maryland's Calvert Cliffs reactors seem to be becoming unreliable:  <a href="http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/NRC.inspectors.sent.2.1514222.html" title="wjz.com">http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/NRC.inspectors.sent.2.1514222.html</a> [wjz.com]  And, South Carolina's Oconee just sprung a leak as well <a href="http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/feb/09/oconee-nuclear-station-reports-tritium-exceeds-ind/" title="independentmail.com">http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/feb/09/oconee-nuclear-station-reports-tritium-exceeds-ind/</a> [independentmail.com]  It is probably a mistake to run these plants past their 40 year design lifetime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maryland 's Calvert Cliffs reactors seem to be becoming unreliable : http : //wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/NRC.inspectors.sent.2.1514222.html [ wjz.com ] And , South Carolina 's Oconee just sprung a leak as well http : //www.independentmail.com/news/2010/feb/09/oconee-nuclear-station-reports-tritium-exceeds-ind/ [ independentmail.com ] It is probably a mistake to run these plants past their 40 year design lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maryland's Calvert Cliffs reactors seem to be becoming unreliable:  http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/NRC.inspectors.sent.2.1514222.html [wjz.com]  And, South Carolina's Oconee just sprung a leak as well http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/feb/09/oconee-nuclear-station-reports-tritium-exceeds-ind/ [independentmail.com]  It is probably a mistake to run these plants past their 40 year design lifetime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248306</id>
	<title>Nu-Cu-LAR!</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1266955860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody wants the nuclear power plant in their back yard because it is: "NUCULAR!!!"  The power has to come from somewhere.  Yet everyone will happily accept that coal-powered plant in their front yard which actually emits more radiation (through trace amounts in the coal) than a nuclear plant does.  And also current designs, as in not from 30 years ago, actually don't melt down: at all.  Nuclear material still takes care to handle but of all the trade-off's its actually darn good everything taken into account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody wants the nuclear power plant in their back yard because it is : " NUCULAR ! ! !
" The power has to come from somewhere .
Yet everyone will happily accept that coal-powered plant in their front yard which actually emits more radiation ( through trace amounts in the coal ) than a nuclear plant does .
And also current designs , as in not from 30 years ago , actually do n't melt down : at all .
Nuclear material still takes care to handle but of all the trade-off 's its actually darn good everything taken into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody wants the nuclear power plant in their back yard because it is: "NUCULAR!!!
"  The power has to come from somewhere.
Yet everyone will happily accept that coal-powered plant in their front yard which actually emits more radiation (through trace amounts in the coal) than a nuclear plant does.
And also current designs, as in not from 30 years ago, actually don't melt down: at all.
Nuclear material still takes care to handle but of all the trade-off's its actually darn good everything taken into account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248756</id>
	<title>Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1266957120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bravo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248124</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266955200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tritium is pretty safe outside your body. Not so safe inside it.</p></div><p>Actually, no, its pretty harmless.  Water gets peed or sweated or breathed (or whatever-d) away in a couple weeks.  As a gas its virtually non-bio-reactive, and when it gets far enough away into the environment to oxidize into water, it tends to be pretty dilute.</p><p>Compared to heavy metal compounds that permanently stay in your bones, or radioactive particles in tobacco smoke that permanently lodge in the lungs, or weird stuff that's chemically poisonous, tritium is pretty harmless.  Which is probably why its widely used for lighting compasses, gunsights, signs, etc.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>"HTO has a short biological half life in the human body of 7 to 14 days which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium is pretty safe outside your body .
Not so safe inside it.Actually , no , its pretty harmless .
Water gets peed or sweated or breathed ( or whatever-d ) away in a couple weeks .
As a gas its virtually non-bio-reactive , and when it gets far enough away into the environment to oxidize into water , it tends to be pretty dilute.Compared to heavy metal compounds that permanently stay in your bones , or radioactive particles in tobacco smoke that permanently lodge in the lungs , or weird stuff that 's chemically poisonous , tritium is pretty harmless .
Which is probably why its widely used for lighting compasses , gunsights , signs , etc.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium [ wikipedia.org ] " HTO has a short biological half life in the human body of 7 to 14 days which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium is pretty safe outside your body.
Not so safe inside it.Actually, no, its pretty harmless.
Water gets peed or sweated or breathed (or whatever-d) away in a couple weeks.
As a gas its virtually non-bio-reactive, and when it gets far enough away into the environment to oxidize into water, it tends to be pretty dilute.Compared to heavy metal compounds that permanently stay in your bones, or radioactive particles in tobacco smoke that permanently lodge in the lungs, or weird stuff that's chemically poisonous, tritium is pretty harmless.
Which is probably why its widely used for lighting compasses, gunsights, signs, etc.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium [wikipedia.org]"HTO has a short biological half life in the human body of 7 to 14 days which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248418</id>
	<title>Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1266956280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I broadly agree with the subject of your post, the tiny release of tritium here is unlikely to kill anyone. Since 1955 there has only been about 250kg of the stuff produced in the first place, and the release here was on the order of 2 microcuries. You get a *significantly higher* amount of radiation from natural background sources. It's also a beta emmiter, so unless you ingest it (and it's a very light gas that will have dissipated quickly, so unlikely) you are not going to be harmed by it at all.</p><p>You're facing more danger crossing the road, or eating a Big Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I broadly agree with the subject of your post , the tiny release of tritium here is unlikely to kill anyone .
Since 1955 there has only been about 250kg of the stuff produced in the first place , and the release here was on the order of 2 microcuries .
You get a * significantly higher * amount of radiation from natural background sources .
It 's also a beta emmiter , so unless you ingest it ( and it 's a very light gas that will have dissipated quickly , so unlikely ) you are not going to be harmed by it at all.You 're facing more danger crossing the road , or eating a Big Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I broadly agree with the subject of your post, the tiny release of tritium here is unlikely to kill anyone.
Since 1955 there has only been about 250kg of the stuff produced in the first place, and the release here was on the order of 2 microcuries.
You get a *significantly higher* amount of radiation from natural background sources.
It's also a beta emmiter, so unless you ingest it (and it's a very light gas that will have dissipated quickly, so unlikely) you are not going to be harmed by it at all.You're facing more danger crossing the road, or eating a Big Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247630</id>
	<title>tubg1rl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FreeBSD 3ent out will not work. And Obsessives and the is the worst off Obligated to care engineering project backwards.  To the in posting 4 GNAA from the FreeBSD of OpenBSD versus Due to the troubles from within. off the play area me if you'd like, legitimise doing I'll have offended this post up. name on the jar of NetBSD posts on</htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD 3ent out will not work .
And Obsessives and the is the worst off Obligated to care engineering project backwards .
To the in posting 4 GNAA from the FreeBSD of OpenBSD versus Due to the troubles from within .
off the play area me if you 'd like , legitimise doing I 'll have offended this post up .
name on the jar of NetBSD posts on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD 3ent out will not work.
And Obsessives and the is the worst off Obligated to care engineering project backwards.
To the in posting 4 GNAA from the FreeBSD of OpenBSD versus Due to the troubles from within.
off the play area me if you'd like, legitimise doing I'll have offended this post up.
name on the jar of NetBSD posts on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248100</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1266955080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just like pretty much every other company on Earth their primary interest is money.</p></div><p>Obviously not.  Once their license is shut down, the plant is fined by the NRC, and the company is sued into oblivion they won't be making much money.  If they were concerned about money, they would have dealt with the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like pretty much every other company on Earth their primary interest is money.Obviously not .
Once their license is shut down , the plant is fined by the NRC , and the company is sued into oblivion they wo n't be making much money .
If they were concerned about money , they would have dealt with the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like pretty much every other company on Earth their primary interest is money.Obviously not.
Once their license is shut down, the plant is fined by the NRC, and the company is sued into oblivion they won't be making much money.
If they were concerned about money, they would have dealt with the problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248454</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>TheTyrannyOfForcedRe</author>
	<datestamp>1266956340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place. Sure, this time it might be something like tritium, but whose to say at some later date it's not something worse? Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?</p></div><p>Upper level management types are mostly all lying snakes.  That's probably true across all industries.  Does that mean that society should give up and not build/manufacture/do anything?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place .
Sure , this time it might be something like tritium , but whose to say at some later date it 's not something worse ?
Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant ( s ) if they 're willing to lie under oath about something this minor ? Upper level management types are mostly all lying snakes .
That 's probably true across all industries .
Does that mean that society should give up and not build/manufacture/do anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place.
Sure, this time it might be something like tritium, but whose to say at some later date it's not something worse?
Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?Upper level management types are mostly all lying snakes.
That's probably true across all industries.
Does that mean that society should give up and not build/manufacture/do anything?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249062</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!</title>
	<author>AmonRa1979</author>
	<datestamp>1266958020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're off by about 3 orders of magnitude.  Isn't this 2 microcuries/liter?  (2*10^6) * (1*10^-12) = 2 million picocuries = 2 microcuries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're off by about 3 orders of magnitude .
Is n't this 2 microcuries/liter ?
( 2 * 10 ^ 6 ) * ( 1 * 10 ^ -12 ) = 2 million picocuries = 2 microcuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're off by about 3 orders of magnitude.
Isn't this 2 microcuries/liter?
(2*10^6) * (1*10^-12) = 2 million picocuries = 2 microcuries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1266952200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place.  Sure, this time it might be something like tritium, but whose to say at some later date it's not something worse?  Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place .
Sure , this time it might be something like tritium , but whose to say at some later date it 's not something worse ?
Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant ( s ) if they 're willing to lie under oath about something this minor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place.
Sure, this time it might be something like tritium, but whose to say at some later date it's not something worse?
Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249684</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Epi-man</author>
	<datestamp>1266916920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?</p></div></blockquote><p>I often wondered that about President Clinton....didn't exactly carry a lot of weight in these parts though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant ( s ) if they 're willing to lie under oath about something this minor ? I often wondered that about President Clinton....did n't exactly carry a lot of weight in these parts though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?I often wondered that about President Clinton....didn't exactly carry a lot of weight in these parts though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31283486</id>
	<title>Entergy claims it has save $300 million (!)</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1267188660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Entergy claims it has save Vermonters $300 million over eight years because of its electricity rates.  <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial\_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/02/26/leaking\_credibility\_vt\_yankee\_must\_step\_up\_or\_face\_closure/" title="boston.com">http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial\_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/02/26/leaking\_credibility\_vt\_yankee\_must\_step\_up\_or\_face\_closure/</a> [boston.com]  But this is just about what is lacking in the decomissioning fund for the plant that Entergy has failed to contribute to.  Sure hope Entergy has that money available now to make up the deficit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Entergy claims it has save Vermonters $ 300 million over eight years because of its electricity rates .
http : //www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial \ _opinion/editorials/articles/2010/02/26/leaking \ _credibility \ _vt \ _yankee \ _must \ _step \ _up \ _or \ _face \ _closure/ [ boston.com ] But this is just about what is lacking in the decomissioning fund for the plant that Entergy has failed to contribute to .
Sure hope Entergy has that money available now to make up the deficit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entergy claims it has save Vermonters $300 million over eight years because of its electricity rates.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial\_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/02/26/leaking\_credibility\_vt\_yankee\_must\_step\_up\_or\_face\_closure/ [boston.com]  But this is just about what is lacking in the decomissioning fund for the plant that Entergy has failed to contribute to.
Sure hope Entergy has that money available now to make up the deficit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248512</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266956580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually, no, its pretty harmless.</i></p><p>Actually, no it's not.  First off, HTO is only one of the forms tritium can take, and the one with the shortest-term residency in the body.  When the tritium becomes bioincorporated before ingestion, it tends to last in the body much longer.  Secondly, 2.4 liters/day (average adult water consumption) * 2 millicuries/liter (the level of this leak) * 64 mrem/mcurie (exposure for HTO ingestion) = 307 mrem/day of ingestion.  So once you account for the rate it leaves the body, that means a constant exposure to about 2 rem, or ~730 rem/year.  The normal average dose is 360 mrem/year.  So if this was your water supply, you'd be exposed to about 2000 times the normal human's exposure to radiation.  If it was diluted at a 100:1 ratio, it'd still 20x your normal exposure.  This, as mentioned, assumes that the tritium remains as HTO rather than becoming bioincorporated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , no , its pretty harmless.Actually , no it 's not .
First off , HTO is only one of the forms tritium can take , and the one with the shortest-term residency in the body .
When the tritium becomes bioincorporated before ingestion , it tends to last in the body much longer .
Secondly , 2.4 liters/day ( average adult water consumption ) * 2 millicuries/liter ( the level of this leak ) * 64 mrem/mcurie ( exposure for HTO ingestion ) = 307 mrem/day of ingestion .
So once you account for the rate it leaves the body , that means a constant exposure to about 2 rem , or ~ 730 rem/year .
The normal average dose is 360 mrem/year .
So if this was your water supply , you 'd be exposed to about 2000 times the normal human 's exposure to radiation .
If it was diluted at a 100 : 1 ratio , it 'd still 20x your normal exposure .
This , as mentioned , assumes that the tritium remains as HTO rather than becoming bioincorporated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, no, its pretty harmless.Actually, no it's not.
First off, HTO is only one of the forms tritium can take, and the one with the shortest-term residency in the body.
When the tritium becomes bioincorporated before ingestion, it tends to last in the body much longer.
Secondly, 2.4 liters/day (average adult water consumption) * 2 millicuries/liter (the level of this leak) * 64 mrem/mcurie (exposure for HTO ingestion) = 307 mrem/day of ingestion.
So once you account for the rate it leaves the body, that means a constant exposure to about 2 rem, or ~730 rem/year.
The normal average dose is 360 mrem/year.
So if this was your water supply, you'd be exposed to about 2000 times the normal human's exposure to radiation.
If it was diluted at a 100:1 ratio, it'd still 20x your normal exposure.
This, as mentioned, assumes that the tritium remains as HTO rather than becoming bioincorporated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248156</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1266955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, as a gas, getting it inside you is pretty easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , as a gas , getting it inside you is pretty easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, as a gas, getting it inside you is pretty easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248188</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1266955440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you can't measure the volume of a leak by the amount of radiation at the leak site, so who knows how much actually leaked...It probably wasn't THAT much, just because they don't USE that much.</p><p>Yea, I agree, it probably made it to the local water supply. It's just not a big deal. If you can assume that the highest concentration anywhere was at the leak site (which is reasonable) and that concentration was consistent with the lowest form of radio-medical imaging...It's extremely unlikely that it would be available in quantity anywhere outside of the immediate area of the plant.</p><p>The only people who'd be in danger would be people who had a well that was basically <em>at</em> the leak site. Any dilution would drop the exposure dramatically. If the spill made it to a river, it'd be basically indistinguishable from naturally occurring HTO (which is common enough that it's used like Carbon-14 to date liquids).</p><p>Nuclear plants are actually <em>allowed</em> to release a certain amount of it a year as part of normal operation, and the NRC calls it on their website, "<a href="http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/rn-groundwater.html" title="nrc.gov">...one of the least dangerous radioactive isotopes known.</a> [nrc.gov]"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you ca n't measure the volume of a leak by the amount of radiation at the leak site , so who knows how much actually leaked...It probably was n't THAT much , just because they do n't USE that much.Yea , I agree , it probably made it to the local water supply .
It 's just not a big deal .
If you can assume that the highest concentration anywhere was at the leak site ( which is reasonable ) and that concentration was consistent with the lowest form of radio-medical imaging...It 's extremely unlikely that it would be available in quantity anywhere outside of the immediate area of the plant.The only people who 'd be in danger would be people who had a well that was basically at the leak site .
Any dilution would drop the exposure dramatically .
If the spill made it to a river , it 'd be basically indistinguishable from naturally occurring HTO ( which is common enough that it 's used like Carbon-14 to date liquids ) .Nuclear plants are actually allowed to release a certain amount of it a year as part of normal operation , and the NRC calls it on their website , " ...one of the least dangerous radioactive isotopes known .
[ nrc.gov ] "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you can't measure the volume of a leak by the amount of radiation at the leak site, so who knows how much actually leaked...It probably wasn't THAT much, just because they don't USE that much.Yea, I agree, it probably made it to the local water supply.
It's just not a big deal.
If you can assume that the highest concentration anywhere was at the leak site (which is reasonable) and that concentration was consistent with the lowest form of radio-medical imaging...It's extremely unlikely that it would be available in quantity anywhere outside of the immediate area of the plant.The only people who'd be in danger would be people who had a well that was basically at the leak site.
Any dilution would drop the exposure dramatically.
If the spill made it to a river, it'd be basically indistinguishable from naturally occurring HTO (which is common enough that it's used like Carbon-14 to date liquids).Nuclear plants are actually allowed to release a certain amount of it a year as part of normal operation, and the NRC calls it on their website, "...one of the least dangerous radioactive isotopes known.
[nrc.gov]"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249974</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1266918240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2.4 liters/day (average adult water consumption) * 2 millicuries/liter (the level of this leak) * 64 mrem/mcurie (exposure for HTO ingestion) = 307 mrem/day of ingestion</p></div><p>I read it was 2 microcuries total, not an unspecified amount at 2 uC/L</p><p>Unless it was a very weird practical joke involving the office coffee maker, I'd think it difficult to consume 100\% of the leak.</p><p>I still stand by my statement.  Its a relatively harmless isotope.  Would you prefer eating Co-60 or one of the lead isotopes or one of the iodine isotopes?  Breathe in uranium smoke?  No, they're all way worse that tritium.</p><p>I will give you credit that I tried to think of a more harmless isotope found in quantity at a typical plant, and I finally thought of noble gasses... they'll just blow away without bioreacting at all.  Everything else, however, is worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2.4 liters/day ( average adult water consumption ) * 2 millicuries/liter ( the level of this leak ) * 64 mrem/mcurie ( exposure for HTO ingestion ) = 307 mrem/day of ingestionI read it was 2 microcuries total , not an unspecified amount at 2 uC/LUnless it was a very weird practical joke involving the office coffee maker , I 'd think it difficult to consume 100 \ % of the leak.I still stand by my statement .
Its a relatively harmless isotope .
Would you prefer eating Co-60 or one of the lead isotopes or one of the iodine isotopes ?
Breathe in uranium smoke ?
No , they 're all way worse that tritium.I will give you credit that I tried to think of a more harmless isotope found in quantity at a typical plant , and I finally thought of noble gasses... they 'll just blow away without bioreacting at all .
Everything else , however , is worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.4 liters/day (average adult water consumption) * 2 millicuries/liter (the level of this leak) * 64 mrem/mcurie (exposure for HTO ingestion) = 307 mrem/day of ingestionI read it was 2 microcuries total, not an unspecified amount at 2 uC/LUnless it was a very weird practical joke involving the office coffee maker, I'd think it difficult to consume 100\% of the leak.I still stand by my statement.
Its a relatively harmless isotope.
Would you prefer eating Co-60 or one of the lead isotopes or one of the iodine isotopes?
Breathe in uranium smoke?
No, they're all way worse that tritium.I will give you credit that I tried to think of a more harmless isotope found in quantity at a typical plant, and I finally thought of noble gasses... they'll just blow away without bioreacting at all.
Everything else, however, is worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249392</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1266915840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place."</p><p>No, the fact is that they lied about existing infrastructure when asked about it. The leak happening is a result of that lying, as if that infrastructure were known about, it could have been properly inspected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place .
" No , the fact is that they lied about existing infrastructure when asked about it .
The leak happening is a result of that lying , as if that infrastructure were known about , it could have been properly inspected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place.
"No, the fact is that they lied about existing infrastructure when asked about it.
The leak happening is a result of that lying, as if that infrastructure were known about, it could have been properly inspected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248584</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1266956700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, but in context they released 6 curies of tritium under regular normal operation (according to the NRC effluent website. Data as of 2007)...That's 6 <em>trillion</em> picocuries. And that's <em>normal</em>, and within their regulated limits.</p><p>If someone had a well right there, absolutely it would be very serious, they'd need to avoid drinking or cooking with that water. If it got into a river? It'd hardly show up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , but in context they released 6 curies of tritium under regular normal operation ( according to the NRC effluent website .
Data as of 2007 ) ...That 's 6 trillion picocuries .
And that 's normal , and within their regulated limits.If someone had a well right there , absolutely it would be very serious , they 'd need to avoid drinking or cooking with that water .
If it got into a river ?
It 'd hardly show up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, but in context they released 6 curies of tritium under regular normal operation (according to the NRC effluent website.
Data as of 2007)...That's 6 trillion picocuries.
And that's normal, and within their regulated limits.If someone had a well right there, absolutely it would be very serious, they'd need to avoid drinking or cooking with that water.
If it got into a river?
It'd hardly show up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248050</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1266954900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure everything will be fine and dandy when we shut down all these nuclear plants in order to switch to those safe, non-polluting coal plants...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure everything will be fine and dandy when we shut down all these nuclear plants in order to switch to those safe , non-polluting coal plants.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure everything will be fine and dandy when we shut down all these nuclear plants in order to switch to those safe, non-polluting coal plants...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266953100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tritium is pretty safe outside your body.  Not so safe inside it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium is pretty safe outside your body .
Not so safe inside it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium is pretty safe outside your body.
Not so safe inside it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248146</id>
	<title>Tritium</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1266955260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFAIK tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, with an atomic weight of 3. It is radioactive, but its still hydrogen, and is a gas lighter than air. If it leaks its going to rise up to the top of the atmosphere, so its not going to affect anyone unless they live above the plant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK tritium is an isotope of hydrogen , with an atomic weight of 3 .
It is radioactive , but its still hydrogen , and is a gas lighter than air .
If it leaks its going to rise up to the top of the atmosphere , so its not going to affect anyone unless they live above the plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, with an atomic weight of 3.
It is radioactive, but its still hydrogen, and is a gas lighter than air.
If it leaks its going to rise up to the top of the atmosphere, so its not going to affect anyone unless they live above the plant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248462</id>
	<title>Re:Yes but</title>
	<author>rmckeethen</author>
	<datestamp>1266956400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is they lied under oath. And once people are lying about the state of things you don't know what else they are or will lie about. These might not matter, but they might very well lie about the next leak when it is a serious problem. As with many issues, the initial incident isn't nearly as much of a problem as the coverup.</p></div><p>How do you know they lied?  How can you be sure it wasn't an honest error by a company official who simply didn't understand the technical details of the reactor's plumbing?  I don't know about you but, in my experience, these types of corporate misstatements and goof-ups are pretty common in any industry, nuclear or otherwise.  I'm not convinced that isn't the case here.  TFA doesn't provide enough evidence one way or the other on this point.  It certainly doesn't substantiate a deliberate coverup.  There's just no hard evidence of that.</p><p>The recent revelation of a tritium leak at Vermont Yankee in 2005 seems, at least to me, to indicate that someone at Entergy is trying to be up-front and honest with the public and the NRC.  I applaud that.  Good for them.  God knows, after Three-Mile Island in 1979, I can't imagine anyone in the US nuclear industry wanting to admit to any accident, benign or otherwise.</p><p>As others have already pointed out, a tritium leak isn't particularly dangerous.  I don't feel compelled to get my own knickers in a knot over the problem.  But I do think it's telling how quickly a minor leak at a nuclear facility spirals into, "They're lying -- it's a coverup!"  This type of knee-jerk anti-nuclear reaction is exactly why the US hasn't built a new reactor in over a quarter of a century.  It's also why I'm dubious about new nuclear projects today.  Until US citizens show a willingness to get facts in their hands and abandon the  "if it's nuclear it must be bad' mentality we are never going to have the kind of debate we deserve to have over the pros and cons of nuclear energy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is they lied under oath .
And once people are lying about the state of things you do n't know what else they are or will lie about .
These might not matter , but they might very well lie about the next leak when it is a serious problem .
As with many issues , the initial incident is n't nearly as much of a problem as the coverup.How do you know they lied ?
How can you be sure it was n't an honest error by a company official who simply did n't understand the technical details of the reactor 's plumbing ?
I do n't know about you but , in my experience , these types of corporate misstatements and goof-ups are pretty common in any industry , nuclear or otherwise .
I 'm not convinced that is n't the case here .
TFA does n't provide enough evidence one way or the other on this point .
It certainly does n't substantiate a deliberate coverup .
There 's just no hard evidence of that.The recent revelation of a tritium leak at Vermont Yankee in 2005 seems , at least to me , to indicate that someone at Entergy is trying to be up-front and honest with the public and the NRC .
I applaud that .
Good for them .
God knows , after Three-Mile Island in 1979 , I ca n't imagine anyone in the US nuclear industry wanting to admit to any accident , benign or otherwise.As others have already pointed out , a tritium leak is n't particularly dangerous .
I do n't feel compelled to get my own knickers in a knot over the problem .
But I do think it 's telling how quickly a minor leak at a nuclear facility spirals into , " They 're lying -- it 's a coverup !
" This type of knee-jerk anti-nuclear reaction is exactly why the US has n't built a new reactor in over a quarter of a century .
It 's also why I 'm dubious about new nuclear projects today .
Until US citizens show a willingness to get facts in their hands and abandon the " if it 's nuclear it must be bad ' mentality we are never going to have the kind of debate we deserve to have over the pros and cons of nuclear energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is they lied under oath.
And once people are lying about the state of things you don't know what else they are or will lie about.
These might not matter, but they might very well lie about the next leak when it is a serious problem.
As with many issues, the initial incident isn't nearly as much of a problem as the coverup.How do you know they lied?
How can you be sure it wasn't an honest error by a company official who simply didn't understand the technical details of the reactor's plumbing?
I don't know about you but, in my experience, these types of corporate misstatements and goof-ups are pretty common in any industry, nuclear or otherwise.
I'm not convinced that isn't the case here.
TFA doesn't provide enough evidence one way or the other on this point.
It certainly doesn't substantiate a deliberate coverup.
There's just no hard evidence of that.The recent revelation of a tritium leak at Vermont Yankee in 2005 seems, at least to me, to indicate that someone at Entergy is trying to be up-front and honest with the public and the NRC.
I applaud that.
Good for them.
God knows, after Three-Mile Island in 1979, I can't imagine anyone in the US nuclear industry wanting to admit to any accident, benign or otherwise.As others have already pointed out, a tritium leak isn't particularly dangerous.
I don't feel compelled to get my own knickers in a knot over the problem.
But I do think it's telling how quickly a minor leak at a nuclear facility spirals into, "They're lying -- it's a coverup!
"  This type of knee-jerk anti-nuclear reaction is exactly why the US hasn't built a new reactor in over a quarter of a century.
It's also why I'm dubious about new nuclear projects today.
Until US citizens show a willingness to get facts in their hands and abandon the  "if it's nuclear it must be bad' mentality we are never going to have the kind of debate we deserve to have over the pros and cons of nuclear energy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31256546</id>
	<title>VT Senate Leader: Don't trust Entergy</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1265143020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci\_14458338" title="reformer.com">http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci\_14458338</a> [reformer.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.reformer.com/localnews/ci \ _14458338 [ reformer.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci\_14458338 [reformer.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248168</id>
	<title>Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Admit it:  you're actually a libertarian trying to make non-libertarians look like idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Admit it : you 're actually a libertarian trying to make non-libertarians look like idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Admit it:  you're actually a libertarian trying to make non-libertarians look like idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247730</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1266953640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Problem is, you might just be drinking it.  Tritium combines with oxygen to form water, so any leak has the possibility of making it into the water supply.
</p><p>
And, if the leak wasn't serious, why would they lie about it?  How can you be sure it was just 2 microcuries when the company lied about the leak in the first place?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is , you might just be drinking it .
Tritium combines with oxygen to form water , so any leak has the possibility of making it into the water supply .
And , if the leak was n't serious , why would they lie about it ?
How can you be sure it was just 2 microcuries when the company lied about the leak in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Problem is, you might just be drinking it.
Tritium combines with oxygen to form water, so any leak has the possibility of making it into the water supply.
And, if the leak wasn't serious, why would they lie about it?
How can you be sure it was just 2 microcuries when the company lied about the leak in the first place?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248416</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1266956220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm of two minds on this. The actual leaks are extremely minor and are being taken care of properly. They're practically non-issues that shouldn't be getting any scary headlines (just a calm article on page 2 or 3). On the other side, Entergy absolutely should not be lying about any of this, especially not to the NRC. The lie itself has done more to endanger the plant (and harm the cause of nuclear energy in general) than the leaks. What's really needed is to re-license the plant with a proviso for 3rd party supervision (to make sure the known leaks are fixed properly and that there aren't any more hidden issues) and string up the officials that lied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm of two minds on this .
The actual leaks are extremely minor and are being taken care of properly .
They 're practically non-issues that should n't be getting any scary headlines ( just a calm article on page 2 or 3 ) .
On the other side , Entergy absolutely should not be lying about any of this , especially not to the NRC .
The lie itself has done more to endanger the plant ( and harm the cause of nuclear energy in general ) than the leaks .
What 's really needed is to re-license the plant with a proviso for 3rd party supervision ( to make sure the known leaks are fixed properly and that there are n't any more hidden issues ) and string up the officials that lied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm of two minds on this.
The actual leaks are extremely minor and are being taken care of properly.
They're practically non-issues that shouldn't be getting any scary headlines (just a calm article on page 2 or 3).
On the other side, Entergy absolutely should not be lying about any of this, especially not to the NRC.
The lie itself has done more to endanger the plant (and harm the cause of nuclear energy in general) than the leaks.
What's really needed is to re-license the plant with a proviso for 3rd party supervision (to make sure the known leaks are fixed properly and that there aren't any more hidden issues) and string up the officials that lied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248944</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1266957720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1) That's 2 million picocuries *per liter*. The average adult human drinks 2.4 liters of water *per day*.
<br>2) The human body naturally contains about 0.1 microcuries. So yes, combining that with above, this amount would be significant if it were to contaminate drinking water.</p></div></blockquote><p>2.4 liters per day at 2 picocuries per liter is 4.8 picocuries per day.  Which is 0.0000048 microcuries.
</p><p>Which means you'd add about 0.005\% to your body's radioactivity levels.  Per day.
</p><p>The biological half life of tritium is about 9 days.  Which means that your body would reach equilibrium with about 32 extra picocuries of tritium inside it.  Beyond that point, the tritium would exit your body as fast as it's entering (given that you really do drink 2.4 liters per day, of course).
</p><p>So, net effect of drinking this water directly out of the leak site - your natural radioactivity would increase by 0.032\%.
</p><p>You may find a 0.032\% increase "significant", but somehow I just can't get excited about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) That 's 2 million picocuries * per liter * .
The average adult human drinks 2.4 liters of water * per day * .
2 ) The human body naturally contains about 0.1 microcuries .
So yes , combining that with above , this amount would be significant if it were to contaminate drinking water.2.4 liters per day at 2 picocuries per liter is 4.8 picocuries per day .
Which is 0.0000048 microcuries .
Which means you 'd add about 0.005 \ % to your body 's radioactivity levels .
Per day .
The biological half life of tritium is about 9 days .
Which means that your body would reach equilibrium with about 32 extra picocuries of tritium inside it .
Beyond that point , the tritium would exit your body as fast as it 's entering ( given that you really do drink 2.4 liters per day , of course ) .
So , net effect of drinking this water directly out of the leak site - your natural radioactivity would increase by 0.032 \ % .
You may find a 0.032 \ % increase " significant " , but somehow I just ca n't get excited about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) That's 2 million picocuries *per liter*.
The average adult human drinks 2.4 liters of water *per day*.
2) The human body naturally contains about 0.1 microcuries.
So yes, combining that with above, this amount would be significant if it were to contaminate drinking water.2.4 liters per day at 2 picocuries per liter is 4.8 picocuries per day.
Which is 0.0000048 microcuries.
Which means you'd add about 0.005\% to your body's radioactivity levels.
Per day.
The biological half life of tritium is about 9 days.
Which means that your body would reach equilibrium with about 32 extra picocuries of tritium inside it.
Beyond that point, the tritium would exit your body as fast as it's entering (given that you really do drink 2.4 liters per day, of course).
So, net effect of drinking this water directly out of the leak site - your natural radioactivity would increase by 0.032\%.
You may find a 0.032\% increase "significant", but somehow I just can't get excited about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247202</id>
	<title>Rob malda's hung like a toothpick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rob Malda's penis is so small that a toddler looks like mandingo in comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob Malda 's penis is so small that a toddler looks like mandingo in comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob Malda's penis is so small that a toddler looks like mandingo in comparison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31253090</id>
	<title>Traveling Wave Reactors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266930840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read about the clean future of nuclear techology, the Traveling Wave Reactor.</p><p>We shouldn't accept anything less- our future doesn't lie in continuing to use power plants based on 1950s techology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read about the clean future of nuclear techology , the Traveling Wave Reactor.We should n't accept anything less- our future does n't lie in continuing to use power plants based on 1950s techology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read about the clean future of nuclear techology, the Traveling Wave Reactor.We shouldn't accept anything less- our future doesn't lie in continuing to use power plants based on 1950s techology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247796</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1266953940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bravo, sir, bravo.</p><p>The leak itself is nothing to be concerned about.  The lying under oath should be dealt with harshly, but nuclear power is hardly the only industry with the potential for mass casualty if you screw up badly enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo , sir , bravo.The leak itself is nothing to be concerned about .
The lying under oath should be dealt with harshly , but nuclear power is hardly the only industry with the potential for mass casualty if you screw up badly enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo, sir, bravo.The leak itself is nothing to be concerned about.
The lying under oath should be dealt with harshly, but nuclear power is hardly the only industry with the potential for mass casualty if you screw up badly enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248164</id>
	<title>Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And yes, because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed (since they obviously covered up the previous leak), they should get heavy fines (to the individuals, not just the corporation), and even jail time.</i></p><p>I'd say that someone should go to prison, and it should be someone from the very top ranks of the company. And the company's stockholders should all lose every penny they invested. This time the only serious matter was the lying and coverup, next time it could be catastrophic. IMO fines are not enough; someone whould spend serious time with other thieves and murderers.</p><p><i>But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATE</i></p><p>Agreed; the summary was somewhat politicized. We need new nukes, but they shouldn't be run by the sort of people who ran this one.</p><p>But considering that the former head of NASDAQ is in prison for a billion dollar Ponzi scheme, how are you going to find someone trustworthy? I'd say let the state or local governments run it. At least then you have some sort of accountability. Our governmnent-run power plant here in Springfield, IL produces the cheapest power in the state, has the best uptime in the state, and their customer service is stellar. And they make a profit for the city by selling power to other companies. The reason is, if the customer service is bad, or the rates get high, or the power goes out too often, the Mayor loses his job.</p><p>In the private utility industries the customer has no recourse and doesn't matter at all to the company; it's not like you can use the competing power company down the block. Their CEOs are beholden to nobody but the stockholders.</p><p>All utilities, IMO, should be government-run (at the most local level possible).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yes , because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed ( since they obviously covered up the previous leak ) , they should get heavy fines ( to the individuals , not just the corporation ) , and even jail time.I 'd say that someone should go to prison , and it should be someone from the very top ranks of the company .
And the company 's stockholders should all lose every penny they invested .
This time the only serious matter was the lying and coverup , next time it could be catastrophic .
IMO fines are not enough ; someone whould spend serious time with other thieves and murderers.But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy , and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATEAgreed ; the summary was somewhat politicized .
We need new nukes , but they should n't be run by the sort of people who ran this one.But considering that the former head of NASDAQ is in prison for a billion dollar Ponzi scheme , how are you going to find someone trustworthy ?
I 'd say let the state or local governments run it .
At least then you have some sort of accountability .
Our governmnent-run power plant here in Springfield , IL produces the cheapest power in the state , has the best uptime in the state , and their customer service is stellar .
And they make a profit for the city by selling power to other companies .
The reason is , if the customer service is bad , or the rates get high , or the power goes out too often , the Mayor loses his job.In the private utility industries the customer has no recourse and does n't matter at all to the company ; it 's not like you can use the competing power company down the block .
Their CEOs are beholden to nobody but the stockholders.All utilities , IMO , should be government-run ( at the most local level possible ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yes, because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed (since they obviously covered up the previous leak), they should get heavy fines (to the individuals, not just the corporation), and even jail time.I'd say that someone should go to prison, and it should be someone from the very top ranks of the company.
And the company's stockholders should all lose every penny they invested.
This time the only serious matter was the lying and coverup, next time it could be catastrophic.
IMO fines are not enough; someone whould spend serious time with other thieves and murderers.But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATEAgreed; the summary was somewhat politicized.
We need new nukes, but they shouldn't be run by the sort of people who ran this one.But considering that the former head of NASDAQ is in prison for a billion dollar Ponzi scheme, how are you going to find someone trustworthy?
I'd say let the state or local governments run it.
At least then you have some sort of accountability.
Our governmnent-run power plant here in Springfield, IL produces the cheapest power in the state, has the best uptime in the state, and their customer service is stellar.
And they make a profit for the city by selling power to other companies.
The reason is, if the customer service is bad, or the rates get high, or the power goes out too often, the Mayor loses his job.In the private utility industries the customer has no recourse and doesn't matter at all to the company; it's not like you can use the competing power company down the block.
Their CEOs are beholden to nobody but the stockholders.All utilities, IMO, should be government-run (at the most local level possible).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247904</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1266954360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but lying about the situation and being found out feeds the nonsense even more than just coming clean in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but lying about the situation and being found out feeds the nonsense even more than just coming clean in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but lying about the situation and being found out feeds the nonsense even more than just coming clean in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248004</id>
	<title>Straw man arguments and misrepresentation</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1266954720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go read<br><a href="http://www.essortment.com/all/libertarianwhat\_rcrx.htm" title="essortment.com">http://www.essortment.com/all/libertarianwhat\_rcrx.htm</a> [essortment.com]</p><p>You could have googled. it's the second link.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go readhttp : //www.essortment.com/all/libertarianwhat \ _rcrx.htm [ essortment.com ] You could have googled .
it 's the second link .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go readhttp://www.essortment.com/all/libertarianwhat\_rcrx.htm [essortment.com]You could have googled.
it's the second link.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31252378</id>
	<title>Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266927420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?  I'm sorry, but I'm failing to grasp how an essentially monopolized market, where there is extremely limited choice due to massive regulations, is supposed to somehow prove a "free-market" failure.  This is a failure on multiple levels, and I'm not complaining about regulations on nuclear power plants, I'm just saying, this has NOTHING to do with free markets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
I 'm sorry , but I 'm failing to grasp how an essentially monopolized market , where there is extremely limited choice due to massive regulations , is supposed to somehow prove a " free-market " failure .
This is a failure on multiple levels , and I 'm not complaining about regulations on nuclear power plants , I 'm just saying , this has NOTHING to do with free markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
I'm sorry, but I'm failing to grasp how an essentially monopolized market, where there is extremely limited choice due to massive regulations, is supposed to somehow prove a "free-market" failure.
This is a failure on multiple levels, and I'm not complaining about regulations on nuclear power plants, I'm just saying, this has NOTHING to do with free markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31252980</id>
	<title>*sign*</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1266930240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear power could be such a good thing. But it isn't they way they're doing it. This comes from the simple reason that we're stuck with corporate greed like this. Entergy has been underfunding the decommissioning fund for Vermont Yankee. Then with the stock market crash it went even further down. Then there was the cooling tower that collapsed. That was dramatic. Then they lied to us about the pipes saying there were no under ground pipes. Then they said yes there were underground pipes but they carried no radioactive materials. And then they lied about lying. And then lied about lying about lying. There comes a time when we need to just cut these goons off at the ankles. They've gone too far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power could be such a good thing .
But it is n't they way they 're doing it .
This comes from the simple reason that we 're stuck with corporate greed like this .
Entergy has been underfunding the decommissioning fund for Vermont Yankee .
Then with the stock market crash it went even further down .
Then there was the cooling tower that collapsed .
That was dramatic .
Then they lied to us about the pipes saying there were no under ground pipes .
Then they said yes there were underground pipes but they carried no radioactive materials .
And then they lied about lying .
And then lied about lying about lying .
There comes a time when we need to just cut these goons off at the ankles .
They 've gone too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power could be such a good thing.
But it isn't they way they're doing it.
This comes from the simple reason that we're stuck with corporate greed like this.
Entergy has been underfunding the decommissioning fund for Vermont Yankee.
Then with the stock market crash it went even further down.
Then there was the cooling tower that collapsed.
That was dramatic.
Then they lied to us about the pipes saying there were no under ground pipes.
Then they said yes there were underground pipes but they carried no radioactive materials.
And then they lied about lying.
And then lied about lying about lying.
There comes a time when we need to just cut these goons off at the ankles.
They've gone too far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254608</id>
	<title>Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari</title>
	<author>ReTay</author>
	<datestamp>1266939660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the market does not take care of itself<br>repeat: the market does NOT take care of itself"</p><p>Wrong, full stop.  A free market will indeed take care of itself.  We don't have a free market so no it won't take care of itself.  It seems you are a fan of government involvement.  But to equate our current market to a free market is ignorance or plain dishonesty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the market does not take care of itselfrepeat : the market does NOT take care of itself " Wrong , full stop .
A free market will indeed take care of itself .
We do n't have a free market so no it wo n't take care of itself .
It seems you are a fan of government involvement .
But to equate our current market to a free market is ignorance or plain dishonesty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the market does not take care of itselfrepeat: the market does NOT take care of itself"Wrong, full stop.
A free market will indeed take care of itself.
We don't have a free market so no it won't take care of itself.
It seems you are a fan of government involvement.
But to equate our current market to a free market is ignorance or plain dishonesty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249124</id>
	<title>Re:Yes but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266958200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you know they lied?  How can you be sure it wasn't an honest error by a company official who simply didn't understand the technical details of the reactor's plumbing?  I don't know about you but, in my experience, these types of corporate misstatements and goof-ups are pretty common in any industry, nuclear or otherwise.  I'm not convinced that isn't the case here.  </p></div><p>I don't know how many times Vermont Yankee has been sold since it was built (at least *three* I can find); but it's quite likely that they just didn't know the aforementioned pipes were there.  We have to keep in mind that this is one of the most complicated systems ever designed, designed before cad/cam, designed before desktop computers, and designed by engineers who are at best long retired and at most likely dead for the last decade.  It's much more likely that the institutional knowledge about the pipes just got lost, plain and simple.</p><p>That said, nail 'em to the wall.  The due diligence definitely wasn't done properly.</p><p>IANANuclear Engineer, but I have done diligence work concerning nuclear acquisitions</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know they lied ?
How can you be sure it was n't an honest error by a company official who simply did n't understand the technical details of the reactor 's plumbing ?
I do n't know about you but , in my experience , these types of corporate misstatements and goof-ups are pretty common in any industry , nuclear or otherwise .
I 'm not convinced that is n't the case here .
I do n't know how many times Vermont Yankee has been sold since it was built ( at least * three * I can find ) ; but it 's quite likely that they just did n't know the aforementioned pipes were there .
We have to keep in mind that this is one of the most complicated systems ever designed , designed before cad/cam , designed before desktop computers , and designed by engineers who are at best long retired and at most likely dead for the last decade .
It 's much more likely that the institutional knowledge about the pipes just got lost , plain and simple.That said , nail 'em to the wall .
The due diligence definitely was n't done properly.IANANuclear Engineer , but I have done diligence work concerning nuclear acquisitions</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know they lied?
How can you be sure it wasn't an honest error by a company official who simply didn't understand the technical details of the reactor's plumbing?
I don't know about you but, in my experience, these types of corporate misstatements and goof-ups are pretty common in any industry, nuclear or otherwise.
I'm not convinced that isn't the case here.
I don't know how many times Vermont Yankee has been sold since it was built (at least *three* I can find); but it's quite likely that they just didn't know the aforementioned pipes were there.
We have to keep in mind that this is one of the most complicated systems ever designed, designed before cad/cam, designed before desktop computers, and designed by engineers who are at best long retired and at most likely dead for the last decade.
It's much more likely that the institutional knowledge about the pipes just got lost, plain and simple.That said, nail 'em to the wall.
The due diligence definitely wasn't done properly.IANANuclear Engineer, but I have done diligence work concerning nuclear acquisitions
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</id>
	<title>Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to be all "So what?" but so what? One plant leaks an unspecified amount of a weak beta emitter...It tested at the leak at a whopping 2 million <em>pico</em>curies, which is a bullshit measurement that's clearly chosen because it's more shocking than 2 microcuries. 2 microcuries is about what you'd get for a basic thyroid test at the docs office. Trituim doesn't stay resident in the body, it's half life is 12 years long, and it's a beta emitter: if you drink it you'll get a few rads, but you can take a shower in it without any problem.</p><p>The whole thing is clearly being pushed as an example of the horrible dangers of the super scary nuclear power industry, but what <em>I</em> see is the dangers that are inherent in running antiquated plants for years beyond their design life because a bunch of poorly informed hysterics have blocked all attempts to modernize them for the last 40 years.</p><p>And what the hell is the point in talking about the plants in Georgia? That's a different type of plant, being built by a different company! Georgia has the largest coal fired power plant in the us: where's that outrage? Where is the outrage over the radiation <em>it</em> emits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to be all " So what ?
" but so what ?
One plant leaks an unspecified amount of a weak beta emitter...It tested at the leak at a whopping 2 million picocuries , which is a bullshit measurement that 's clearly chosen because it 's more shocking than 2 microcuries .
2 microcuries is about what you 'd get for a basic thyroid test at the docs office .
Trituim does n't stay resident in the body , it 's half life is 12 years long , and it 's a beta emitter : if you drink it you 'll get a few rads , but you can take a shower in it without any problem.The whole thing is clearly being pushed as an example of the horrible dangers of the super scary nuclear power industry , but what I see is the dangers that are inherent in running antiquated plants for years beyond their design life because a bunch of poorly informed hysterics have blocked all attempts to modernize them for the last 40 years.And what the hell is the point in talking about the plants in Georgia ?
That 's a different type of plant , being built by a different company !
Georgia has the largest coal fired power plant in the us : where 's that outrage ?
Where is the outrage over the radiation it emits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to be all "So what?
" but so what?
One plant leaks an unspecified amount of a weak beta emitter...It tested at the leak at a whopping 2 million picocuries, which is a bullshit measurement that's clearly chosen because it's more shocking than 2 microcuries.
2 microcuries is about what you'd get for a basic thyroid test at the docs office.
Trituim doesn't stay resident in the body, it's half life is 12 years long, and it's a beta emitter: if you drink it you'll get a few rads, but you can take a shower in it without any problem.The whole thing is clearly being pushed as an example of the horrible dangers of the super scary nuclear power industry, but what I see is the dangers that are inherent in running antiquated plants for years beyond their design life because a bunch of poorly informed hysterics have blocked all attempts to modernize them for the last 40 years.And what the hell is the point in talking about the plants in Georgia?
That's a different type of plant, being built by a different company!
Georgia has the largest coal fired power plant in the us: where's that outrage?
Where is the outrage over the radiation it emits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254260</id>
	<title>Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266937200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's completely fucking ridiculous that flamebait like this is getting modded insightful on this site.  Seriously, this is one of the (many) anti-libertarian rants I've seen lately on this site, and they often tend to get modded UP instead of down.  Just because you used the word "nuclear" a few times does not mean that this is on topic AT ALL.</p><p>I'm starting to think that the Slashdot user base is getting stupider by the minute.  I'm increasingly seeing horrible summaries and outright flamebait getting posted to the main page, and it usually takes several minutes of wading through all of the bullshit political rhetoric to find someone who has has the knowledge and the time to read the article and point out the falsehoods.</p><p>Seriously, shut the fuck up your self important jackasses.  No one wants to hear aimless rambling.  Go circle jerk with your friends on DailyKos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's completely fucking ridiculous that flamebait like this is getting modded insightful on this site .
Seriously , this is one of the ( many ) anti-libertarian rants I 've seen lately on this site , and they often tend to get modded UP instead of down .
Just because you used the word " nuclear " a few times does not mean that this is on topic AT ALL.I 'm starting to think that the Slashdot user base is getting stupider by the minute .
I 'm increasingly seeing horrible summaries and outright flamebait getting posted to the main page , and it usually takes several minutes of wading through all of the bullshit political rhetoric to find someone who has has the knowledge and the time to read the article and point out the falsehoods.Seriously , shut the fuck up your self important jackasses .
No one wants to hear aimless rambling .
Go circle jerk with your friends on DailyKos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's completely fucking ridiculous that flamebait like this is getting modded insightful on this site.
Seriously, this is one of the (many) anti-libertarian rants I've seen lately on this site, and they often tend to get modded UP instead of down.
Just because you used the word "nuclear" a few times does not mean that this is on topic AT ALL.I'm starting to think that the Slashdot user base is getting stupider by the minute.
I'm increasingly seeing horrible summaries and outright flamebait getting posted to the main page, and it usually takes several minutes of wading through all of the bullshit political rhetoric to find someone who has has the knowledge and the time to read the article and point out the falsehoods.Seriously, shut the fuck up your self important jackasses.
No one wants to hear aimless rambling.
Go circle jerk with your friends on DailyKos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247328</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's less about the damage the leak caused and more about the dishonesty and cover-up. I live in Massachuestts, on the Connecticuit River, about 80 miles downstream from Vermont Yankee. I, for one, will be happy to see this place's license not extended. If they covered up something this (as you claim) trivial, I would hate to see what else they are capable of covering up, or would cover up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's less about the damage the leak caused and more about the dishonesty and cover-up .
I live in Massachuestts , on the Connecticuit River , about 80 miles downstream from Vermont Yankee .
I , for one , will be happy to see this place 's license not extended .
If they covered up something this ( as you claim ) trivial , I would hate to see what else they are capable of covering up , or would cover up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's less about the damage the leak caused and more about the dishonesty and cover-up.
I live in Massachuestts, on the Connecticuit River, about 80 miles downstream from Vermont Yankee.
I, for one, will be happy to see this place's license not extended.
If they covered up something this (as you claim) trivial, I would hate to see what else they are capable of covering up, or would cover up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249236</id>
	<title>Re:Yes but</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1266958500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem is they lied under oath.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not necessarily.  They didn't lie at all about the leak.
</p><p>What they are accused of lying about is "they were not aware of any underground or buried pipes that carried radioactive materials.".
</p><p>Now, given that juxtaposition (underground or buried pipes), and that the pipes in question were in a pipe tunnel (you know, the sort of place that people where walk along beside the pipes, looking at them, as opposed to underground or buried pipes like the water pipes into my house), it's just possible that the questioner meant one thing, and the answerer heard another.
</p><p>Note also that the answerer was not an Entergy executive necessarily - TFA merely describes them as "Entergy representatives"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is they lied under oath.Not necessarily .
They did n't lie at all about the leak .
What they are accused of lying about is " they were not aware of any underground or buried pipes that carried radioactive materials. " .
Now , given that juxtaposition ( underground or buried pipes ) , and that the pipes in question were in a pipe tunnel ( you know , the sort of place that people where walk along beside the pipes , looking at them , as opposed to underground or buried pipes like the water pipes into my house ) , it 's just possible that the questioner meant one thing , and the answerer heard another .
Note also that the answerer was not an Entergy executive necessarily - TFA merely describes them as " Entergy representatives "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is they lied under oath.Not necessarily.
They didn't lie at all about the leak.
What they are accused of lying about is "they were not aware of any underground or buried pipes that carried radioactive materials.".
Now, given that juxtaposition (underground or buried pipes), and that the pipes in question were in a pipe tunnel (you know, the sort of place that people where walk along beside the pipes, looking at them, as opposed to underground or buried pipes like the water pipes into my house), it's just possible that the questioner meant one thing, and the answerer heard another.
Note also that the answerer was not an Entergy executive necessarily - TFA merely describes them as "Entergy representatives"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247364</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1266952440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem isn't the tritium leak. As you say, tritium isn't wildly dangerous to begin with, and there isn't that much of it floating around.<br> <br>

The problem is that the plant management is now <i>known to be lying</i> about safety and operations goings on at the plant. Further, their grasp of what the hell is going on seems to be shaky where it is not actively dishonest.<br> <br>

This particular tritium leak(or, for that matter, was the last one, the one that officially never happened) is not particularly dangerous. There are a number of conditions that could be, though, and this story suggests that A)There is no reason to believe that plant management would act competently to avert them. B)There is no reason to believe that plant management would be honest about admitting to them if they were to occur. and C) It does not appear that the NRC is up to the task of forcing plant management to undertake A and B.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't the tritium leak .
As you say , tritium is n't wildly dangerous to begin with , and there is n't that much of it floating around .
The problem is that the plant management is now known to be lying about safety and operations goings on at the plant .
Further , their grasp of what the hell is going on seems to be shaky where it is not actively dishonest .
This particular tritium leak ( or , for that matter , was the last one , the one that officially never happened ) is not particularly dangerous .
There are a number of conditions that could be , though , and this story suggests that A ) There is no reason to believe that plant management would act competently to avert them .
B ) There is no reason to believe that plant management would be honest about admitting to them if they were to occur .
and C ) It does not appear that the NRC is up to the task of forcing plant management to undertake A and B .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't the tritium leak.
As you say, tritium isn't wildly dangerous to begin with, and there isn't that much of it floating around.
The problem is that the plant management is now known to be lying about safety and operations goings on at the plant.
Further, their grasp of what the hell is going on seems to be shaky where it is not actively dishonest.
This particular tritium leak(or, for that matter, was the last one, the one that officially never happened) is not particularly dangerous.
There are a number of conditions that could be, though, and this story suggests that A)There is no reason to believe that plant management would act competently to avert them.
B)There is no reason to believe that plant management would be honest about admitting to them if they were to occur.
and C) It does not appear that the NRC is up to the task of forcing plant management to undertake A and B.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31252110</id>
	<title>Did anyone else read that as:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266926100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;Enterprise Admits 20005 Trilitium Leak&rdquo;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   Enterprise Admits 20005 Trilitium Leak   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>“Enterprise Admits 20005 Trilitium Leak”</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247770</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't so much about the leak, as it is more about the people who were running it, like every other industry with lies, deceit, and possibly fraud.</p><p>Was anyone so naive to think normal human attributes were immune to the nuclear energy sector?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't so much about the leak , as it is more about the people who were running it , like every other industry with lies , deceit , and possibly fraud.Was anyone so naive to think normal human attributes were immune to the nuclear energy sector ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't so much about the leak, as it is more about the people who were running it, like every other industry with lies, deceit, and possibly fraud.Was anyone so naive to think normal human attributes were immune to the nuclear energy sector?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251192</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1266922500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium with references in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings.

</p><p>
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;
</p><p> <i>
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
</i></p><p><i>
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
</i></p><p><i>
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
</i></p><p>It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.
</p><p> <i>
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
</i></p><p><i>
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
</i> </p><p>
<strong>References;</strong> </p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>  Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water. Health Physics. 58. 5:625-629. 1990.<br> <br>  Dobson, RL. The Toxicity of Tritium. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203. 1979.<br> <br>  Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium. Mutation Research. 50: 101-110. 1978.<br> <br>  Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness. Health Physics. 65 (6)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:657-672; 1993. [This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]<br> <br>  Laskey, JW, et al. Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation. Radiation Research.56:171-179. 1973.<br> <br>  Rytomaa, T, et al. Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339. 1979.</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium with references in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water 's effect on living beings .
Tritium is biologically mutagenic * because * it 's a low energy emitter .
This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells .
The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects .
From those works ; Tritium can be inhaled , ingested , or absorbed through skin .
Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water .
Consequently , an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium .
( Komatsu ) Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death ( Dobson , 1976 ) , mutations ( Ito ) and chromosome damage ( Hori ) per dose than higher tritium doses .
Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays .
( Straume ) ( Dobson , 1976 ) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure ; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts .
( Dobson , 1974 ) Organically bound tritium ( tritium bound in animal or plant tissue ) can stay in the body for 10 years or more .
It 's often said " of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones " and while it 's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it 's toxicity should not be under-estimated .
Tritium can cause mutations , tumors and cell death .
( Rytomaa ) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice ( Torok ) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations .
( Dobson , 1979 ) ( Laskey ) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA , the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms .
DNA is especially sensitive to radiation .
( Hori ) A cell 's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water .
( Straume ) ( Carr ) First , as an isotope of hydrogen ( the cell 's most ubiquitous element ) , tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery ; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure .
R. Lowry Dobson , MD , PhD .
( 1979 ) References ; Komatsu , K and Okumura , Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water .
Health Physics .
58. 5 : 625-629 .
1990. Dobson , RL .
The Toxicity of Tritium .
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium , Vienna : Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1 : 203 .
1979. Hori , TA and Nakai , S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium .
Mutation Research .
50 : 101-110 .
1978. Straume , T and Carsten , AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness .
Health Physics .
65 ( 6 ) : 657-672 ; 1993 .
[ This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium ] Laskey , JW , et al .
Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation .
Radiation Research.56 : 171-179 .
1973. Rytomaa , T , et al .
Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules .
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna : Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1 : 339 .
1979 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium with references in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter.
This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells.
The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects.
From those works;
 
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin.
Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water.
Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium.
(Komatsu)

Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses.
Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts.
(Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death.
(Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations.
(Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms.
DNA is especially sensitive to radiation.
(Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water.
(Straume)(Carr)

First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure.
R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD.
(1979)
 
References;    Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water.
Health Physics.
58. 5:625-629.
1990.   Dobson, RL.
The Toxicity of Tritium.
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203.
1979.   Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium.
Mutation Research.
50: 101-110.
1978.   Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness.
Health Physics.
65 (6) :657-672; 1993.
[This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]   Laskey, JW, et al.
Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation.
Radiation Research.56:171-179.
1973.   Rytomaa, T, et al.
Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules.
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339.
1979. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248016</id>
	<title>Slow Down</title>
	<author>Aldhibah</author>
	<datestamp>1266954780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before we talk about nailing the company to the wall perhaps we should look into the reporting requirements a little closer.  The linked article itself states, "The NRC is investigating why it took Entergy five years to report the leak, but for it to have been reportable, it has to meet certain off site dose limits. It is also investigating how Entergy responded to the problem."  So we don't even know if the leak met reporting requirements.

Also, there is much hay made over Entergy lying about the existence of the pipes.  The company apparently did not deny the existence of underground pipes but some company representative stated before a public service commission that he/she was unaware of any underground pipes carrying radioactive particles.  I don't know the context of the original statement but a close reading would seem to imply the steam pipe in question was not intended to carry radioactive particles and only the failure of several check valves allowed the particles to get into the pipe.  I would guess that the steam leak was found because of the trace radiation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before we talk about nailing the company to the wall perhaps we should look into the reporting requirements a little closer .
The linked article itself states , " The NRC is investigating why it took Entergy five years to report the leak , but for it to have been reportable , it has to meet certain off site dose limits .
It is also investigating how Entergy responded to the problem .
" So we do n't even know if the leak met reporting requirements .
Also , there is much hay made over Entergy lying about the existence of the pipes .
The company apparently did not deny the existence of underground pipes but some company representative stated before a public service commission that he/she was unaware of any underground pipes carrying radioactive particles .
I do n't know the context of the original statement but a close reading would seem to imply the steam pipe in question was not intended to carry radioactive particles and only the failure of several check valves allowed the particles to get into the pipe .
I would guess that the steam leak was found because of the trace radiation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before we talk about nailing the company to the wall perhaps we should look into the reporting requirements a little closer.
The linked article itself states, "The NRC is investigating why it took Entergy five years to report the leak, but for it to have been reportable, it has to meet certain off site dose limits.
It is also investigating how Entergy responded to the problem.
"  So we don't even know if the leak met reporting requirements.
Also, there is much hay made over Entergy lying about the existence of the pipes.
The company apparently did not deny the existence of underground pipes but some company representative stated before a public service commission that he/she was unaware of any underground pipes carrying radioactive particles.
I don't know the context of the original statement but a close reading would seem to imply the steam pipe in question was not intended to carry radioactive particles and only the failure of several check valves allowed the particles to get into the pipe.
I would guess that the steam leak was found because of the trace radiation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248580</id>
	<title>I admit my ignorance</title>
	<author>Beryllium Sphere(tm)</author>
	<datestamp>1266956700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where does tritium fit into the operations at a power plant?</p><p>Is it used for pipe radiography? Seems you'd prefer a gamma emitter for that.</p><p>Is it being bred? Surely a reactor designed for isotope manufacture would be more convenient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does tritium fit into the operations at a power plant ? Is it used for pipe radiography ?
Seems you 'd prefer a gamma emitter for that.Is it being bred ?
Surely a reactor designed for isotope manufacture would be more convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does tritium fit into the operations at a power plant?Is it used for pipe radiography?
Seems you'd prefer a gamma emitter for that.Is it being bred?
Surely a reactor designed for isotope manufacture would be more convenient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254256</id>
	<title>Re:VT Yankee workers break into press conference</title>
	<author>BCoates</author>
	<datestamp>1266937140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to quote one of the 'lies'?  I don't see any in the article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to quote one of the 'lies ' ?
I do n't see any in the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to quote one of the 'lies'?
I don't see any in the article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249432</id>
	<title>The Real Threat</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1266915960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we should examine the real threat here.  Tritium poisoning, while a vital and serious problem affecting everyone, is actually so uncommon that I can't find any death per year figures.  Toyota seems to be much more dangerous,  with a few hundred of break failures when it sells about 2,000,000 cars a year in the US (and the break failures are in a range of years, so several million cars).<br> <br>It is time we look at the real threat...showers.  Far more lethal than Toyota brakes and tritium combined - many times over, the shills for Corporate America have been manufacturing these death chambers for years while keeping the sheeple ignorant of the danger.  Just ask any of their CEO's and they'll lie, telling you that its safe to take a shower, when they KNOW thousands of people die each year in these menaces.  It's high time we spoke out aganist the threat and shut down the companies that make these lethal contraptions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we should examine the real threat here .
Tritium poisoning , while a vital and serious problem affecting everyone , is actually so uncommon that I ca n't find any death per year figures .
Toyota seems to be much more dangerous , with a few hundred of break failures when it sells about 2,000,000 cars a year in the US ( and the break failures are in a range of years , so several million cars ) .
It is time we look at the real threat...showers .
Far more lethal than Toyota brakes and tritium combined - many times over , the shills for Corporate America have been manufacturing these death chambers for years while keeping the sheeple ignorant of the danger .
Just ask any of their CEO 's and they 'll lie , telling you that its safe to take a shower , when they KNOW thousands of people die each year in these menaces .
It 's high time we spoke out aganist the threat and shut down the companies that make these lethal contraptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we should examine the real threat here.
Tritium poisoning, while a vital and serious problem affecting everyone, is actually so uncommon that I can't find any death per year figures.
Toyota seems to be much more dangerous,  with a few hundred of break failures when it sells about 2,000,000 cars a year in the US (and the break failures are in a range of years, so several million cars).
It is time we look at the real threat...showers.
Far more lethal than Toyota brakes and tritium combined - many times over, the shills for Corporate America have been manufacturing these death chambers for years while keeping the sheeple ignorant of the danger.
Just ask any of their CEO's and they'll lie, telling you that its safe to take a shower, when they KNOW thousands of people die each year in these menaces.
It's high time we spoke out aganist the threat and shut down the companies that make these lethal contraptions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248038</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1266954840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they cover up a leak, that to put it into a scale familiar to you, is equivalent to spilling about 10 gallons of gasoline and not telling anyone about it and you think they are running the plant "dangerously"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they cover up a leak , that to put it into a scale familiar to you , is equivalent to spilling about 10 gallons of gasoline and not telling anyone about it and you think they are running the plant " dangerously " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they cover up a leak, that to put it into a scale familiar to you, is equivalent to spilling about 10 gallons of gasoline and not telling anyone about it and you think they are running the plant "dangerously"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251014</id>
	<title>Re:I admit my ignorance</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1266921960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heavy water is often used in reactor cooling/moderation. For that matter, light water in the presence of neutron emitters (such as a fission reaction) will slowly become heavy water. In any case, sometimes the deuterium or tritium ions split from their oxygen atoms, especially under the energetic conditions within a reactor. Unless they quickly re-bond (either with oxygen or other hydrogen ions) you now have monatomic hydrogen in your water stream. That stuff is damn near impossible to contain - one of the reasons hydrogen as a fuel source for cars has never really taken off; it either has to be kept super cold or it escapes slowly through almost any valve or seal - and so you get tritium (monatomic, possibly also molecular) slowly leaking out. It's lighter than air, but in a small space it may accumulate for a while before something happens, like a maintenance shaft being opened, that wafts it out into the open. Viola, a "tritium leak"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heavy water is often used in reactor cooling/moderation .
For that matter , light water in the presence of neutron emitters ( such as a fission reaction ) will slowly become heavy water .
In any case , sometimes the deuterium or tritium ions split from their oxygen atoms , especially under the energetic conditions within a reactor .
Unless they quickly re-bond ( either with oxygen or other hydrogen ions ) you now have monatomic hydrogen in your water stream .
That stuff is damn near impossible to contain - one of the reasons hydrogen as a fuel source for cars has never really taken off ; it either has to be kept super cold or it escapes slowly through almost any valve or seal - and so you get tritium ( monatomic , possibly also molecular ) slowly leaking out .
It 's lighter than air , but in a small space it may accumulate for a while before something happens , like a maintenance shaft being opened , that wafts it out into the open .
Viola , a " tritium leak " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heavy water is often used in reactor cooling/moderation.
For that matter, light water in the presence of neutron emitters (such as a fission reaction) will slowly become heavy water.
In any case, sometimes the deuterium or tritium ions split from their oxygen atoms, especially under the energetic conditions within a reactor.
Unless they quickly re-bond (either with oxygen or other hydrogen ions) you now have monatomic hydrogen in your water stream.
That stuff is damn near impossible to contain - one of the reasons hydrogen as a fuel source for cars has never really taken off; it either has to be kept super cold or it escapes slowly through almost any valve or seal - and so you get tritium (monatomic, possibly also molecular) slowly leaking out.
It's lighter than air, but in a small space it may accumulate for a while before something happens, like a maintenance shaft being opened, that wafts it out into the open.
Viola, a "tritium leak"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247686</id>
	<title>Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, silver and gray cars are hit and run killers?  Holy crap - is anyone doing something about this?!?  We should confiscate those cars ASAP!  Thanks for the heads-up!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , silver and gray cars are hit and run killers ?
Holy crap - is anyone doing something about this ? ! ?
We should confiscate those cars ASAP !
Thanks for the heads-up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, silver and gray cars are hit and run killers?
Holy crap - is anyone doing something about this?!?
We should confiscate those cars ASAP!
Thanks for the heads-up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248066</id>
	<title>Re:what's-a-few-neutrons-among-friends</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1266954960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, what is the difference between tritium and hydrogen?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , what is the difference between tritium and hydrogen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, what is the difference between tritium and hydrogen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248576</id>
	<title>Depends on what the definition of "is" is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266956700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they lie? From Brattleboro Reformer:</p><p>The leak was prior to statements made by Entergy representatives to the Vermont Public Service Board, in which it said they were not aware of any underground or buried pipes that carried radioactive materials.</p><p>and</p><p>Ray Shadis, technical consultant for the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, said in 2005, Entergy was filing license extension documents with the NRC claiming that the off-gas system was not included in its aging management plan because it does not interact with the plant's safety systems.</p><p>Note that they didn't lie about the leak and by design the pipes would not be carrying radioactive fluids.</p><p>Based on levels, it may be that this didn't rise to the level of a reportable leak.</p><p>Which brings us to the problem of what definitions people were using and if they were being completely truthful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they lie ?
From Brattleboro Reformer : The leak was prior to statements made by Entergy representatives to the Vermont Public Service Board , in which it said they were not aware of any underground or buried pipes that carried radioactive materials.andRay Shadis , technical consultant for the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution , said in 2005 , Entergy was filing license extension documents with the NRC claiming that the off-gas system was not included in its aging management plan because it does not interact with the plant 's safety systems.Note that they did n't lie about the leak and by design the pipes would not be carrying radioactive fluids.Based on levels , it may be that this did n't rise to the level of a reportable leak.Which brings us to the problem of what definitions people were using and if they were being completely truthful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they lie?
From Brattleboro Reformer:The leak was prior to statements made by Entergy representatives to the Vermont Public Service Board, in which it said they were not aware of any underground or buried pipes that carried radioactive materials.andRay Shadis, technical consultant for the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, said in 2005, Entergy was filing license extension documents with the NRC claiming that the off-gas system was not included in its aging management plan because it does not interact with the plant's safety systems.Note that they didn't lie about the leak and by design the pipes would not be carrying radioactive fluids.Based on levels, it may be that this didn't rise to the level of a reportable leak.Which brings us to the problem of what definitions people were using and if they were being completely truthful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248876</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266957540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, 2 micro curies per liter, add that liter to the ground water which probably contains 10's of millions of liters and the level is considerably lower and NOT a risk.  I'm sure you will find many more significant elements and containments in much higher concentration in that same underground water.</p><p>Think of the risk this way...  A few years ago when those snipers were canvassing the DC area, everyone was paranoid and going crazy.  Those snipers killed 10 people in about 6 weeks.  Although very tragic and random, there were more than 10 other murders in the area that were not done by the snipers and more than 10 people that died from car crashes.  Everyone was running through parking lots to avoid the snipers but on a daily basis, those same people thought nothing of the chance of dying while diving or being killed by a different random person.  People fear the UNKNOWN.  To most people, nuclear power is unknown.  The fact that most people do not understand nuclear power does not make it any more or less safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , 2 micro curies per liter , add that liter to the ground water which probably contains 10 's of millions of liters and the level is considerably lower and NOT a risk .
I 'm sure you will find many more significant elements and containments in much higher concentration in that same underground water.Think of the risk this way... A few years ago when those snipers were canvassing the DC area , everyone was paranoid and going crazy .
Those snipers killed 10 people in about 6 weeks .
Although very tragic and random , there were more than 10 other murders in the area that were not done by the snipers and more than 10 people that died from car crashes .
Everyone was running through parking lots to avoid the snipers but on a daily basis , those same people thought nothing of the chance of dying while diving or being killed by a different random person .
People fear the UNKNOWN .
To most people , nuclear power is unknown .
The fact that most people do not understand nuclear power does not make it any more or less safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, 2 micro curies per liter, add that liter to the ground water which probably contains 10's of millions of liters and the level is considerably lower and NOT a risk.
I'm sure you will find many more significant elements and containments in much higher concentration in that same underground water.Think of the risk this way...  A few years ago when those snipers were canvassing the DC area, everyone was paranoid and going crazy.
Those snipers killed 10 people in about 6 weeks.
Although very tragic and random, there were more than 10 other murders in the area that were not done by the snipers and more than 10 people that died from car crashes.
Everyone was running through parking lots to avoid the snipers but on a daily basis, those same people thought nothing of the chance of dying while diving or being killed by a different random person.
People fear the UNKNOWN.
To most people, nuclear power is unknown.
The fact that most people do not understand nuclear power does not make it any more or less safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248192</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1266955500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally agreed.</p><p>So if we see all the people responsible for this latest financial fiasco go to jail, nuclear power is safe.  If most of them buy their way out of any kind of responsibility, it's not.</p><p>Is that a good summary?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agreed.So if we see all the people responsible for this latest financial fiasco go to jail , nuclear power is safe .
If most of them buy their way out of any kind of responsibility , it 's not.Is that a good summary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agreed.So if we see all the people responsible for this latest financial fiasco go to jail, nuclear power is safe.
If most of them buy their way out of any kind of responsibility, it's not.Is that a good summary?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247956</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!</title>
	<author>gibbled</author>
	<datestamp>1266954540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kind of like bullets and knives...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of like bullets and knives.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of like bullets and knives...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31250688</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1266920880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process.</p></div></blockquote><p>You do us all a disservice when you limit it to nuclear power companies.  The only reason they are dangerous is because, by necessity, they handle radioactive material.  Why doesn't equal concern, and equal regulation fall on hospitals, and any other industry that needs large quantities of the stuff?  In fact that later is probably making more money off the radioactive materials than the former.</p><p>It's simple, really.  It's easy to be afraid of nuclear when there's little else on the line, but the decision is much more balanced when it's your broken rib, or your mother's cancer metastasizing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it 's the people who inject the danger to the process.You do us all a disservice when you limit it to nuclear power companies .
The only reason they are dangerous is because , by necessity , they handle radioactive material .
Why does n't equal concern , and equal regulation fall on hospitals , and any other industry that needs large quantities of the stuff ?
In fact that later is probably making more money off the radioactive materials than the former.It 's simple , really .
It 's easy to be afraid of nuclear when there 's little else on the line , but the decision is much more balanced when it 's your broken rib , or your mother 's cancer metastasizing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process.You do us all a disservice when you limit it to nuclear power companies.
The only reason they are dangerous is because, by necessity, they handle radioactive material.
Why doesn't equal concern, and equal regulation fall on hospitals, and any other industry that needs large quantities of the stuff?
In fact that later is probably making more money off the radioactive materials than the former.It's simple, really.
It's easy to be afraid of nuclear when there's little else on the line, but the decision is much more balanced when it's your broken rib, or your mother's cancer metastasizing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450</id>
	<title>Nuclear companies cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>rbanzai</author>
	<datestamp>1266952800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like pretty much every other company on Earth their primary interest is money. All other concerns are secondary including the safety of the public. It's not the technology that is dangerous, it's the terrible people operating it. I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process. This little omission is just one of thousands, if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power.</p><p>I trust nuclear power. I do not trust the people responsible for providing it, or the people responsible for overseeing them. They are all blinded by money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like pretty much every other company on Earth their primary interest is money .
All other concerns are secondary including the safety of the public .
It 's not the technology that is dangerous , it 's the terrible people operating it .
I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it 's the people who inject the danger to the process .
This little omission is just one of thousands , if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power.I trust nuclear power .
I do not trust the people responsible for providing it , or the people responsible for overseeing them .
They are all blinded by money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like pretty much every other company on Earth their primary interest is money.
All other concerns are secondary including the safety of the public.
It's not the technology that is dangerous, it's the terrible people operating it.
I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process.
This little omission is just one of thousands, if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power.I trust nuclear power.
I do not trust the people responsible for providing it, or the people responsible for overseeing them.
They are all blinded by money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31252084</id>
	<title>Re:Yes but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266925980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They lied because they were under oath and said something that was not true.  Company officials who simply don't understand the technical details should NOT be the company's voice when talking about said technical details.  If they don't know the details, they should say so, and let someone more qualified answer the inquiry -- or, ask the person who does know.</p><p>So either a) the person knowingly lied or b) the company was incompetent in assigning the right person to the job.  Neither situation is acceptable accountability-wise from a private nuclear power company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They lied because they were under oath and said something that was not true .
Company officials who simply do n't understand the technical details should NOT be the company 's voice when talking about said technical details .
If they do n't know the details , they should say so , and let someone more qualified answer the inquiry -- or , ask the person who does know.So either a ) the person knowingly lied or b ) the company was incompetent in assigning the right person to the job .
Neither situation is acceptable accountability-wise from a private nuclear power company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They lied because they were under oath and said something that was not true.
Company officials who simply don't understand the technical details should NOT be the company's voice when talking about said technical details.
If they don't know the details, they should say so, and let someone more qualified answer the inquiry -- or, ask the person who does know.So either a) the person knowingly lied or b) the company was incompetent in assigning the right person to the job.
Neither situation is acceptable accountability-wise from a private nuclear power company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249780</id>
	<title>Entergy offers bribe on eve of Senate vote</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1266917400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Entergy has announced it will sell 3\% of its power VT Yankee at close to its old rate of 4 cents/kwh though it has not agreed to a price for the other 97\%.  <a href="http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci\_14455061" title="reformer.com">http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci\_14455061</a> [reformer.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Entergy has announced it will sell 3 \ % of its power VT Yankee at close to its old rate of 4 cents/kwh though it has not agreed to a price for the other 97 \ % .
http : //www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci \ _14455061 [ reformer.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entergy has announced it will sell 3\% of its power VT Yankee at close to its old rate of 4 cents/kwh though it has not agreed to a price for the other 97\%.
http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci\_14455061 [reformer.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247464</id>
	<title>Absurd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's ridiculous that the summary implies that, in the context of this leak, Obama setting aside funds for building new power plants is a negative thing.</p><p>If <i>anything</i>, the fact that America's only nuclear power comes from relatively ancient, decaying reactors of obsolete design should be motivation for building new nuclear power plants.  This might be the best tangible thing Obama has proposed to date and informed citizens should be applauding it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ridiculous that the summary implies that , in the context of this leak , Obama setting aside funds for building new power plants is a negative thing.If anything , the fact that America 's only nuclear power comes from relatively ancient , decaying reactors of obsolete design should be motivation for building new nuclear power plants .
This might be the best tangible thing Obama has proposed to date and informed citizens should be applauding it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ridiculous that the summary implies that, in the context of this leak, Obama setting aside funds for building new power plants is a negative thing.If anything, the fact that America's only nuclear power comes from relatively ancient, decaying reactors of obsolete design should be motivation for building new nuclear power plants.
This might be the best tangible thing Obama has proposed to date and informed citizens should be applauding it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31267520</id>
	<title>Vermont Senate votes 26 to 4 against license</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1265122020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/24/business/AP-US-Vermont-Yankee.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/24/business/AP-US-Vermont-Yankee.html</a> [nytimes.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/24/business/AP-US-Vermont-Yankee.html [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/24/business/AP-US-Vermont-Yankee.html [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247712</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1266953640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing they just didn't want to do the expensive paperwork.</p><p>As a supporter of nuclear energy I say nail em to the wall.<br>Prosecute so hard that no other exec will dream of fucking with nuclear safety regulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing they just did n't want to do the expensive paperwork.As a supporter of nuclear energy I say nail em to the wall.Prosecute so hard that no other exec will dream of fucking with nuclear safety regulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing they just didn't want to do the expensive paperwork.As a supporter of nuclear energy I say nail em to the wall.Prosecute so hard that no other exec will dream of fucking with nuclear safety regulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247670</id>
	<title>what's-a-few-neutrons-among-friends</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1266953460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tritium does not produce neutrons (few radioactive materials do).  It emits only[1] electrons which can only penetrate a few mm of air.</p><p>[1] It also emits nearly indetectable electon neutrinos.  Billions of neutrinos pass through your body every day</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium does not produce neutrons ( few radioactive materials do ) .
It emits only [ 1 ] electrons which can only penetrate a few mm of air .
[ 1 ] It also emits nearly indetectable electon neutrinos .
Billions of neutrinos pass through your body every day</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium does not produce neutrons (few radioactive materials do).
It emits only[1] electrons which can only penetrate a few mm of air.
[1] It also emits nearly indetectable electon neutrinos.
Billions of neutrinos pass through your body every day</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249210</id>
	<title>VT Yankee workers break into press conference</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1266958440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Today a rowdy group of Vermont Yankee worker broke into a press conference being held by Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility to shout lies about renewable power: <a href="http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100223/THISJUSTIN/100229968" title="rutlandherald.com">http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100223/THISJUSTIN/100229968</a> [rutlandherald.com]  Nuclear Hooligans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today a rowdy group of Vermont Yankee worker broke into a press conference being held by Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility to shout lies about renewable power : http : //www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100223/THISJUSTIN/100229968 [ rutlandherald.com ] Nuclear Hooligans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today a rowdy group of Vermont Yankee worker broke into a press conference being held by Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility to shout lies about renewable power: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100223/THISJUSTIN/100229968 [rutlandherald.com]  Nuclear Hooligans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302</id>
	<title>Yes but</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266952200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes this leak isn't a big deal as a leak. Nor for that matter is the recent leak. The problem is they lied under oath. And once people are lying about the state of things you don't know what else they are or will lie about. These might not matter, but they might very well lie about the next leak when it is a serious problem. As with many issues, the initial incident isn't nearly as much of a problem as the coverup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes this leak is n't a big deal as a leak .
Nor for that matter is the recent leak .
The problem is they lied under oath .
And once people are lying about the state of things you do n't know what else they are or will lie about .
These might not matter , but they might very well lie about the next leak when it is a serious problem .
As with many issues , the initial incident is n't nearly as much of a problem as the coverup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes this leak isn't a big deal as a leak.
Nor for that matter is the recent leak.
The problem is they lied under oath.
And once people are lying about the state of things you don't know what else they are or will lie about.
These might not matter, but they might very well lie about the next leak when it is a serious problem.
As with many issues, the initial incident isn't nearly as much of a problem as the coverup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248516</id>
	<title>Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari</title>
	<author>DeadCatX2</author>
	<datestamp>1266956580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally I'm against such an abrasive attitude, but it was quite satisfying to read your rant.  Market fundamentalists are like any other fundamentalist - shortsighted and foolish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally I 'm against such an abrasive attitude , but it was quite satisfying to read your rant .
Market fundamentalists are like any other fundamentalist - shortsighted and foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally I'm against such an abrasive attitude, but it was quite satisfying to read your rant.
Market fundamentalists are like any other fundamentalist - shortsighted and foolish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248064</id>
	<title>And this is the argument against nuclear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266954960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, it <b>can</b> be done safely.  But, when you've got Corporate American running things with CEOs who'd sell their own mothers to bury one quarter of lackluster PR, you get these kinds of results.  Toyota tried to bury a potentially life threatening flaw in order to postpone a little bad press resulting in a major scandal years later.  This is the fundamental flaw in Free Market thinking.  Companies aren't going to do the Right Thing because profitability dictates it.  They'll lie about it then leave the train wreck for next guy.</p><p>If Toyota is willing to lie about a little brake problem that's probably killed people, you trust a company not to lie or cut corners when it comes to expensive waste disposal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it can be done safely .
But , when you 've got Corporate American running things with CEOs who 'd sell their own mothers to bury one quarter of lackluster PR , you get these kinds of results .
Toyota tried to bury a potentially life threatening flaw in order to postpone a little bad press resulting in a major scandal years later .
This is the fundamental flaw in Free Market thinking .
Companies are n't going to do the Right Thing because profitability dictates it .
They 'll lie about it then leave the train wreck for next guy.If Toyota is willing to lie about a little brake problem that 's probably killed people , you trust a company not to lie or cut corners when it comes to expensive waste disposal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it can be done safely.
But, when you've got Corporate American running things with CEOs who'd sell their own mothers to bury one quarter of lackluster PR, you get these kinds of results.
Toyota tried to bury a potentially life threatening flaw in order to postpone a little bad press resulting in a major scandal years later.
This is the fundamental flaw in Free Market thinking.
Companies aren't going to do the Right Thing because profitability dictates it.
They'll lie about it then leave the train wreck for next guy.If Toyota is willing to lie about a little brake problem that's probably killed people, you trust a company not to lie or cut corners when it comes to expensive waste disposal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247828</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266954000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>..It tested at the leak at a whopping 2 million picocuries, which is a bullshit measurement that's clearly chosen because it's more shocking than 2 microcuries. 2 microcuries is about what you'd get for a basic thyroid test at the docs office.</i></p><p>1) That's 2 million picocuries *per liter*.  The average adult human drinks 2.4 liters of water *per day*.<br>2) The human body naturally contains about 0.1 microcuries.  So yes, combining that with above, this amount would be significant if it were to contaminate drinking water.<br>3) A curie is a very large unit -- 37 billion Bq.<br>4) You don't get "curies" of radiation during a test; curies are a measure of emission *rate*.  That's like saying that your meter reader recorded that you used 80kW of electricity this month.  Radiation doses are properly measured in gray or sievert (formerly rad and rem).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..It tested at the leak at a whopping 2 million picocuries , which is a bullshit measurement that 's clearly chosen because it 's more shocking than 2 microcuries .
2 microcuries is about what you 'd get for a basic thyroid test at the docs office.1 ) That 's 2 million picocuries * per liter * .
The average adult human drinks 2.4 liters of water * per day * .2 ) The human body naturally contains about 0.1 microcuries .
So yes , combining that with above , this amount would be significant if it were to contaminate drinking water.3 ) A curie is a very large unit -- 37 billion Bq.4 ) You do n't get " curies " of radiation during a test ; curies are a measure of emission * rate * .
That 's like saying that your meter reader recorded that you used 80kW of electricity this month .
Radiation doses are properly measured in gray or sievert ( formerly rad and rem ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..It tested at the leak at a whopping 2 million picocuries, which is a bullshit measurement that's clearly chosen because it's more shocking than 2 microcuries.
2 microcuries is about what you'd get for a basic thyroid test at the docs office.1) That's 2 million picocuries *per liter*.
The average adult human drinks 2.4 liters of water *per day*.2) The human body naturally contains about 0.1 microcuries.
So yes, combining that with above, this amount would be significant if it were to contaminate drinking water.3) A curie is a very large unit -- 37 billion Bq.4) You don't get "curies" of radiation during a test; curies are a measure of emission *rate*.
That's like saying that your meter reader recorded that you used 80kW of electricity this month.
Radiation doses are properly measured in gray or sievert (formerly rad and rem).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247398</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1266952560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  The leak its self was nothing to worry about, it was the fact that they felt it neccessary to lie about the leak that is troubling.  Now as far as nuclear power goes, the technology is very safe as long as these corporations are held accountable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The leak its self was nothing to worry about , it was the fact that they felt it neccessary to lie about the leak that is troubling .
Now as far as nuclear power goes , the technology is very safe as long as these corporations are held accountable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The leak its self was nothing to worry about, it was the fact that they felt it neccessary to lie about the leak that is troubling.
Now as far as nuclear power goes, the technology is very safe as long as these corporations are held accountable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247940</id>
	<title>Illegal, Immoral or Fattening</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1266954480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything is Illegal, Immoral or Fattening as the saying goes.  There's nothing on this planet that doesn't have risks associated with it and while I don't condone covering something up with lies, this is another example of something that's blown out of proportion.</p><p>Is air travel safe?  Yes, but wait, those folks who died a year ago on the "regional" Continental flight would disagree.<br>Is the TSA doing their job? Yes, but wait, that guy who shoved explosives in his pants was from another country and we can't enforce our policies overseas.  In the meantime your name doesn't match your boarding pass Tom, it needs to say Thomas.<br>Is the air we breathe save? Yes, but not in the summer in LA or Houston or any major Metropolitan area.  If you're old, young or have Asthma, just stay inside.<br>Is driving safe? Yes, but if you own a Toyota don't expect to be able to steer or stop.<br>Is climbing mountains safe? Yes, but just don't get too close to the edges of those volcanoes and watch out for: bears, cougars, bobcats, snakes and falling rocks.<br>Is taking a shower safe? Yes, but more people die in the home than in the highway, a lot of those die in the bathtub.<br>Is Nuclear Power safe? Yes, but aging plants and huge projects are always problematic.<br>Will corporate America ever learn to tell the truth?  Yes, under subpoena and after advice from their attorneys.<br>Is being a "Tree Hugger" safe? Yes unless you count the STDs from all those "Rainbow Reunions."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything is Illegal , Immoral or Fattening as the saying goes .
There 's nothing on this planet that does n't have risks associated with it and while I do n't condone covering something up with lies , this is another example of something that 's blown out of proportion.Is air travel safe ?
Yes , but wait , those folks who died a year ago on the " regional " Continental flight would disagree.Is the TSA doing their job ?
Yes , but wait , that guy who shoved explosives in his pants was from another country and we ca n't enforce our policies overseas .
In the meantime your name does n't match your boarding pass Tom , it needs to say Thomas.Is the air we breathe save ?
Yes , but not in the summer in LA or Houston or any major Metropolitan area .
If you 're old , young or have Asthma , just stay inside.Is driving safe ?
Yes , but if you own a Toyota do n't expect to be able to steer or stop.Is climbing mountains safe ?
Yes , but just do n't get too close to the edges of those volcanoes and watch out for : bears , cougars , bobcats , snakes and falling rocks.Is taking a shower safe ?
Yes , but more people die in the home than in the highway , a lot of those die in the bathtub.Is Nuclear Power safe ?
Yes , but aging plants and huge projects are always problematic.Will corporate America ever learn to tell the truth ?
Yes , under subpoena and after advice from their attorneys.Is being a " Tree Hugger " safe ?
Yes unless you count the STDs from all those " Rainbow Reunions .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything is Illegal, Immoral or Fattening as the saying goes.
There's nothing on this planet that doesn't have risks associated with it and while I don't condone covering something up with lies, this is another example of something that's blown out of proportion.Is air travel safe?
Yes, but wait, those folks who died a year ago on the "regional" Continental flight would disagree.Is the TSA doing their job?
Yes, but wait, that guy who shoved explosives in his pants was from another country and we can't enforce our policies overseas.
In the meantime your name doesn't match your boarding pass Tom, it needs to say Thomas.Is the air we breathe save?
Yes, but not in the summer in LA or Houston or any major Metropolitan area.
If you're old, young or have Asthma, just stay inside.Is driving safe?
Yes, but if you own a Toyota don't expect to be able to steer or stop.Is climbing mountains safe?
Yes, but just don't get too close to the edges of those volcanoes and watch out for: bears, cougars, bobcats, snakes and falling rocks.Is taking a shower safe?
Yes, but more people die in the home than in the highway, a lot of those die in the bathtub.Is Nuclear Power safe?
Yes, but aging plants and huge projects are always problematic.Will corporate America ever learn to tell the truth?
Yes, under subpoena and after advice from their attorneys.Is being a "Tree Hugger" safe?
Yes unless you count the STDs from all those "Rainbow Reunions.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249200</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266958380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I trust nuclear power. I do not trust the people responsible for providing it, or the people responsible for overseeing them. They are all blinded by money."</p><p>I trust solar power.  I just don't trust that it is cost efficient, can produce large amount of energy, can produce energy reliably, and I certainly don't trust those who are heavily invested in these industries to speak the truth because the 'green industry' is as corrupted by money as any industry...  even more so given that the entire industry exists because of government subsidy, relies on government subsidy going forward, and will only become competitive if the government artificially increases the price of energy with a cap and trade tax.  You're right, the green movement is all about money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I trust nuclear power .
I do not trust the people responsible for providing it , or the people responsible for overseeing them .
They are all blinded by money .
" I trust solar power .
I just do n't trust that it is cost efficient , can produce large amount of energy , can produce energy reliably , and I certainly do n't trust those who are heavily invested in these industries to speak the truth because the 'green industry ' is as corrupted by money as any industry... even more so given that the entire industry exists because of government subsidy , relies on government subsidy going forward , and will only become competitive if the government artificially increases the price of energy with a cap and trade tax .
You 're right , the green movement is all about money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I trust nuclear power.
I do not trust the people responsible for providing it, or the people responsible for overseeing them.
They are all blinded by money.
"I trust solar power.
I just don't trust that it is cost efficient, can produce large amount of energy, can produce energy reliably, and I certainly don't trust those who are heavily invested in these industries to speak the truth because the 'green industry' is as corrupted by money as any industry...  even more so given that the entire industry exists because of government subsidy, relies on government subsidy going forward, and will only become competitive if the government artificially increases the price of energy with a cap and trade tax.
You're right, the green movement is all about money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249626</id>
	<title>Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old...</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1266916740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A more apt car analogy- "The bumper fell off their 30 year old Dodge, and they denied that the bumper fell off or that it ever had a bumper.  Taxpayers may be on the hook now because Obama bought a new Toyota in Georgia."  No mention whether we should check the bumpers on other 30 year old Dodges?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A more apt car analogy- " The bumper fell off their 30 year old Dodge , and they denied that the bumper fell off or that it ever had a bumper .
Taxpayers may be on the hook now because Obama bought a new Toyota in Georgia .
" No mention whether we should check the bumpers on other 30 year old Dodges ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A more apt car analogy- "The bumper fell off their 30 year old Dodge, and they denied that the bumper fell off or that it ever had a bumper.
Taxpayers may be on the hook now because Obama bought a new Toyota in Georgia.
"  No mention whether we should check the bumpers on other 30 year old Dodges?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247350</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1266952380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The leak itself is not a big deal.  That company execs perjured themselves about it is a big deal.</p><p>Also, just because something is a beta emitter doesn't mean it's harmless.  [32]P emits high energy beta particles that can be dangerous without shielding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The leak itself is not a big deal .
That company execs perjured themselves about it is a big deal.Also , just because something is a beta emitter does n't mean it 's harmless .
[ 32 ] P emits high energy beta particles that can be dangerous without shielding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The leak itself is not a big deal.
That company execs perjured themselves about it is a big deal.Also, just because something is a beta emitter doesn't mean it's harmless.
[32]P emits high energy beta particles that can be dangerous without shielding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249742</id>
	<title>Pebbled Bed Nuclear should finally get embraced</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1266917220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>with the help of the Obama Administration. The PBMR with Westinghouse should finally give Ernesto Fermi his due.</htmltext>
<tokenext>with the help of the Obama Administration .
The PBMR with Westinghouse should finally give Ernesto Fermi his due .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with the help of the Obama Administration.
The PBMR with Westinghouse should finally give Ernesto Fermi his due.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248058</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1266954900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I trust nuclear power. I do not trust the people responsible for providing it, or the people responsible for overseeing them. They are all blinded by money.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Is this different from any other industry?
</p><p>
I would expect that the Chinese firms that make solar panel have pretty lax guidelines for disposal of the hazardous materials needed to make solar panels.  I'd expect the mining companies that come up with the metals needed for wind mills and the additional power lines have some pretty horrendous practices as well.  There have been hydroelectric dam failures.  And heck, you don't even want to know the estimated number of deaths per year from a properly working coal power plant.
</p><p>
Is there any reason that nuclear power should be any different from the others?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust nuclear power .
I do not trust the people responsible for providing it , or the people responsible for overseeing them .
They are all blinded by money .
Is this different from any other industry ?
I would expect that the Chinese firms that make solar panel have pretty lax guidelines for disposal of the hazardous materials needed to make solar panels .
I 'd expect the mining companies that come up with the metals needed for wind mills and the additional power lines have some pretty horrendous practices as well .
There have been hydroelectric dam failures .
And heck , you do n't even want to know the estimated number of deaths per year from a properly working coal power plant .
Is there any reason that nuclear power should be any different from the others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust nuclear power.
I do not trust the people responsible for providing it, or the people responsible for overseeing them.
They are all blinded by money.
Is this different from any other industry?
I would expect that the Chinese firms that make solar panel have pretty lax guidelines for disposal of the hazardous materials needed to make solar panels.
I'd expect the mining companies that come up with the metals needed for wind mills and the additional power lines have some pretty horrendous practices as well.
There have been hydroelectric dam failures.
And heck, you don't even want to know the estimated number of deaths per year from a properly working coal power plant.
Is there any reason that nuclear power should be any different from the others?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251220</id>
	<title>Re:Nu-Cu-LAR!</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1266922620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nobody wants the nuclear power plant in their back yard because it is: "NUCULAR!!!" The power has to come from somewhere. Yet everyone will happily accept that coal-powered plant in their front yard which actually emits more radiation (through trace amounts in the coal) than a nuclear plant does.</p></div></blockquote><p>[citation needed]</p><p>Seriously, have you ever seen the public outcry over siting new non-nuclear power plants? No one wants them near them -- especially coal power plants -- either. Wind turbines are too ugly. Hydroelectric dams destroy too much land. Anything that burns fossil fuels raises issues with airborne pollution, <i>especially</i> coal or oil fired plants.</p><p>NIMBYism isn't restricted nuclear power plants.</p><p>The only difference with nuclear power plants is that <i>energy companies</i> don't want to build them -- unless the public indemnifies the operator against any liability. Why? Because not only does the <i>public</i> not like them, the operators and insurers don't feel they are safe enough, either, which is why they aren't willing to build them if they are financially on the line in the event of an accident.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody wants the nuclear power plant in their back yard because it is : " NUCULAR ! ! !
" The power has to come from somewhere .
Yet everyone will happily accept that coal-powered plant in their front yard which actually emits more radiation ( through trace amounts in the coal ) than a nuclear plant does .
[ citation needed ] Seriously , have you ever seen the public outcry over siting new non-nuclear power plants ?
No one wants them near them -- especially coal power plants -- either .
Wind turbines are too ugly .
Hydroelectric dams destroy too much land .
Anything that burns fossil fuels raises issues with airborne pollution , especially coal or oil fired plants.NIMBYism is n't restricted nuclear power plants.The only difference with nuclear power plants is that energy companies do n't want to build them -- unless the public indemnifies the operator against any liability .
Why ? Because not only does the public not like them , the operators and insurers do n't feel they are safe enough , either , which is why they are n't willing to build them if they are financially on the line in the event of an accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody wants the nuclear power plant in their back yard because it is: "NUCULAR!!!
" The power has to come from somewhere.
Yet everyone will happily accept that coal-powered plant in their front yard which actually emits more radiation (through trace amounts in the coal) than a nuclear plant does.
[citation needed]Seriously, have you ever seen the public outcry over siting new non-nuclear power plants?
No one wants them near them -- especially coal power plants -- either.
Wind turbines are too ugly.
Hydroelectric dams destroy too much land.
Anything that burns fossil fuels raises issues with airborne pollution, especially coal or oil fired plants.NIMBYism isn't restricted nuclear power plants.The only difference with nuclear power plants is that energy companies don't want to build them -- unless the public indemnifies the operator against any liability.
Why? Because not only does the public not like them, the operators and insurers don't feel they are safe enough, either, which is why they aren't willing to build them if they are financially on the line in the event of an accident.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249330</id>
	<title>Re:And this is the argument against nuclear</title>
	<author>RudeIota</author>
	<datestamp>1266915600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely right. I'd like to add that reasonably free-willed capitalism can't sustain itself without 'moral ethics'. <br> <br>Unfortunately, we've entered a period where our society has disregarded ethics in favor of profit. Of course, profit is almost always the primary motivator in the free-market, but profit needs to be accompanied by ethics or I'd wager the system will ultimately fail. This kind of stuff is often the result of those lack of moral ethics.<br> <br>
<b>For all of you dirty business men/women</b> out there who think you make a quick buck at the expense of public health, safety, product quality etc.. ALWAYS remember this: Where ever morality is found to be absent from capitalism, legislation will be substituted in its place. I, for one, don't personally like 'morality' being legislated.<br> <br>If you're really a free-market person, then surely you can appreciate doing the *right* thing -- because if you don't -- government intervention in the market becomes YOUR fault.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely right .
I 'd like to add that reasonably free-willed capitalism ca n't sustain itself without 'moral ethics' .
Unfortunately , we 've entered a period where our society has disregarded ethics in favor of profit .
Of course , profit is almost always the primary motivator in the free-market , but profit needs to be accompanied by ethics or I 'd wager the system will ultimately fail .
This kind of stuff is often the result of those lack of moral ethics .
For all of you dirty business men/women out there who think you make a quick buck at the expense of public health , safety , product quality etc.. ALWAYS remember this : Where ever morality is found to be absent from capitalism , legislation will be substituted in its place .
I , for one , do n't personally like 'morality ' being legislated .
If you 're really a free-market person , then surely you can appreciate doing the * right * thing -- because if you do n't -- government intervention in the market becomes YOUR fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely right.
I'd like to add that reasonably free-willed capitalism can't sustain itself without 'moral ethics'.
Unfortunately, we've entered a period where our society has disregarded ethics in favor of profit.
Of course, profit is almost always the primary motivator in the free-market, but profit needs to be accompanied by ethics or I'd wager the system will ultimately fail.
This kind of stuff is often the result of those lack of moral ethics.
For all of you dirty business men/women out there who think you make a quick buck at the expense of public health, safety, product quality etc.. ALWAYS remember this: Where ever morality is found to be absent from capitalism, legislation will be substituted in its place.
I, for one, don't personally like 'morality' being legislated.
If you're really a free-market person, then surely you can appreciate doing the *right* thing -- because if you don't -- government intervention in the market becomes YOUR fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247216</id>
	<title>WHAT!</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1266951960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm absolutely <i> <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Tritium-watch.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">glowing</a> [wikimedia.org] </i> that this wasn't brought forward earlier. This is something I would never want to happen on my <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Smith-Wesson-Tritium-Watch-Rubber/dp/B001E02W5G" title="amazon.com">watch</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm absolutely glowing [ wikimedia.org ] that this was n't brought forward earlier .
This is something I would never want to happen on my watch [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm absolutely  glowing [wikimedia.org]  that this wasn't brought forward earlier.
This is something I would never want to happen on my watch [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248102</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1266955140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet these executives will get nothing.  Honestly, if you are a executive and cause a major problem, you get to be beheaded or crucified in public.  It's the price you take for getting obscene pay and bonus packages.</p><p>I personally think the AIG and bank execs should have been put feet first into wood-chippers alive for what those scumbags did and are still doing.</p><p>but then I'm a pacificist... so I tend to err on the side of being nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet these executives will get nothing .
Honestly , if you are a executive and cause a major problem , you get to be beheaded or crucified in public .
It 's the price you take for getting obscene pay and bonus packages.I personally think the AIG and bank execs should have been put feet first into wood-chippers alive for what those scumbags did and are still doing.but then I 'm a pacificist... so I tend to err on the side of being nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet these executives will get nothing.
Honestly, if you are a executive and cause a major problem, you get to be beheaded or crucified in public.
It's the price you take for getting obscene pay and bonus packages.I personally think the AIG and bank execs should have been put feet first into wood-chippers alive for what those scumbags did and are still doing.but then I'm a pacificist... so I tend to err on the side of being nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247846</id>
	<title>Re:Troll summary.</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1266954120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with that is that eventually they'll be found out.  It may not be soon but it will most likely occur at some point and when it does it just sends the message that the nutters of the world may have a small point.  They don't, but it <i>appears that way</i> to people who do not know any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with that is that eventually they 'll be found out .
It may not be soon but it will most likely occur at some point and when it does it just sends the message that the nutters of the world may have a small point .
They do n't , but it appears that way to people who do not know any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with that is that eventually they'll be found out.
It may not be soon but it will most likely occur at some point and when it does it just sends the message that the nutters of the world may have a small point.
They don't, but it appears that way to people who do not know any better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31253276</id>
	<title>Re:Yes but</title>
	<author>thermopile</author>
	<datestamp>1266931680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wholeheartedly agree.  Just ask Martha Stewart.  She sold $230,000 worth of ImClone stock one day before the stock value crashed, to avoid losses of $45,000.  In the grand scheme of things, $45k isn't a whole lot to either Martha Stewart, ImClone, or the Securities and Exchange Commission.  <p>

But for the *coverup*, she got 5 months in jail and 5 months in home confinement. </p><p>

Similar story here, I think.  I totally agree that the actual damages are minor.  For a very good description of just how freaking minor this is, <a href="http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/02/sometimes-best-defense-is-good-offense.html" title="blogspot.com"> see this great description by Rod Adams of Atomic Insights.</a> [blogspot.com] </p><p>

It is an utter shame that gigawatts of carbon-free electricity are likely to be taken off the grid because of this incident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wholeheartedly agree .
Just ask Martha Stewart .
She sold $ 230,000 worth of ImClone stock one day before the stock value crashed , to avoid losses of $ 45,000 .
In the grand scheme of things , $ 45k is n't a whole lot to either Martha Stewart , ImClone , or the Securities and Exchange Commission .
But for the * coverup * , she got 5 months in jail and 5 months in home confinement .
Similar story here , I think .
I totally agree that the actual damages are minor .
For a very good description of just how freaking minor this is , see this great description by Rod Adams of Atomic Insights .
[ blogspot.com ] It is an utter shame that gigawatts of carbon-free electricity are likely to be taken off the grid because of this incident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wholeheartedly agree.
Just ask Martha Stewart.
She sold $230,000 worth of ImClone stock one day before the stock value crashed, to avoid losses of $45,000.
In the grand scheme of things, $45k isn't a whole lot to either Martha Stewart, ImClone, or the Securities and Exchange Commission.
But for the *coverup*, she got 5 months in jail and 5 months in home confinement.
Similar story here, I think.
I totally agree that the actual damages are minor.
For a very good description of just how freaking minor this is,  see this great description by Rod Adams of Atomic Insights.
[blogspot.com] 

It is an utter shame that gigawatts of carbon-free electricity are likely to be taken off the grid because of this incident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248154</id>
	<title>Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266955260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incorrect. It shows that the NRC doesn't have the authority or will to enforce the regulations. The NRC will be the regulatory agency overseeing the new plants, so there is relevance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorrect .
It shows that the NRC does n't have the authority or will to enforce the regulations .
The NRC will be the regulatory agency overseeing the new plants , so there is relevance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorrect.
It shows that the NRC doesn't have the authority or will to enforce the regulations.
The NRC will be the regulatory agency overseeing the new plants, so there is relevance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248760</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1266957180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This little omission is just one of thousands, if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power.</p></div><p>
Yes, because those engineers working in the plants themselves with their fingers on whatever control switches/safety shut offs there are don't have a conscience. In fact, if their plant has an issue and it kills a few folk in the surrounding area, more the the better. I mean, it thins the gene pool right and THOSE people aren't smart nuclear physicists.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/endsarcasm
<br> <br>
Give me a fucking break. Have you ever met an engineer that has worked on a large, industrial scale project that has the potential to kill people? Have you met someone that works at a rocket launch facility? What about the overseer of a car manufacturing plant? Have you met someone that helps manage a hydro electric damn? They tend to be extraordinarily conscientious people who are absolutely terrified at the prospect of something going wrong under their supervision precisely because they don't want some public fiasco (much less the deaths of their neighbors) on their conscience. Keep your trolling nuclear power cover up conspiracy theories in that hole-punctured little brain of yours or get out into the real world and try meeting some of the people that work on these projects. Even those evil middle management types that we love to bitch about here on slashdot tend to display moral compunction for the sole reason that they don't want to get people killed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process.</p></div><p>
And this little statement just goes to show what a snide little misinformed asshat you are. In practice, nuclear power works just fine and dandy. Ask France, they've been operating on primarily nuclear power for well over a decade without subjecting their citizenry to glowing green blobs of cancer. Keep your biased pseudo-philosophical cliches to yourself and get out of the way while the grown ups go to work to keep their respective industries safe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This little omission is just one of thousands , if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power .
Yes , because those engineers working in the plants themselves with their fingers on whatever control switches/safety shut offs there are do n't have a conscience .
In fact , if their plant has an issue and it kills a few folk in the surrounding area , more the the better .
I mean , it thins the gene pool right and THOSE people are n't smart nuclear physicists .
/endsarcasm Give me a fucking break .
Have you ever met an engineer that has worked on a large , industrial scale project that has the potential to kill people ?
Have you met someone that works at a rocket launch facility ?
What about the overseer of a car manufacturing plant ?
Have you met someone that helps manage a hydro electric damn ?
They tend to be extraordinarily conscientious people who are absolutely terrified at the prospect of something going wrong under their supervision precisely because they do n't want some public fiasco ( much less the deaths of their neighbors ) on their conscience .
Keep your trolling nuclear power cover up conspiracy theories in that hole-punctured little brain of yours or get out into the real world and try meeting some of the people that work on these projects .
Even those evil middle management types that we love to bitch about here on slashdot tend to display moral compunction for the sole reason that they do n't want to get people killed.I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it 's the people who inject the danger to the process .
And this little statement just goes to show what a snide little misinformed asshat you are .
In practice , nuclear power works just fine and dandy .
Ask France , they 've been operating on primarily nuclear power for well over a decade without subjecting their citizenry to glowing green blobs of cancer .
Keep your biased pseudo-philosophical cliches to yourself and get out of the way while the grown ups go to work to keep their respective industries safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This little omission is just one of thousands, if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power.
Yes, because those engineers working in the plants themselves with their fingers on whatever control switches/safety shut offs there are don't have a conscience.
In fact, if their plant has an issue and it kills a few folk in the surrounding area, more the the better.
I mean, it thins the gene pool right and THOSE people aren't smart nuclear physicists.
/endsarcasm
 
Give me a fucking break.
Have you ever met an engineer that has worked on a large, industrial scale project that has the potential to kill people?
Have you met someone that works at a rocket launch facility?
What about the overseer of a car manufacturing plant?
Have you met someone that helps manage a hydro electric damn?
They tend to be extraordinarily conscientious people who are absolutely terrified at the prospect of something going wrong under their supervision precisely because they don't want some public fiasco (much less the deaths of their neighbors) on their conscience.
Keep your trolling nuclear power cover up conspiracy theories in that hole-punctured little brain of yours or get out into the real world and try meeting some of the people that work on these projects.
Even those evil middle management types that we love to bitch about here on slashdot tend to display moral compunction for the sole reason that they don't want to get people killed.I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process.
And this little statement just goes to show what a snide little misinformed asshat you are.
In practice, nuclear power works just fine and dandy.
Ask France, they've been operating on primarily nuclear power for well over a decade without subjecting their citizenry to glowing green blobs of cancer.
Keep your biased pseudo-philosophical cliches to yourself and get out of the way while the grown ups go to work to keep their respective industries safe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31250688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31253276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31252084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31252378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_177240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31250688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31253276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248462
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249124
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31252084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248192
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247602
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247846
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247904
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248124
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248512
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249974
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249062
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31252378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31249210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31254256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31248580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31251014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_177240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_177240.31247464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
