<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_1811219</id>
	<title>Vermont May Revoke Nuclear Plant License</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267260060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mdsolar writes <i>"Following the Vermont Senate's 26-to-4 vote not to approve a 20-year license extension for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, the Vermont Public Service Board will <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9955638">consider revoking its operating license</a> as well. Meanwhile, the plant continues to operate without its Director of Nuclear Safety Assurance, who has been placed on administrative leave; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has merely <a href="http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100225/NEWS02/100229951/1003/NEWS02">issued a Demand for Information rather than shutting down</a> a plant that is lacking a full complement of safety personnel. It may be that the NRC is not capable of doing what is needed with regard to Entergy, the plant owner, which is also <a href="http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci\_14480917">facing prosecution by the Mississippi Attorney General</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mdsolar writes " Following the Vermont Senate 's 26-to-4 vote not to approve a 20-year license extension for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant , the Vermont Public Service Board will consider revoking its operating license as well .
Meanwhile , the plant continues to operate without its Director of Nuclear Safety Assurance , who has been placed on administrative leave ; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has merely issued a Demand for Information rather than shutting down a plant that is lacking a full complement of safety personnel .
It may be that the NRC is not capable of doing what is needed with regard to Entergy , the plant owner , which is also facing prosecution by the Mississippi Attorney General .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mdsolar writes "Following the Vermont Senate's 26-to-4 vote not to approve a 20-year license extension for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, the Vermont Public Service Board will consider revoking its operating license as well.
Meanwhile, the plant continues to operate without its Director of Nuclear Safety Assurance, who has been placed on administrative leave; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has merely issued a Demand for Information rather than shutting down a plant that is lacking a full complement of safety personnel.
It may be that the NRC is not capable of doing what is needed with regard to Entergy, the plant owner, which is also facing prosecution by the Mississippi Attorney General.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301422</id>
	<title>Re:Emergency NRC Acting Director?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talking about knee-jerk reactions<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The operating license and technical specifications for a plant require certain positions to be filled to safely operate the plant. They also require certain programs to be implemented. The Director of Safety Assurance is not one of these persons, and filling the manager position does not mean that his program is not being implemented. And none of this means that nuclear safety is at risk, because the Operations Department owns nuclear safety. In fact, the owner can't force the Operations Department to do anything they don't want to do, nor can it replace them since licensed operators are the only ones that can legally direct the operation of plant equipment (and operators have repeatedly refused corporate directions, since they are personally held responsible by the the NRC). Theoretically, the owners could try to punish Ops, but this will never happen for two reasons: multiple people would resign and it would take 2+ years before the plant could re-license enough operators, and punishing an operator for acting on even a completely unfounded safety concern would probably cause the license to be revoked. Either of these would cost the company about $1 billion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking about knee-jerk reactions ...The operating license and technical specifications for a plant require certain positions to be filled to safely operate the plant .
They also require certain programs to be implemented .
The Director of Safety Assurance is not one of these persons , and filling the manager position does not mean that his program is not being implemented .
And none of this means that nuclear safety is at risk , because the Operations Department owns nuclear safety .
In fact , the owner ca n't force the Operations Department to do anything they do n't want to do , nor can it replace them since licensed operators are the only ones that can legally direct the operation of plant equipment ( and operators have repeatedly refused corporate directions , since they are personally held responsible by the the NRC ) .
Theoretically , the owners could try to punish Ops , but this will never happen for two reasons : multiple people would resign and it would take 2 + years before the plant could re-license enough operators , and punishing an operator for acting on even a completely unfounded safety concern would probably cause the license to be revoked .
Either of these would cost the company about $ 1 billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking about knee-jerk reactions ...The operating license and technical specifications for a plant require certain positions to be filled to safely operate the plant.
They also require certain programs to be implemented.
The Director of Safety Assurance is not one of these persons, and filling the manager position does not mean that his program is not being implemented.
And none of this means that nuclear safety is at risk, because the Operations Department owns nuclear safety.
In fact, the owner can't force the Operations Department to do anything they don't want to do, nor can it replace them since licensed operators are the only ones that can legally direct the operation of plant equipment (and operators have repeatedly refused corporate directions, since they are personally held responsible by the the NRC).
Theoretically, the owners could try to punish Ops, but this will never happen for two reasons: multiple people would resign and it would take 2+ years before the plant could re-license enough operators, and punishing an operator for acting on even a completely unfounded safety concern would probably cause the license to be revoked.
Either of these would cost the company about $1 billion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299804</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, my God. Oh, God, no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267267020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>mod parent up. Doesn't <b>anyone</b> recognize a Simpsons reference anymore?
<br> <br>
Langdon Alger</htmltext>
<tokenext>mod parent up .
Does n't anyone recognize a Simpsons reference anymore ?
Langdon Alger</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod parent up.
Doesn't anyone recognize a Simpsons reference anymore?
Langdon Alger</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299620</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to Replace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267265040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>christ that took me some time to get, but good one sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>christ that took me some time to get , but good one sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>christ that took me some time to get, but good one sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301154</id>
	<title>Re:The hell?</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1267279980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A failure to proof read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A failure to proof read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A failure to proof read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31305816</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, my God. Oh, God, no!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267373340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pff. My T-1000 kicks your T-437&rsquo;s ass!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pff .
My T-1000 kicks your T-437    s ass !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pff.
My T-1000 kicks your T-437’s ass!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300926</id>
	<title>Re:Did they really lie?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267277760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They now think that they have found the cracked pipes after weeks of digging.</p><p>VERNON &ndash; The state Department of Health said late Wednesday that Entergy Nuclear had made an "important finding" in its seven-week search to find the source of a radioactive tritium leak at the Vermont Yankee reactor.</p><p>In its daily news release, the health department said that Entergy had found "an indication of a crack" in the concrete duct around the 2-inch advanced off-gas line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They now think that they have found the cracked pipes after weeks of digging.VERNON    The state Department of Health said late Wednesday that Entergy Nuclear had made an " important finding " in its seven-week search to find the source of a radioactive tritium leak at the Vermont Yankee reactor.In its daily news release , the health department said that Entergy had found " an indication of a crack " in the concrete duct around the 2-inch advanced off-gas line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They now think that they have found the cracked pipes after weeks of digging.VERNON – The state Department of Health said late Wednesday that Entergy Nuclear had made an "important finding" in its seven-week search to find the source of a radioactive tritium leak at the Vermont Yankee reactor.In its daily news release, the health department said that Entergy had found "an indication of a crack" in the concrete duct around the 2-inch advanced off-gas line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516</id>
	<title>Hard to Replace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267264080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the issues with shutting down Vermont Yankee is that it provides over a third of the electricity to the state. I feel like a lot of the reason it has been treated so leniently is because of the massive increase in price Vermonters face in getting power elsewhere in that kind of volume.

Hydro-Quebec provides a good portion of the rest, perhaps they have the capacity, but there's nothing quite like homegrown cheap power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the issues with shutting down Vermont Yankee is that it provides over a third of the electricity to the state .
I feel like a lot of the reason it has been treated so leniently is because of the massive increase in price Vermonters face in getting power elsewhere in that kind of volume .
Hydro-Quebec provides a good portion of the rest , perhaps they have the capacity , but there 's nothing quite like homegrown cheap power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the issues with shutting down Vermont Yankee is that it provides over a third of the electricity to the state.
I feel like a lot of the reason it has been treated so leniently is because of the massive increase in price Vermonters face in getting power elsewhere in that kind of volume.
Hydro-Quebec provides a good portion of the rest, perhaps they have the capacity, but there's nothing quite like homegrown cheap power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300600</id>
	<title>Nuclear Power is so last century</title>
	<author>RonMcMahon</author>
	<datestamp>1267274760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear power was the best idea of the last century but we now know of so many better and cheaper ways to safely generate stable and reliable power that to continue to pursue the old idea of nuclear energy is foolish.  That toxic technology has killed thousands, rendered vast areas of Europe with toxic levels of radioactivity and has burdened thousands of future generations with the obligation of securing and maintaining the waste created by this idea whose time has passed.<br> <br>The sooner that our governments move our energy production to safer and more reliable systems like geothermal, the better.  Building up an entirely new and stable energy system based upon the vast heat resource under our feet would boost our economy out of the recession we are in while improving our security and safety through the complete dismantling of the toxic legacy of nuclear power generation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power was the best idea of the last century but we now know of so many better and cheaper ways to safely generate stable and reliable power that to continue to pursue the old idea of nuclear energy is foolish .
That toxic technology has killed thousands , rendered vast areas of Europe with toxic levels of radioactivity and has burdened thousands of future generations with the obligation of securing and maintaining the waste created by this idea whose time has passed .
The sooner that our governments move our energy production to safer and more reliable systems like geothermal , the better .
Building up an entirely new and stable energy system based upon the vast heat resource under our feet would boost our economy out of the recession we are in while improving our security and safety through the complete dismantling of the toxic legacy of nuclear power generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power was the best idea of the last century but we now know of so many better and cheaper ways to safely generate stable and reliable power that to continue to pursue the old idea of nuclear energy is foolish.
That toxic technology has killed thousands, rendered vast areas of Europe with toxic levels of radioactivity and has burdened thousands of future generations with the obligation of securing and maintaining the waste created by this idea whose time has passed.
The sooner that our governments move our energy production to safer and more reliable systems like geothermal, the better.
Building up an entirely new and stable energy system based upon the vast heat resource under our feet would boost our economy out of the recession we are in while improving our security and safety through the complete dismantling of the toxic legacy of nuclear power generation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304682</id>
	<title>Re:Fine. Ban nukes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267363140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Person A: Hey, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission demanded information about safety problems in a nuclear plant in Vermont</p><p>Ralph Spoilsport: ZOMG FUCKING ANTI-NUKE CRUSADER HIPPIES DIE DIE DIE WHARRGARBL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Person A : Hey , the Nuclear Regulatory Commission demanded information about safety problems in a nuclear plant in VermontRalph Spoilsport : ZOMG FUCKING ANTI-NUKE CRUSADER HIPPIES DIE DIE DIE WHARRGARBL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Person A: Hey, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission demanded information about safety problems in a nuclear plant in VermontRalph Spoilsport: ZOMG FUCKING ANTI-NUKE CRUSADER HIPPIES DIE DIE DIE WHARRGARBL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656</id>
	<title>Horrors, some was reasonable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267265340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has merely issued a Demand for Information rather than shutting down a plant that is lacking a full compliment of safety personnel.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Give me a break.  If you strip away the inflammatory wording, this seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  When was the last time you heard of a coal fired plant or a coal mine being shut down because they didn't have a "full complement of safety personnel"?

</p><p>The NRC "merely" did something reasonable rather than taking some draconian action that the fossil fuel industry apologists could then use to argue against the safety and reliability of their biggest competitor ("Look!  They had to shut it down for safety violations!  Oh Noooooooo!")

</p><p>-- MarkusQ</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has merely issued a Demand for Information rather than shutting down a plant that is lacking a full compliment of safety personnel .
Give me a break .
If you strip away the inflammatory wording , this seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do .
When was the last time you heard of a coal fired plant or a coal mine being shut down because they did n't have a " full complement of safety personnel " ?
The NRC " merely " did something reasonable rather than taking some draconian action that the fossil fuel industry apologists could then use to argue against the safety and reliability of their biggest competitor ( " Look !
They had to shut it down for safety violations !
Oh Noooooooo !
" ) -- MarkusQ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has merely issued a Demand for Information rather than shutting down a plant that is lacking a full compliment of safety personnel.
Give me a break.
If you strip away the inflammatory wording, this seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
When was the last time you heard of a coal fired plant or a coal mine being shut down because they didn't have a "full complement of safety personnel"?
The NRC "merely" did something reasonable rather than taking some draconian action that the fossil fuel industry apologists could then use to argue against the safety and reliability of their biggest competitor ("Look!
They had to shut it down for safety violations!
Oh Noooooooo!
")

-- MarkusQ
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301984</id>
	<title>FUD campaign?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267286580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this a follow up on the <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/11/2054237" title="slashdot.org">tritium</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/06/156236" title="slashdot.org">scare</a> [slashdot.org] engineered by some?</p><p>I summarize it by : OMG there's a tritium leak that make the water undrinkable by regulation, if you are dumb enough to dig a well under that power plant!</p><p>There are probably 1000s or enterprise leaking contaminated oil in the ground that are making water far more undrinkable than this, for years after the leak is gone. And those companies would be just as clueless to plug their leak. So why treat this differently?</p><p>Now, show me a major leak that has an impact and I'll agree with  it. As it is, I am calling this whole campaign a troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a follow up on the tritium [ slashdot.org ] scare [ slashdot.org ] engineered by some ? I summarize it by : OMG there 's a tritium leak that make the water undrinkable by regulation , if you are dumb enough to dig a well under that power plant ! There are probably 1000s or enterprise leaking contaminated oil in the ground that are making water far more undrinkable than this , for years after the leak is gone .
And those companies would be just as clueless to plug their leak .
So why treat this differently ? Now , show me a major leak that has an impact and I 'll agree with it .
As it is , I am calling this whole campaign a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a follow up on the tritium [slashdot.org] scare [slashdot.org] engineered by some?I summarize it by : OMG there's a tritium leak that make the water undrinkable by regulation, if you are dumb enough to dig a well under that power plant!There are probably 1000s or enterprise leaking contaminated oil in the ground that are making water far more undrinkable than this, for years after the leak is gone.
And those companies would be just as clueless to plug their leak.
So why treat this differently?Now, show me a major leak that has an impact and I'll agree with  it.
As it is, I am calling this whole campaign a troll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300022</id>
	<title>Reactionary Policy</title>
	<author>jmactacular</author>
	<datestamp>1267268880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What amazes me is their Senate voting to effectively shut down the source of over 1/3 of their power generation *before* they have even found a source to replace it.  This is the kind of reactionary short-term thinking that leads to poor policy decisions.  It's not like they can build a coal power plant over night.

Maybe they can drop a few hundred mill on some Bloom boxes. =^)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What amazes me is their Senate voting to effectively shut down the source of over 1/3 of their power generation * before * they have even found a source to replace it .
This is the kind of reactionary short-term thinking that leads to poor policy decisions .
It 's not like they can build a coal power plant over night .
Maybe they can drop a few hundred mill on some Bloom boxes .
= ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What amazes me is their Senate voting to effectively shut down the source of over 1/3 of their power generation *before* they have even found a source to replace it.
This is the kind of reactionary short-term thinking that leads to poor policy decisions.
It's not like they can build a coal power plant over night.
Maybe they can drop a few hundred mill on some Bloom boxes.
=^)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299968</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to Replace</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1267268460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>please, they won't shut it down. it's just another government department flapping it's wings about a technicality. "director of nuclear safety" sounds like every other safety job i've ever seen in the resources sector. paper pushing, meetings and nothing concrete. a directors job would consist of nothing more then managing the lower rank safety staff and communicating with the government department, having them on leave won't actually effect the safety of the plant at all - that's all down to the engineers and tech's that run it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>please , they wo n't shut it down .
it 's just another government department flapping it 's wings about a technicality .
" director of nuclear safety " sounds like every other safety job i 've ever seen in the resources sector .
paper pushing , meetings and nothing concrete .
a directors job would consist of nothing more then managing the lower rank safety staff and communicating with the government department , having them on leave wo n't actually effect the safety of the plant at all - that 's all down to the engineers and tech 's that run it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please, they won't shut it down.
it's just another government department flapping it's wings about a technicality.
"director of nuclear safety" sounds like every other safety job i've ever seen in the resources sector.
paper pushing, meetings and nothing concrete.
a directors job would consist of nothing more then managing the lower rank safety staff and communicating with the government department, having them on leave won't actually effect the safety of the plant at all - that's all down to the engineers and tech's that run it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510</id>
	<title>Oh, my God. Oh, God, no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267264020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, this can 't be happening! You're operating without a T-437, Vermont!<br>Sweet mother of mercy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , this can 't be happening !
You 're operating without a T-437 , Vermont ! Sweet mother of mercy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, this can 't be happening!
You're operating without a T-437, Vermont!Sweet mother of mercy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304654</id>
	<title>Re:Same submitter keeps trolling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267362840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you attacking the messenger instead of trying to tackle the message?  The submitter might as well be a one-armed transsexual satanic midget who voted for Obama and has a knack for zoophilia but that wouldn't change anything in what was said about nuclear power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you attacking the messenger instead of trying to tackle the message ?
The submitter might as well be a one-armed transsexual satanic midget who voted for Obama and has a knack for zoophilia but that would n't change anything in what was said about nuclear power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you attacking the messenger instead of trying to tackle the message?
The submitter might as well be a one-armed transsexual satanic midget who voted for Obama and has a knack for zoophilia but that wouldn't change anything in what was said about nuclear power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31307490</id>
	<title>Re:Did they really lie?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267384680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That statement was factual.  Those pipes can't carry tritium - they leak too much.  They were intended to dispose of of the tritium into the underground aquifer like a leach line, not bring it back into the plant...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That statement was factual .
Those pipes ca n't carry tritium - they leak too much .
They were intended to dispose of of the tritium into the underground aquifer like a leach line , not bring it back into the plant.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That statement was factual.
Those pipes can't carry tritium - they leak too much.
They were intended to dispose of of the tritium into the underground aquifer like a leach line, not bring it back into the plant...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299546</id>
	<title>who owns the place mr burns?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267264260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who owns the place mr burns?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who owns the place mr burns ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who owns the place mr burns?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300040</id>
	<title>Re:The hell?</title>
	<author>Seraphim1982</author>
	<datestamp>1267269060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you just stop reading when you hit a word you don't understand? Because the three words after "Entergy" tell you "What the hell" it is.</p><p>"Entergy, <b>the plant owner</b>,"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you just stop reading when you hit a word you do n't understand ?
Because the three words after " Entergy " tell you " What the hell " it is .
" Entergy , the plant owner , "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you just stop reading when you hit a word you don't understand?
Because the three words after "Entergy" tell you "What the hell" it is.
"Entergy, the plant owner,"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299850</id>
	<title>No kidding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267267320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so the company suspended the safety director <em>only four days ago</em>, and the submitter is bitching about "lack of full complement of safety personnel", and implying that the plant should be shut down? Give me a fucking break. He has assistants and subordinates that can fill in for him until a replacement is chosen. It's not like he never took vacation or was away from the plant during the time he was working there.</p><p>This is a serious situation and needs to be looked into closely, especially given the deceit on behalf of Entergy. I agree that long-term license renewal should not be granted until they agree to additional oversight and put forth concrete plans for resolving the maintenance problems that currently exist. However, the plant is <em>not</em> unsafe at this time, the problems <em>can</em> be fixed, and there is no reason that it shouldn't be.</p><p>Seriously, mdsolar, just STFU. It is people like you that make me ashamed to be associate with environmental groups at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so the company suspended the safety director only four days ago , and the submitter is bitching about " lack of full complement of safety personnel " , and implying that the plant should be shut down ?
Give me a fucking break .
He has assistants and subordinates that can fill in for him until a replacement is chosen .
It 's not like he never took vacation or was away from the plant during the time he was working there.This is a serious situation and needs to be looked into closely , especially given the deceit on behalf of Entergy .
I agree that long-term license renewal should not be granted until they agree to additional oversight and put forth concrete plans for resolving the maintenance problems that currently exist .
However , the plant is not unsafe at this time , the problems can be fixed , and there is no reason that it should n't be.Seriously , mdsolar , just STFU .
It is people like you that make me ashamed to be associate with environmental groups at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so the company suspended the safety director only four days ago, and the submitter is bitching about "lack of full complement of safety personnel", and implying that the plant should be shut down?
Give me a fucking break.
He has assistants and subordinates that can fill in for him until a replacement is chosen.
It's not like he never took vacation or was away from the plant during the time he was working there.This is a serious situation and needs to be looked into closely, especially given the deceit on behalf of Entergy.
I agree that long-term license renewal should not be granted until they agree to additional oversight and put forth concrete plans for resolving the maintenance problems that currently exist.
However, the plant is not unsafe at this time, the problems can be fixed, and there is no reason that it shouldn't be.Seriously, mdsolar, just STFU.
It is people like you that make me ashamed to be associate with environmental groups at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31302248</id>
	<title>Re:The hell?</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1267289100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A concatenation of Entropy and Energy. It will cost a lot, slowly fall apart, and in the end go broke and leave you to clean up the mess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A concatenation of Entropy and Energy .
It will cost a lot , slowly fall apart , and in the end go broke and leave you to clean up the mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A concatenation of Entropy and Energy.
It will cost a lot, slowly fall apart, and in the end go broke and leave you to clean up the mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304424</id>
	<title>Re:Fine. Ban nukes.</title>
	<author>farmanb</author>
	<datestamp>1267358820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA.  It's not a case of being anti-nuclear.  The problem is that Entergy couldn't care less about what's going on at the plant and they're allowing leaks, multiple cooling tower collapses due to the wood support structure rotting out, etc.  It's a public health concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
It 's not a case of being anti-nuclear .
The problem is that Entergy could n't care less about what 's going on at the plant and they 're allowing leaks , multiple cooling tower collapses due to the wood support structure rotting out , etc .
It 's a public health concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
It's not a case of being anti-nuclear.
The problem is that Entergy couldn't care less about what's going on at the plant and they're allowing leaks, multiple cooling tower collapses due to the wood support structure rotting out, etc.
It's a public health concern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31307818</id>
	<title>Missing parts of the story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267387020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've followed this story for many years nw, as I am a lifelong resident of Vermont, and I can't say I am surprised, but a LOT of the facts about this story are not being told here, or are misrepresented.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; First it Is important to know that the VT Legislature did not and can not rule on the safety aspects of the Vernon, VT reactor. Their ONLY area of concern is the reliabilty of the plant to provide base-load energy to the state. Vermont is unique in this way... No other state legislature has any role to play in determining the future of a nuclear reactor. The VT Legislature was given the role of assessing reliabilty of the reactor as part of the terms of sale when Entergy purchased the plant about a decade ago. The decision about the safety of the plant is the purview of the Public Service Board, which I believe is the norm nationwide.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Also important but seemingly ommitted here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is the story about how Entergy is trying to spin-off a subsidiary company called Enexus, and then sell the reactor (and all liability) to that company, wiping their hands clean of all responsibility. It is widely speculated that Enexus is over-leveraged and may not be able to afford the decommisioning costs (in the hundreds of millions, before any discovery of leaked tritium). VT certainly cannot saddle these costs if Entergy/Enexus leaves the burden to us.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Yes, the Entergy officials did make misleading statements regarding buried pipes. Whether this was intentional or out of ignorance does not matter, really, in the eyes of Vermonters who no longer put much trust in the company that owns the plant. Because of this, many legislators and the Governor who once strongly supported the 20-year relicensing have changed their minds or have greatly reduced their support for a yes vote on the relicensing matter.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The Legislature voted on the reliability of the plant, which despite it's age has continued to score well on safety (I've heard it gets an A+, but I don't see how a letter-grade applies to such a broad concern). Perhaps the legislature was ALSO allowed to rule on the reliabilty of the company who owns the plant... That would certainly drag-down the plant's reliability assessment, in their eyes.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Finally, the "1/3 of the energy in VT" statement being bandied about is misleading. The reactor does generate the equivalent of 1/3 of VT's base-load, but I believe the amount of VT's power that comes from VT Yankee is 11\%, as we get our power from a very diverse power portfolio. VT Yankee sells us what we need from them, and sells the rest to other states on the "NorthEast Grid." we probably get more energy from Hydro-Quebec's massive surplus, but I don't have the figures to know for sure.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; This is a very touchy subject in VT right now. Rabid pro- and anti- nuclear power opinions are everywhere... I just about refuse to discuss the matter openly with friends and acquaintances these days. I hear LOTS of FUD regarding "skyrocketing power-costs" that are "certain" to come if the reactor is nt relicensed, but it seems unlikely it will actually put us in poverty. We've enjoyed low rates (~$.041/Kwh), but Entergy/Enexus is going to increase that to ~$.06/KWh if they do get relicensure in their new contract with the state. It is said that we can expect to meet that rate for the amount of energy we'll need to replace.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; In the interests of full-disclosure, I personally would like to see VT get it's energy needs met elsewhere. There are a number of growing companies in the state that have a chance to supply "green-energy" if there was a demand. When the US is lagging far behind countries like China in the science and business of green energy, it makes sense from tecnological and economic viewpoint, not just environmental. Unfortunately, I expect the unique Legislatorial decision will be overturned by deep pockets and a lawsuit, and in the end corporate interests will end up sticking our small state with a cleanup bill that will be orders of magnitude greater than any accumulated energy cost savings to date. We will have to wait and see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've followed this story for many years nw , as I am a lifelong resident of Vermont , and I ca n't say I am surprised , but a LOT of the facts about this story are not being told here , or are misrepresented .
    First it Is important to know that the VT Legislature did not and can not rule on the safety aspects of the Vernon , VT reactor .
Their ONLY area of concern is the reliabilty of the plant to provide base-load energy to the state .
Vermont is unique in this way... No other state legislature has any role to play in determining the future of a nuclear reactor .
The VT Legislature was given the role of assessing reliabilty of the reactor as part of the terms of sale when Entergy purchased the plant about a decade ago .
The decision about the safety of the plant is the purview of the Public Service Board , which I believe is the norm nationwide .
    Also important but seemingly ommitted here on / .
is the story about how Entergy is trying to spin-off a subsidiary company called Enexus , and then sell the reactor ( and all liability ) to that company , wiping their hands clean of all responsibility .
It is widely speculated that Enexus is over-leveraged and may not be able to afford the decommisioning costs ( in the hundreds of millions , before any discovery of leaked tritium ) .
VT certainly can not saddle these costs if Entergy/Enexus leaves the burden to us .
    Yes , the Entergy officials did make misleading statements regarding buried pipes .
Whether this was intentional or out of ignorance does not matter , really , in the eyes of Vermonters who no longer put much trust in the company that owns the plant .
Because of this , many legislators and the Governor who once strongly supported the 20-year relicensing have changed their minds or have greatly reduced their support for a yes vote on the relicensing matter .
      The Legislature voted on the reliability of the plant , which despite it 's age has continued to score well on safety ( I 've heard it gets an A + , but I do n't see how a letter-grade applies to such a broad concern ) .
Perhaps the legislature was ALSO allowed to rule on the reliabilty of the company who owns the plant... That would certainly drag-down the plant 's reliability assessment , in their eyes .
    Finally , the " 1/3 of the energy in VT " statement being bandied about is misleading .
The reactor does generate the equivalent of 1/3 of VT 's base-load , but I believe the amount of VT 's power that comes from VT Yankee is 11 \ % , as we get our power from a very diverse power portfolio .
VT Yankee sells us what we need from them , and sells the rest to other states on the " NorthEast Grid .
" we probably get more energy from Hydro-Quebec 's massive surplus , but I do n't have the figures to know for sure .
    This is a very touchy subject in VT right now .
Rabid pro- and anti- nuclear power opinions are everywhere... I just about refuse to discuss the matter openly with friends and acquaintances these days .
I hear LOTS of FUD regarding " skyrocketing power-costs " that are " certain " to come if the reactor is nt relicensed , but it seems unlikely it will actually put us in poverty .
We 've enjoyed low rates ( ~ $ .041/Kwh ) , but Entergy/Enexus is going to increase that to ~ $ .06/KWh if they do get relicensure in their new contract with the state .
It is said that we can expect to meet that rate for the amount of energy we 'll need to replace .
    In the interests of full-disclosure , I personally would like to see VT get it 's energy needs met elsewhere .
There are a number of growing companies in the state that have a chance to supply " green-energy " if there was a demand .
When the US is lagging far behind countries like China in the science and business of green energy , it makes sense from tecnological and economic viewpoint , not just environmental .
Unfortunately , I expect the unique Legislatorial decision will be overturned by deep pockets and a lawsuit , and in the end corporate interests will end up sticking our small state with a cleanup bill that will be orders of magnitude greater than any accumulated energy cost savings to date .
We will have to wait and see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've followed this story for many years nw, as I am a lifelong resident of Vermont, and I can't say I am surprised, but a LOT of the facts about this story are not being told here, or are misrepresented.
    First it Is important to know that the VT Legislature did not and can not rule on the safety aspects of the Vernon, VT reactor.
Their ONLY area of concern is the reliabilty of the plant to provide base-load energy to the state.
Vermont is unique in this way... No other state legislature has any role to play in determining the future of a nuclear reactor.
The VT Legislature was given the role of assessing reliabilty of the reactor as part of the terms of sale when Entergy purchased the plant about a decade ago.
The decision about the safety of the plant is the purview of the Public Service Board, which I believe is the norm nationwide.
    Also important but seemingly ommitted here on /.
is the story about how Entergy is trying to spin-off a subsidiary company called Enexus, and then sell the reactor (and all liability) to that company, wiping their hands clean of all responsibility.
It is widely speculated that Enexus is over-leveraged and may not be able to afford the decommisioning costs (in the hundreds of millions, before any discovery of leaked tritium).
VT certainly cannot saddle these costs if Entergy/Enexus leaves the burden to us.
    Yes, the Entergy officials did make misleading statements regarding buried pipes.
Whether this was intentional or out of ignorance does not matter, really, in the eyes of Vermonters who no longer put much trust in the company that owns the plant.
Because of this, many legislators and the Governor who once strongly supported the 20-year relicensing have changed their minds or have greatly reduced their support for a yes vote on the relicensing matter.
      The Legislature voted on the reliability of the plant, which despite it's age has continued to score well on safety (I've heard it gets an A+, but I don't see how a letter-grade applies to such a broad concern).
Perhaps the legislature was ALSO allowed to rule on the reliabilty of the company who owns the plant... That would certainly drag-down the plant's reliability assessment, in their eyes.
    Finally, the "1/3 of the energy in VT" statement being bandied about is misleading.
The reactor does generate the equivalent of 1/3 of VT's base-load, but I believe the amount of VT's power that comes from VT Yankee is 11\%, as we get our power from a very diverse power portfolio.
VT Yankee sells us what we need from them, and sells the rest to other states on the "NorthEast Grid.
" we probably get more energy from Hydro-Quebec's massive surplus, but I don't have the figures to know for sure.
    This is a very touchy subject in VT right now.
Rabid pro- and anti- nuclear power opinions are everywhere... I just about refuse to discuss the matter openly with friends and acquaintances these days.
I hear LOTS of FUD regarding "skyrocketing power-costs" that are "certain" to come if the reactor is nt relicensed, but it seems unlikely it will actually put us in poverty.
We've enjoyed low rates (~$.041/Kwh), but Entergy/Enexus is going to increase that to ~$.06/KWh if they do get relicensure in their new contract with the state.
It is said that we can expect to meet that rate for the amount of energy we'll need to replace.
    In the interests of full-disclosure, I personally would like to see VT get it's energy needs met elsewhere.
There are a number of growing companies in the state that have a chance to supply "green-energy" if there was a demand.
When the US is lagging far behind countries like China in the science and business of green energy, it makes sense from tecnological and economic viewpoint, not just environmental.
Unfortunately, I expect the unique Legislatorial decision will be overturned by deep pockets and a lawsuit, and in the end corporate interests will end up sticking our small state with a cleanup bill that will be orders of magnitude greater than any accumulated energy cost savings to date.
We will have to wait and see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31302494</id>
	<title>Being a Vermont resident</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that Vermont is totally anti-nuclear energy, but it's just the track history of this particular plant.  We've had plenty of "minor" accidents/leaks/etc.  I mean 2 years ago, a water coolant tank collapsed from dry rot... DRY ROT... it is quite clear that nobody is running the place, or that they are severely understaffed.  In either case the plant is very old technology by today's standards.  It designed lifetime was for 40 years, it will hit that in 2012.  It is time to close it.  If it had been properly cared for in it's past 40 years, it could give us 20 more years of life.  But thats not the fact, it has been neglected and abused in many ways, and it is no longer safe.  They already won a battle to raise power production over 100\% of its designed rating, what happened when they did?  Pipes started bursting and leaks formed.  AFAIK they still haven't made it back to getting &gt;100\% again since then.  We still have 2 more years, how about we think about a new plant instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that Vermont is totally anti-nuclear energy , but it 's just the track history of this particular plant .
We 've had plenty of " minor " accidents/leaks/etc .
I mean 2 years ago , a water coolant tank collapsed from dry rot... DRY ROT... it is quite clear that nobody is running the place , or that they are severely understaffed .
In either case the plant is very old technology by today 's standards .
It designed lifetime was for 40 years , it will hit that in 2012 .
It is time to close it .
If it had been properly cared for in it 's past 40 years , it could give us 20 more years of life .
But thats not the fact , it has been neglected and abused in many ways , and it is no longer safe .
They already won a battle to raise power production over 100 \ % of its designed rating , what happened when they did ?
Pipes started bursting and leaks formed .
AFAIK they still have n't made it back to getting &gt; 100 \ % again since then .
We still have 2 more years , how about we think about a new plant instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that Vermont is totally anti-nuclear energy, but it's just the track history of this particular plant.
We've had plenty of "minor" accidents/leaks/etc.
I mean 2 years ago, a water coolant tank collapsed from dry rot... DRY ROT... it is quite clear that nobody is running the place, or that they are severely understaffed.
In either case the plant is very old technology by today's standards.
It designed lifetime was for 40 years, it will hit that in 2012.
It is time to close it.
If it had been properly cared for in it's past 40 years, it could give us 20 more years of life.
But thats not the fact, it has been neglected and abused in many ways, and it is no longer safe.
They already won a battle to raise power production over 100\% of its designed rating, what happened when they did?
Pipes started bursting and leaks formed.
AFAIK they still haven't made it back to getting &gt;100\% again since then.
We still have 2 more years, how about we think about a new plant instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299908</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, my God. Oh, God, no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267267980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's 20 years of Simsons episodes. Some people have better things to do than memorize hundreds of hours of Simpsons dialogue. Heck there's probably Slashdot readers these days that are younger than the show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's 20 years of Simsons episodes .
Some people have better things to do than memorize hundreds of hours of Simpsons dialogue .
Heck there 's probably Slashdot readers these days that are younger than the show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's 20 years of Simsons episodes.
Some people have better things to do than memorize hundreds of hours of Simpsons dialogue.
Heck there's probably Slashdot readers these days that are younger than the show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300888</id>
	<title>Re:Emergency NRC Acting Director?</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1267277280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would seem to blur regulating a licensee and running a licensee's power plant.  The problem is more that the NRC seems to be generally supportive of a run-to-failure attitude in licensees and does not care at all about whistleblower protection.  That is how Nuclear Fuel Services, for example, has run into a ditch.  <a href="http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/safety\_issues\_keep\_nuclear\_processing\_work\_on\_hold\_at\_nfs/41758/" title="tricities.com">http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/safety\_issues\_keep\_nuclear\_processing\_work\_on\_hold\_at\_nfs/41758/</a> [tricities.com]  It should not be forgotten that the NRC was covering up a near criticality accident there four years ago <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/06cnd-nuke.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/06cnd-nuke.html</a> [nytimes.com]  Failure to regulate is the problem with this regulatory agency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would seem to blur regulating a licensee and running a licensee 's power plant .
The problem is more that the NRC seems to be generally supportive of a run-to-failure attitude in licensees and does not care at all about whistleblower protection .
That is how Nuclear Fuel Services , for example , has run into a ditch .
http : //www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/safety \ _issues \ _keep \ _nuclear \ _processing \ _work \ _on \ _hold \ _at \ _nfs/41758/ [ tricities.com ] It should not be forgotten that the NRC was covering up a near criticality accident there four years ago http : //www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/06cnd-nuke.html [ nytimes.com ] Failure to regulate is the problem with this regulatory agency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would seem to blur regulating a licensee and running a licensee's power plant.
The problem is more that the NRC seems to be generally supportive of a run-to-failure attitude in licensees and does not care at all about whistleblower protection.
That is how Nuclear Fuel Services, for example, has run into a ditch.
http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/safety\_issues\_keep\_nuclear\_processing\_work\_on\_hold\_at\_nfs/41758/ [tricities.com]  It should not be forgotten that the NRC was covering up a near criticality accident there four years ago http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/06cnd-nuke.html [nytimes.com]  Failure to regulate is the problem with this regulatory agency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300504</id>
	<title>Re:No kidding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267273860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you *know* the plant is not unsafe at this time?   If you really know, there's a job opening at the plant you should probably apply for.   If you don't, isn't it a bit silly to claim otherwise?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you * know * the plant is not unsafe at this time ?
If you really know , there 's a job opening at the plant you should probably apply for .
If you do n't , is n't it a bit silly to claim otherwise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you *know* the plant is not unsafe at this time?
If you really know, there's a job opening at the plant you should probably apply for.
If you don't, isn't it a bit silly to claim otherwise?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31312530</id>
	<title>Why did they have a license in the first place?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267386060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody wants radioactive trees, or the hulking fern of doom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody wants radioactive trees , or the hulking fern of doom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody wants radioactive trees, or the hulking fern of doom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31308256</id>
	<title>Decommissioning was a major factor</title>
	<author>Long Trail Rufus</author>
	<datestamp>1267390440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Vermont Senate stayed away from the safety issue as that is NRC territory.

What distressed many people was the costs of decommissioning and major distrust of the ability of the owner, Entergy, to finance shutting the plant down. Entergy has a plan to spin off its nuclear power plants to a debt-laden independent corporation. Unfortunately for Entergy, Verizon has just completed a spin-off of its land lines to Fairpoint Communications. Fairpoint took on heavy debt...and went bankrupt. We see the same thing as possible with the Entergy spin-off, except this time the rate-payers will pick up the costs.

My rural electric cooperative sold its interest in nuclear generation a decade ago and will produce two-thirds of its power from the methane generated from our garbage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vermont Senate stayed away from the safety issue as that is NRC territory .
What distressed many people was the costs of decommissioning and major distrust of the ability of the owner , Entergy , to finance shutting the plant down .
Entergy has a plan to spin off its nuclear power plants to a debt-laden independent corporation .
Unfortunately for Entergy , Verizon has just completed a spin-off of its land lines to Fairpoint Communications .
Fairpoint took on heavy debt...and went bankrupt .
We see the same thing as possible with the Entergy spin-off , except this time the rate-payers will pick up the costs .
My rural electric cooperative sold its interest in nuclear generation a decade ago and will produce two-thirds of its power from the methane generated from our garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Vermont Senate stayed away from the safety issue as that is NRC territory.
What distressed many people was the costs of decommissioning and major distrust of the ability of the owner, Entergy, to finance shutting the plant down.
Entergy has a plan to spin off its nuclear power plants to a debt-laden independent corporation.
Unfortunately for Entergy, Verizon has just completed a spin-off of its land lines to Fairpoint Communications.
Fairpoint took on heavy debt...and went bankrupt.
We see the same thing as possible with the Entergy spin-off, except this time the rate-payers will pick up the costs.
My rural electric cooperative sold its interest in nuclear generation a decade ago and will produce two-thirds of its power from the methane generated from our garbage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299522</id>
	<title>Did they really lie?</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1267264080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The following week Vermont Yankee officials were accused of misleading state regulators and lawmakers by saying the plant did not have the type of underground pipes that could carry tritium.</p></div><p>Actually, I don't think they were misleading the regulators...  It appears that they didn't have pipes that could carry the tritium.  If only we could figure out why they were there in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : The following week Vermont Yankee officials were accused of misleading state regulators and lawmakers by saying the plant did not have the type of underground pipes that could carry tritium.Actually , I do n't think they were misleading the regulators... It appears that they did n't have pipes that could carry the tritium .
If only we could figure out why they were there in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:The following week Vermont Yankee officials were accused of misleading state regulators and lawmakers by saying the plant did not have the type of underground pipes that could carry tritium.Actually, I don't think they were misleading the regulators...  It appears that they didn't have pipes that could carry the tritium.
If only we could figure out why they were there in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301760</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, my God. Oh, God, no!</title>
	<author>ThAwes0me</author>
	<datestamp>1267284720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somehow, we've managed to survive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , we 've managed to survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, we've managed to survive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300138</id>
	<title>do7l</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267270140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a conscious 5tand USERS. BSD/OS very distractinG to subscribers. Please the above is far big deal. Death</htmltext>
<tokenext>a conscious 5tand USERS .
BSD/OS very distractinG to subscribers .
Please the above is far big deal .
Death</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a conscious 5tand USERS.
BSD/OS very distractinG to subscribers.
Please the above is far big deal.
Death</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300772</id>
	<title>Fine. Ban nukes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267276260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Freeze in the dark for all I care you fucking hippies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Freeze in the dark for all I care you fucking hippies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freeze in the dark for all I care you fucking hippies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299906</id>
	<title>Same submitter keeps trolling</title>
	<author>ArchieBunker</author>
	<datestamp>1267267980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've been following this story you'll see its always submitted with an inflammatory summary. The slashdot janitors are too lazy to read the actual story and fix the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've been following this story you 'll see its always submitted with an inflammatory summary .
The slashdot janitors are too lazy to read the actual story and fix the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've been following this story you'll see its always submitted with an inflammatory summary.
The slashdot janitors are too lazy to read the actual story and fix the summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300862</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Power is so last century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267277100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can put a nuclear plant *anywhere*.  Just like a coal plant, except no one is "downwind" of the nuclear plant.  You can only put geothermal plants near hot rocks (which might be natural reactors anyway...).  One day we might be able to drill a "deep" geothermal well and mine the magma for energy, but that day is a <em>long</em> way off.</p><p>In terms of output and reliability, only hydroelectric even comes close, and you go back to the limited locations problem again.</p><p>I know this might be hard to hear if you're the kind of environmentalist that really just wants everyone back in caves, mud houses, and leather tents, but if you think carbon output (or pretty much any kind of output) is a problem, then the only technology that can mitigate that <em>today</em> (rather than the far-off future) is Nuclear.  "doing with less power" is not an option, especially if you intend to transition to electric transportation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can put a nuclear plant * anywhere * .
Just like a coal plant , except no one is " downwind " of the nuclear plant .
You can only put geothermal plants near hot rocks ( which might be natural reactors anyway... ) .
One day we might be able to drill a " deep " geothermal well and mine the magma for energy , but that day is a long way off.In terms of output and reliability , only hydroelectric even comes close , and you go back to the limited locations problem again.I know this might be hard to hear if you 're the kind of environmentalist that really just wants everyone back in caves , mud houses , and leather tents , but if you think carbon output ( or pretty much any kind of output ) is a problem , then the only technology that can mitigate that today ( rather than the far-off future ) is Nuclear .
" doing with less power " is not an option , especially if you intend to transition to electric transportation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can put a nuclear plant *anywhere*.
Just like a coal plant, except no one is "downwind" of the nuclear plant.
You can only put geothermal plants near hot rocks (which might be natural reactors anyway...).
One day we might be able to drill a "deep" geothermal well and mine the magma for energy, but that day is a long way off.In terms of output and reliability, only hydroelectric even comes close, and you go back to the limited locations problem again.I know this might be hard to hear if you're the kind of environmentalist that really just wants everyone back in caves, mud houses, and leather tents, but if you think carbon output (or pretty much any kind of output) is a problem, then the only technology that can mitigate that today (rather than the far-off future) is Nuclear.
"doing with less power" is not an option, especially if you intend to transition to electric transportation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299566</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to Replace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267264440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The region currently has a power-generation surplus of 4,000-5,000 megawatts, meaning it could lose up to 16 percent of its generation and not face a power deficit.</p></div><p>The article seems to take very lightly that the region has enough spare capacity to power only 3-4 Deloreans...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The region currently has a power-generation surplus of 4,000-5,000 megawatts , meaning it could lose up to 16 percent of its generation and not face a power deficit.The article seems to take very lightly that the region has enough spare capacity to power only 3-4 Deloreans.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The region currently has a power-generation surplus of 4,000-5,000 megawatts, meaning it could lose up to 16 percent of its generation and not face a power deficit.The article seems to take very lightly that the region has enough spare capacity to power only 3-4 Deloreans...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301896</id>
	<title>Shut It Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just shut it down and let the lights go out in Vermont.<br> <br>
Oh, and how much extra mid-east oil will we import to make up for that clean, carbon neutral power? Enquiring minds want to know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just shut it down and let the lights go out in Vermont .
Oh , and how much extra mid-east oil will we import to make up for that clean , carbon neutral power ?
Enquiring minds want to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just shut it down and let the lights go out in Vermont.
Oh, and how much extra mid-east oil will we import to make up for that clean, carbon neutral power?
Enquiring minds want to know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299944</id>
	<title>Tritium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267268280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't even know a nuclear plant <i>made</i> Tritium.</p><p>Never mind that they apparently have to pipe it somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't even know a nuclear plant made Tritium.Never mind that they apparently have to pipe it somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't even know a nuclear plant made Tritium.Never mind that they apparently have to pipe it somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300956</id>
	<title>Cheap power?</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1267278060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Entergy claims they have saved Vermonters $300 million over 8 years <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 they have also failed to contribute to the decommissioning fund required for all nuclear plants and the deficit seems to be just about that much.  So really, what they have been doing is faking cheaper power to constrain competition in a dishonest manner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Entergy claims they have saved Vermonters $ 300 million over 8 years 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 they have also failed to contribute to the decommissioning fund required for all nuclear plants and the deficit seems to be just about that much .
So really , what they have been doing is faking cheaper power to constrain competition in a dishonest manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entergy claims they have saved Vermonters $300 million over 8 years 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 they have also failed to contribute to the decommissioning fund required for all nuclear plants and the deficit seems to be just about that much.
So really, what they have been doing is faking cheaper power to constrain competition in a dishonest manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299500</id>
	<title>The hell?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267263960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell is "Entergy"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is " Entergy " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is "Entergy"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299794</id>
	<title>Entergy was way out of line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267266900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has merely issued a Demand for Information rather than shutting down a plant that is lacking a full compliment of safety personnel</i>

</p><p>What's bizarre about the whole thing is the level of radiation leaks that started all this trouble weren't even that high, near the level we can measure accurately.  There was no need to lie, unless they were trying to cover up something even bigger. They could have owned up to their troubles and fixed most of what was wrong and probably stayed out of trouble.

</p><p>Now they're screwed.  After the NRC proctological exam, they probably will get shut down. Of course, with all the protections the Supreme Court gives artificial corporate people, you can be sure no one will actually be held accountable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has merely issued a Demand for Information rather than shutting down a plant that is lacking a full compliment of safety personnel What 's bizarre about the whole thing is the level of radiation leaks that started all this trouble were n't even that high , near the level we can measure accurately .
There was no need to lie , unless they were trying to cover up something even bigger .
They could have owned up to their troubles and fixed most of what was wrong and probably stayed out of trouble .
Now they 're screwed .
After the NRC proctological exam , they probably will get shut down .
Of course , with all the protections the Supreme Court gives artificial corporate people , you can be sure no one will actually be held accountable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has merely issued a Demand for Information rather than shutting down a plant that is lacking a full compliment of safety personnel

What's bizarre about the whole thing is the level of radiation leaks that started all this trouble weren't even that high, near the level we can measure accurately.
There was no need to lie, unless they were trying to cover up something even bigger.
They could have owned up to their troubles and fixed most of what was wrong and probably stayed out of trouble.
Now they're screwed.
After the NRC proctological exam, they probably will get shut down.
Of course, with all the protections the Supreme Court gives artificial corporate people, you can be sure no one will actually be held accountable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300312</id>
	<title>What a crock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267271820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mdsolar is promoting:</p><p>1) his lame political affiliation and<br>2) his business "renting" solar solutions</p><p>Can you spell opportunist a-la Al Gore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mdsolar is promoting : 1 ) his lame political affiliation and2 ) his business " renting " solar solutionsCan you spell opportunist a-la Al Gore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mdsolar is promoting:1) his lame political affiliation and2) his business "renting" solar solutionsCan you spell opportunist a-la Al Gore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299762</id>
	<title>Re:Horrors, some was reasonable!</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1267266480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, the bias in the 'article' (and summary) is disgusting.  Vermont is simply doing exactly what -should- be done when safety procedures are not being met.  I would hate to see -any- nuclear plants shut down, but it's a lot better to shut it down than let it run unsafe, even for a short time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the bias in the 'article ' ( and summary ) is disgusting .
Vermont is simply doing exactly what -should- be done when safety procedures are not being met .
I would hate to see -any- nuclear plants shut down , but it 's a lot better to shut it down than let it run unsafe , even for a short time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the bias in the 'article' (and summary) is disgusting.
Vermont is simply doing exactly what -should- be done when safety procedures are not being met.
I would hate to see -any- nuclear plants shut down, but it's a lot better to shut it down than let it run unsafe, even for a short time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31302846</id>
	<title>Re:Horrors, some was reasonable!</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1267294080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time you heard of a coal fired plant or a coal mine being shut down because they didn't have a "full complement of safety personnel"?</p> </div><p>
Actually, I've seen fire department inspectors (and health inspectors) willing to shut down just about anything if someone wasn't taking their safety concerns seriously enough. And I can't speak for the coal mines specifically, I don't live anywhere near one, but I do remember that they were looking very hard for people to blame for the Coal mine accidents that killed a number of miners a few years ago.</p><p>One major complaint was that they didn't have enough emergency respirators in case of a collapse. Now, I don't know who's in charge of inspecting mines, but whoever it was, I certainly wouldn't want to be one of those inspectors after an incident like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you heard of a coal fired plant or a coal mine being shut down because they did n't have a " full complement of safety personnel " ?
Actually , I 've seen fire department inspectors ( and health inspectors ) willing to shut down just about anything if someone was n't taking their safety concerns seriously enough .
And I ca n't speak for the coal mines specifically , I do n't live anywhere near one , but I do remember that they were looking very hard for people to blame for the Coal mine accidents that killed a number of miners a few years ago.One major complaint was that they did n't have enough emergency respirators in case of a collapse .
Now , I do n't know who 's in charge of inspecting mines , but whoever it was , I certainly would n't want to be one of those inspectors after an incident like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you heard of a coal fired plant or a coal mine being shut down because they didn't have a "full complement of safety personnel"?
Actually, I've seen fire department inspectors (and health inspectors) willing to shut down just about anything if someone wasn't taking their safety concerns seriously enough.
And I can't speak for the coal mines specifically, I don't live anywhere near one, but I do remember that they were looking very hard for people to blame for the Coal mine accidents that killed a number of miners a few years ago.One major complaint was that they didn't have enough emergency respirators in case of a collapse.
Now, I don't know who's in charge of inspecting mines, but whoever it was, I certainly wouldn't want to be one of those inspectors after an incident like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300486</id>
	<title>Re:Emergency NRC Acting Director?</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1267273740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NRC can't do that because it would be spending Entergy's money, which it has no right to do, or else spending public money fixing something that belongs to Entergy, which again it has no right to do.   Entergy has to fix it.   But people are so disgusted with Entergy's message-managing that they don't trust that Entergy will actually do what it takes to keep the plant running safely.   It's a really crappy situation--you're right that fixing the plant might well be cheaper than replacing it--but it's a situation Entergy created of their own free will, and now they (and we) are reaping the consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NRC ca n't do that because it would be spending Entergy 's money , which it has no right to do , or else spending public money fixing something that belongs to Entergy , which again it has no right to do .
Entergy has to fix it .
But people are so disgusted with Entergy 's message-managing that they do n't trust that Entergy will actually do what it takes to keep the plant running safely .
It 's a really crappy situation--you 're right that fixing the plant might well be cheaper than replacing it--but it 's a situation Entergy created of their own free will , and now they ( and we ) are reaping the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NRC can't do that because it would be spending Entergy's money, which it has no right to do, or else spending public money fixing something that belongs to Entergy, which again it has no right to do.
Entergy has to fix it.
But people are so disgusted with Entergy's message-managing that they don't trust that Entergy will actually do what it takes to keep the plant running safely.
It's a really crappy situation--you're right that fixing the plant might well be cheaper than replacing it--but it's a situation Entergy created of their own free will, and now they (and we) are reaping the consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301768</id>
	<title>FIRS(t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>common knowledge NetBSD user A popular 'news ofone single puny time I'm done here, asshole to others Usenet posts. found out about the</htmltext>
<tokenext>common knowledge NetBSD user A popular 'news ofone single puny time I 'm done here , asshole to others Usenet posts .
found out about the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>common knowledge NetBSD user A popular 'news ofone single puny time I'm done here, asshole to others Usenet posts.
found out about the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304288</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, my God. Oh, God, no!</title>
	<author>akayani</author>
	<datestamp>1267355940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's OK they have an Id10t to continue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's OK they have an Id10t to continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's OK they have an Id10t to continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300152</id>
	<title>Emergency NRC Acting Director?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1267270200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get about this whole situation is why the NRC doesn't bring someone in (either an NRC employee, or maybe a qualified consultant) to be the Acting Director of Safety? Doesn't the NRC have anybody qualified to take over operations of Nuclear Plants when necessary? If Entergy can't run the plant safely, bring in someone who can (at least temporarily, until the 'permanent disposition' of the situation can be sorted out). If Entergy really did something bad, perhaps they should be forcibly divested of their ownership of the plant (probably with some partial compensation, but perhaps not complete compensation, as a punitive measure), and the plant sold to a company who has a track record for running nuclear plants safely?</p><p>I'm sure none of the Vermont legislators wants to appear to be taking the safety of Vermont residents 'lightly', so they are rushing to this idea of permanently shutting down the power plant. I do agree that something needs to be done, but shutting down a plant which just needs some repairs (and possibly retrofitting some 'safety upgrades') seems like an irrational, knee-jerk reaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get about this whole situation is why the NRC does n't bring someone in ( either an NRC employee , or maybe a qualified consultant ) to be the Acting Director of Safety ?
Does n't the NRC have anybody qualified to take over operations of Nuclear Plants when necessary ?
If Entergy ca n't run the plant safely , bring in someone who can ( at least temporarily , until the 'permanent disposition ' of the situation can be sorted out ) .
If Entergy really did something bad , perhaps they should be forcibly divested of their ownership of the plant ( probably with some partial compensation , but perhaps not complete compensation , as a punitive measure ) , and the plant sold to a company who has a track record for running nuclear plants safely ? I 'm sure none of the Vermont legislators wants to appear to be taking the safety of Vermont residents 'lightly ' , so they are rushing to this idea of permanently shutting down the power plant .
I do agree that something needs to be done , but shutting down a plant which just needs some repairs ( and possibly retrofitting some 'safety upgrades ' ) seems like an irrational , knee-jerk reaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get about this whole situation is why the NRC doesn't bring someone in (either an NRC employee, or maybe a qualified consultant) to be the Acting Director of Safety?
Doesn't the NRC have anybody qualified to take over operations of Nuclear Plants when necessary?
If Entergy can't run the plant safely, bring in someone who can (at least temporarily, until the 'permanent disposition' of the situation can be sorted out).
If Entergy really did something bad, perhaps they should be forcibly divested of their ownership of the plant (probably with some partial compensation, but perhaps not complete compensation, as a punitive measure), and the plant sold to a company who has a track record for running nuclear plants safely?I'm sure none of the Vermont legislators wants to appear to be taking the safety of Vermont residents 'lightly', so they are rushing to this idea of permanently shutting down the power plant.
I do agree that something needs to be done, but shutting down a plant which just needs some repairs (and possibly retrofitting some 'safety upgrades') seems like an irrational, knee-jerk reaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31302248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31302846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31307490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31305816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1811219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31302846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31307490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31300040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31302248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31305816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31304288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31301984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1811219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1811219.31299944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
