<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_16_1739241</id>
	<title>US Sits On Supply of Rare, Tech-Crucial Minerals</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268764500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>We've recently discussed China's position as the <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/2119201/China-Considering-Cuts-In-Rare-Earth-Metal-Exports">linchpin of the world's supply of rare earths</a>, and their rumblings about <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1636212/China-Moving-To-Restrict-Neodymium-Supply">restricting exports</a> of of these materials crucial to the manufacture of everything from batteries to wind turbines. Now an anonymous reader sends this MSNBC piece on the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35782773/ns/technology\_and\_science-science/">status of the US's supply of rare earths</a>. <i>"China supplies most of the rare earth minerals found in technologies such as hybrid cars, wind turbines, computer hard drives, and cell phones, but the US has its own largely untapped reserves that could safeguard future tech innovation. Those reserves include deposits of both 'light' and 'heavy' rare earths... 'There is already a shortage, because there are companies that already can't get enough material,' said Jim Hedrick, a former USGS rare earth specialist who recently retired. 'No one [in the US] wants to be first to jump into the market because of the cost of building a separation plant,' Hedrick explained. ... [S]uch a plant requires thousands of stainless steel tanks holding different chemical solutions to separate out all the individual rare earths. The upfront costs seem daunting. Hedrick estimated that opening just one mine and building a new separation plant might cost anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion and would require a minimum of eight years. [But the CEO of a rare earth supply company said] 'From what I see, security of supply is going to be more important than the prices.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've recently discussed China 's position as the linchpin of the world 's supply of rare earths , and their rumblings about restricting exports of of these materials crucial to the manufacture of everything from batteries to wind turbines .
Now an anonymous reader sends this MSNBC piece on the status of the US 's supply of rare earths .
" China supplies most of the rare earth minerals found in technologies such as hybrid cars , wind turbines , computer hard drives , and cell phones , but the US has its own largely untapped reserves that could safeguard future tech innovation .
Those reserves include deposits of both 'light ' and 'heavy ' rare earths... 'There is already a shortage , because there are companies that already ca n't get enough material, ' said Jim Hedrick , a former USGS rare earth specialist who recently retired .
'No one [ in the US ] wants to be first to jump into the market because of the cost of building a separation plant, ' Hedrick explained .
... [ S ] uch a plant requires thousands of stainless steel tanks holding different chemical solutions to separate out all the individual rare earths .
The upfront costs seem daunting .
Hedrick estimated that opening just one mine and building a new separation plant might cost anywhere from $ 500 million to $ 1 billion and would require a minimum of eight years .
[ But the CEO of a rare earth supply company said ] 'From what I see , security of supply is going to be more important than the prices .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've recently discussed China's position as the linchpin of the world's supply of rare earths, and their rumblings about restricting exports of of these materials crucial to the manufacture of everything from batteries to wind turbines.
Now an anonymous reader sends this MSNBC piece on the status of the US's supply of rare earths.
"China supplies most of the rare earth minerals found in technologies such as hybrid cars, wind turbines, computer hard drives, and cell phones, but the US has its own largely untapped reserves that could safeguard future tech innovation.
Those reserves include deposits of both 'light' and 'heavy' rare earths... 'There is already a shortage, because there are companies that already can't get enough material,' said Jim Hedrick, a former USGS rare earth specialist who recently retired.
'No one [in the US] wants to be first to jump into the market because of the cost of building a separation plant,' Hedrick explained.
... [S]uch a plant requires thousands of stainless steel tanks holding different chemical solutions to separate out all the individual rare earths.
The upfront costs seem daunting.
Hedrick estimated that opening just one mine and building a new separation plant might cost anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion and would require a minimum of eight years.
[But the CEO of a rare earth supply company said] 'From what I see, security of supply is going to be more important than the prices.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500842</id>
	<title>security indeed!</title>
	<author>Gitcho</author>
	<datestamp>1268731320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[But the CEO of a rare earch supply company said] 'From what I see, security of supply is going to be more important than the prices.</p></div><p>He must be awesome at security, because I've sure as heck never heard of a rare earch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ But the CEO of a rare earch supply company said ] 'From what I see , security of supply is going to be more important than the prices.He must be awesome at security , because I 've sure as heck never heard of a rare earch .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[But the CEO of a rare earch supply company said] 'From what I see, security of supply is going to be more important than the prices.He must be awesome at security, because I've sure as heck never heard of a rare earch ...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504454</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are just green on the outside. Inside they are red. Hence the name - watermelon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are just green on the outside .
Inside they are red .
Hence the name - watermelon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are just green on the outside.
Inside they are red.
Hence the name - watermelon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500112</id>
	<title>use it ?</title>
	<author>Spaham</author>
	<datestamp>1268771160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may be silly, but if those are *rare* resources, and if they are to become more and more rare, shouldn't states pile them up or save them instead of encouraging companies to build expandable things like cars ??<br>What if we find that it can save millions of lives, or stop global warming or whatever, 20 years from now ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be silly , but if those are * rare * resources , and if they are to become more and more rare , should n't states pile them up or save them instead of encouraging companies to build expandable things like cars ?
? What if we find that it can save millions of lives , or stop global warming or whatever , 20 years from now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be silly, but if those are *rare* resources, and if they are to become more and more rare, shouldn't states pile them up or save them instead of encouraging companies to build expandable things like cars ?
?What if we find that it can save millions of lives, or stop global warming or whatever, 20 years from now ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500258</id>
	<title>Re:Let's channel Frank Spedding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268771820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If by 'near Offutt AFB' you mean 3 hours away from, then I suppose you are right.</p><p>Ames Laboratory is in Ames, IA at Iowa State University.  See http://www.ameslab.gov/ for more info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If by 'near Offutt AFB ' you mean 3 hours away from , then I suppose you are right.Ames Laboratory is in Ames , IA at Iowa State University .
See http : //www.ameslab.gov/ for more info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by 'near Offutt AFB' you mean 3 hours away from, then I suppose you are right.Ames Laboratory is in Ames, IA at Iowa State University.
See http://www.ameslab.gov/ for more info.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500380</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>jduhls</author>
	<datestamp>1268772300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, really! It's like humans have a reputation for really screwing up the environment or something.  Those other times were just anomalies.  I'm sure it can't happen again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , really !
It 's like humans have a reputation for really screwing up the environment or something .
Those other times were just anomalies .
I 'm sure it ca n't happen again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, really!
It's like humans have a reputation for really screwing up the environment or something.
Those other times were just anomalies.
I'm sure it can't happen again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500356</id>
	<title>Re:Let's channel Frank Spedding</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268772180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have a cite that actually supports your claim?  The link you provide describes him a developing a process to refine uranium compounds into purified uranium, not processes to obtain rare earths.<br>
&nbsp; <br>When I follow the links from your linked article it does indeed describe the laboratory he founded as developing processes to process rare earths, but again your claim of using "a lot fewer resources than being discussed here" is not supported.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have a cite that actually supports your claim ?
The link you provide describes him a developing a process to refine uranium compounds into purified uranium , not processes to obtain rare earths .
  When I follow the links from your linked article it does indeed describe the laboratory he founded as developing processes to process rare earths , but again your claim of using " a lot fewer resources than being discussed here " is not supported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have a cite that actually supports your claim?
The link you provide describes him a developing a process to refine uranium compounds into purified uranium, not processes to obtain rare earths.
  When I follow the links from your linked article it does indeed describe the laboratory he founded as developing processes to process rare earths, but again your claim of using "a lot fewer resources than being discussed here" is not supported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501042</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Clayperion</author>
	<datestamp>1268732220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Realistically, a large amount of the heavy metals we get from China end up getting sent back there as waste (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/where-does-e-waste-end-up).  By researching reclamation techniques, we can hopefully reuse some of what we get in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Realistically , a large amount of the heavy metals we get from China end up getting sent back there as waste ( http : //www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/where-does-e-waste-end-up ) .
By researching reclamation techniques , we can hopefully reuse some of what we get in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realistically, a large amount of the heavy metals we get from China end up getting sent back there as waste (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/where-does-e-waste-end-up).
By researching reclamation techniques, we can hopefully reuse some of what we get in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501310</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1268733420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you can't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die.</p></div><p>Except they know birds are not going to die in any numbers worth consideration. Companies were actively working on solutions before it ever actually became a problem, and LONG before these wackos got wind of it. Companies don't like bad press. Lots of dead animals tends to create bad press. Companies were looking at the situation before there ever were, "lots of dead animals." Additionally, roosting birds (and bees for that matter) are well known to cause problems for equipment - including fires and maintenance issues. Long story short, contrary to the bullshit of environmental extremists, which is often parroted, no such wide spread problem exists or ever existed. They saved nothing. They rescued nothing. The only thing they've done is spew a bunch of bullshit and steal credit from companies deploying and maintaining wind farms.</p><p>This does not mean a random, dumb, bird won't get killed. But if this is really a problem, then all roads must immediately be shutdown, all factories must be stopped, all electric use must come to a halt. That's not hyperbole, that's fact. Lots of animals die from roads and current power production. Not to mention, the environment is directly affected, even with EPA regulations, from lots of various manufacturing methods. Hindering efforts to improves things only makes things worse for everyone. Realistically, there are things we should be worried about, but halting production of new, clean power, which is far more likely to benefit everyone isn't one of them.</p><p>Things to seriously be concerned about: drastic over fishing in the oceans (especially by Asian countries), over logging in the amazon, illegal waste disposal, lack of new nuclear sites, lack of nuclear waste storage, massive wild bore population explosion world wide (poses risk to everyone and everything), non-indigenous species invasions, etc... But building solar in the middle of the desert doesn't even come up on the list. And neither does building wind farms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you ca n't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die.Except they know birds are not going to die in any numbers worth consideration .
Companies were actively working on solutions before it ever actually became a problem , and LONG before these wackos got wind of it .
Companies do n't like bad press .
Lots of dead animals tends to create bad press .
Companies were looking at the situation before there ever were , " lots of dead animals .
" Additionally , roosting birds ( and bees for that matter ) are well known to cause problems for equipment - including fires and maintenance issues .
Long story short , contrary to the bullshit of environmental extremists , which is often parroted , no such wide spread problem exists or ever existed .
They saved nothing .
They rescued nothing .
The only thing they 've done is spew a bunch of bullshit and steal credit from companies deploying and maintaining wind farms.This does not mean a random , dumb , bird wo n't get killed .
But if this is really a problem , then all roads must immediately be shutdown , all factories must be stopped , all electric use must come to a halt .
That 's not hyperbole , that 's fact .
Lots of animals die from roads and current power production .
Not to mention , the environment is directly affected , even with EPA regulations , from lots of various manufacturing methods .
Hindering efforts to improves things only makes things worse for everyone .
Realistically , there are things we should be worried about , but halting production of new , clean power , which is far more likely to benefit everyone is n't one of them.Things to seriously be concerned about : drastic over fishing in the oceans ( especially by Asian countries ) , over logging in the amazon , illegal waste disposal , lack of new nuclear sites , lack of nuclear waste storage , massive wild bore population explosion world wide ( poses risk to everyone and everything ) , non-indigenous species invasions , etc... But building solar in the middle of the desert does n't even come up on the list .
And neither does building wind farms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die.Except they know birds are not going to die in any numbers worth consideration.
Companies were actively working on solutions before it ever actually became a problem, and LONG before these wackos got wind of it.
Companies don't like bad press.
Lots of dead animals tends to create bad press.
Companies were looking at the situation before there ever were, "lots of dead animals.
" Additionally, roosting birds (and bees for that matter) are well known to cause problems for equipment - including fires and maintenance issues.
Long story short, contrary to the bullshit of environmental extremists, which is often parroted, no such wide spread problem exists or ever existed.
They saved nothing.
They rescued nothing.
The only thing they've done is spew a bunch of bullshit and steal credit from companies deploying and maintaining wind farms.This does not mean a random, dumb, bird won't get killed.
But if this is really a problem, then all roads must immediately be shutdown, all factories must be stopped, all electric use must come to a halt.
That's not hyperbole, that's fact.
Lots of animals die from roads and current power production.
Not to mention, the environment is directly affected, even with EPA regulations, from lots of various manufacturing methods.
Hindering efforts to improves things only makes things worse for everyone.
Realistically, there are things we should be worried about, but halting production of new, clean power, which is far more likely to benefit everyone isn't one of them.Things to seriously be concerned about: drastic over fishing in the oceans (especially by Asian countries), over logging in the amazon, illegal waste disposal, lack of new nuclear sites, lack of nuclear waste storage, massive wild bore population explosion world wide (poses risk to everyone and everything), non-indigenous species invasions, etc... But building solar in the middle of the desert doesn't even come up on the list.
And neither does building wind farms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503764</id>
	<title>Why are we mining anything?</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1268749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's <a href="http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Mi-Oc/Mineral-Resources-from-the-Ocean.html" title="waterencyclopedia.com" rel="nofollow">dumb</a> [waterencyclopedia.com]..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's dumb [ waterencyclopedia.com ] . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's dumb [waterencyclopedia.com]..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499894</id>
	<title>democracy to more countries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268770200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it really matter how short the supply is. The mighty US will bring democracy to couple more countries and build these plants in those countries, expose the people of those counties to any/all toxic waste and just get the processed rare earths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it really matter how short the supply is .
The mighty US will bring democracy to couple more countries and build these plants in those countries , expose the people of those counties to any/all toxic waste and just get the processed rare earths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it really matter how short the supply is.
The mighty US will bring democracy to couple more countries and build these plants in those countries, expose the people of those counties to any/all toxic waste and just get the processed rare earths.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500036</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268770860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because I really want to get cancer from drinking water that is polluted by the mine that gathers these elements, or die in a mine collapse because the mine owner is too cheep to provide for safety bunkers.</p><p>The number one rule for business is to internalize the profits, and externalized the costs.</p><p>It is why gas is taxed to high in Europe. They are trying to capture the costs of the pollution and environmental hazards caused by the use of oil. It is why coal miners in the US die in a collapse, and the European coal miners spend 3-4 days in an emergency shelter waiting to be dug out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because I really want to get cancer from drinking water that is polluted by the mine that gathers these elements , or die in a mine collapse because the mine owner is too cheep to provide for safety bunkers.The number one rule for business is to internalize the profits , and externalized the costs.It is why gas is taxed to high in Europe .
They are trying to capture the costs of the pollution and environmental hazards caused by the use of oil .
It is why coal miners in the US die in a collapse , and the European coal miners spend 3-4 days in an emergency shelter waiting to be dug out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because I really want to get cancer from drinking water that is polluted by the mine that gathers these elements, or die in a mine collapse because the mine owner is too cheep to provide for safety bunkers.The number one rule for business is to internalize the profits, and externalized the costs.It is why gas is taxed to high in Europe.
They are trying to capture the costs of the pollution and environmental hazards caused by the use of oil.
It is why coal miners in the US die in a collapse, and the European coal miners spend 3-4 days in an emergency shelter waiting to be dug out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500908</id>
	<title>What's the holdup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268731620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half a million dollars, or even a billion is a lot of money, but put in context, I don't see why it would be a barrier.  We are building billion dollar football stadiums, some without public subsidies.  One would think that a processing plant for vital rare materials to make the engines of commerce turn would get some love.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half a million dollars , or even a billion is a lot of money , but put in context , I do n't see why it would be a barrier .
We are building billion dollar football stadiums , some without public subsidies .
One would think that a processing plant for vital rare materials to make the engines of commerce turn would get some love .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half a million dollars, or even a billion is a lot of money, but put in context, I don't see why it would be a barrier.
We are building billion dollar football stadiums, some without public subsidies.
One would think that a processing plant for vital rare materials to make the engines of commerce turn would get some love.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499806</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Walter White</author>
	<datestamp>1268769840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The minerals will sit there waiting until we are ready. In the mean time, separation technology will improve and (unless other sources are discovered) proce/value will increase. Once shortages occur, prices will skyrocket and producers will argue that we need to fast-track and sidestep environmental concerns in the name of security.</p><p>- Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The minerals will sit there waiting until we are ready .
In the mean time , separation technology will improve and ( unless other sources are discovered ) proce/value will increase .
Once shortages occur , prices will skyrocket and producers will argue that we need to fast-track and sidestep environmental concerns in the name of security.- Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The minerals will sit there waiting until we are ready.
In the mean time, separation technology will improve and (unless other sources are discovered) proce/value will increase.
Once shortages occur, prices will skyrocket and producers will argue that we need to fast-track and sidestep environmental concerns in the name of security.- Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500522</id>
	<title>Ummm. what happened to the existing plants....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268772900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm. what happened to the existing plants....</p><p>You know,  the plants that were here in the U.S. back when we used to make stuff here.</p><p>Probably torn down and the stainless steel sold for scrap.<br>Where the factory and separation plant was is probably now a warehouse for stuff made in china.</p><p>Bah, Wall Street, sacrifice long term viability for short term profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm .
what happened to the existing plants....You know , the plants that were here in the U.S. back when we used to make stuff here.Probably torn down and the stainless steel sold for scrap.Where the factory and separation plant was is probably now a warehouse for stuff made in china.Bah , Wall Street , sacrifice long term viability for short term profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm.
what happened to the existing plants....You know,  the plants that were here in the U.S. back when we used to make stuff here.Probably torn down and the stainless steel sold for scrap.Where the factory and separation plant was is probably now a warehouse for stuff made in china.Bah, Wall Street, sacrifice long term viability for short term profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503240</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268744220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And, for what it's worth, do you really think that "greens" are part of a single organized group with a single platform of goals and ideals?  Have you ever bothered to consider that "greens" constitute a large number of people with diverse concerns?</p></div><p>Well assuming a large homogeneous group seems to work so gosh-darned well when bashing religion, or the Republicans, or the Tea Party supporters that it ought to work equally as well for the Greens.</p><p>I firmly believe that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , for what it 's worth , do you really think that " greens " are part of a single organized group with a single platform of goals and ideals ?
Have you ever bothered to consider that " greens " constitute a large number of people with diverse concerns ? Well assuming a large homogeneous group seems to work so gosh-darned well when bashing religion , or the Republicans , or the Tea Party supporters that it ought to work equally as well for the Greens.I firmly believe that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, for what it's worth, do you really think that "greens" are part of a single organized group with a single platform of goals and ideals?
Have you ever bothered to consider that "greens" constitute a large number of people with diverse concerns?Well assuming a large homogeneous group seems to work so gosh-darned well when bashing religion, or the Republicans, or the Tea Party supporters that it ought to work equally as well for the Greens.I firmly believe that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31505646</id>
	<title>Great. So, now we invade ourselves?</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1268816760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, it is the sacred duty of every President to invade a country for resources.<br>So, now we invade ourselves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , it is the sacred duty of every President to invade a country for resources.So , now we invade ourselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, it is the sacred duty of every President to invade a country for resources.So, now we invade ourselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504286</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1268753820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, this is why I scratch my head when I see so much EU-vs-US posturing.</p><p>In many of these issues the EU and the US are arguing over whether some environmental standard should be set at 2057 or 2063, when the standard in many places their citizens purchase goods from is 2.</p><p>The US and the EU have far more in common than they have at odds when it comes to worker safety and environmental controls.  They should really join forces in setting trade barriers against countries that are vastly more lax.  I have nothing against outsourcing, but not as a means to avoid reasonable environmental and safety controls.</p><p>Countries that allow free trade of goods manufactured in an unsafe manner are just cutting their own throats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , this is why I scratch my head when I see so much EU-vs-US posturing.In many of these issues the EU and the US are arguing over whether some environmental standard should be set at 2057 or 2063 , when the standard in many places their citizens purchase goods from is 2.The US and the EU have far more in common than they have at odds when it comes to worker safety and environmental controls .
They should really join forces in setting trade barriers against countries that are vastly more lax .
I have nothing against outsourcing , but not as a means to avoid reasonable environmental and safety controls.Countries that allow free trade of goods manufactured in an unsafe manner are just cutting their own throats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, this is why I scratch my head when I see so much EU-vs-US posturing.In many of these issues the EU and the US are arguing over whether some environmental standard should be set at 2057 or 2063, when the standard in many places their citizens purchase goods from is 2.The US and the EU have far more in common than they have at odds when it comes to worker safety and environmental controls.
They should really join forces in setting trade barriers against countries that are vastly more lax.
I have nothing against outsourcing, but not as a means to avoid reasonable environmental and safety controls.Countries that allow free trade of goods manufactured in an unsafe manner are just cutting their own throats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499828</id>
	<title>Let's channel Frank Spedding</title>
	<author>shis-ka-bob</author>
	<datestamp>1268769960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the Manhattan Project needed rare earths, they turned to Frank Spedding, a chemist at Iowa State.  He managed to get the job done with a lot fewer resources that what is being discussed here.  I fear that we Americans have become too lazy and in love with a quick return on the buck.  Some things are hard work, even if you are really bright. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank\_Spedding" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank\_Spedding</a> [wikipedia.org].  He also created the Ames Laboratory, the one near  Offit Air Force Base, not the Ames Research Center near the Navy's Moffitt Field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Manhattan Project needed rare earths , they turned to Frank Spedding , a chemist at Iowa State .
He managed to get the job done with a lot fewer resources that what is being discussed here .
I fear that we Americans have become too lazy and in love with a quick return on the buck .
Some things are hard work , even if you are really bright .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank \ _Spedding [ wikipedia.org ] .
He also created the Ames Laboratory , the one near Offit Air Force Base , not the Ames Research Center near the Navy 's Moffitt Field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Manhattan Project needed rare earths, they turned to Frank Spedding, a chemist at Iowa State.
He managed to get the job done with a lot fewer resources that what is being discussed here.
I fear that we Americans have become too lazy and in love with a quick return on the buck.
Some things are hard work, even if you are really bright.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank\_Spedding [wikipedia.org].
He also created the Ames Laboratory, the one near  Offit Air Force Base, not the Ames Research Center near the Navy's Moffitt Field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504164</id>
	<title>These plants already exist in the USA</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1268752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 'No one [in the US] wants to be first to jump into the market because of the cost of building a separation plant,' Hedrick explained.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... [S]uch a plant requires thousands of stainless steel tanks holding different chemical solutions to separate out all the individual rare earths. The upfront costs seem daunting. Hedrick estimated that opening just one mine and building a new separation plant might cost anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion and would require a minimum of eight years.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Great Western Technologies, Troy Michigan</p><p><a href="http://www.gwmg.ca/html/great-western-technologies-section/index.cfm" title="www.gwmg.ca">http://www.gwmg.ca/html/great-western-technologies-section/index.cfm</a> [www.gwmg.ca]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... 'No one [ in the US ] wants to be first to jump into the market because of the cost of building a separation plant, ' Hedrick explained .
... [ S ] uch a plant requires thousands of stainless steel tanks holding different chemical solutions to separate out all the individual rare earths .
The upfront costs seem daunting .
Hedrick estimated that opening just one mine and building a new separation plant might cost anywhere from $ 500 million to $ 1 billion and would require a minimum of eight years .
... " Great Western Technologies , Troy Michiganhttp : //www.gwmg.ca/html/great-western-technologies-section/index.cfm [ www.gwmg.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... 'No one [in the US] wants to be first to jump into the market because of the cost of building a separation plant,' Hedrick explained.
... [S]uch a plant requires thousands of stainless steel tanks holding different chemical solutions to separate out all the individual rare earths.
The upfront costs seem daunting.
Hedrick estimated that opening just one mine and building a new separation plant might cost anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion and would require a minimum of eight years.
..."Great Western Technologies, Troy Michiganhttp://www.gwmg.ca/html/great-western-technologies-section/index.cfm [www.gwmg.ca]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501108</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1268732520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That commie Nixon also signed in that Endangered Species Act. Who the hell is he to tell me what I can and can't hunt or what land I can develop.</p><p>I mean, just name any other president that's been as an environmentalists as Nixon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That commie Nixon also signed in that Endangered Species Act .
Who the hell is he to tell me what I can and ca n't hunt or what land I can develop.I mean , just name any other president that 's been as an environmentalists as Nixon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That commie Nixon also signed in that Endangered Species Act.
Who the hell is he to tell me what I can and can't hunt or what land I can develop.I mean, just name any other president that's been as an environmentalists as Nixon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501340</id>
	<title>we also have an abundance of...</title>
	<author>night\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1268733600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oil, oil shale, and natural gas that we cant touch thanks to environmentalists and their willing accomplices in the Gov't... what make you think we will be allowed to tap these resources?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oil , oil shale , and natural gas that we cant touch thanks to environmentalists and their willing accomplices in the Gov't... what make you think we will be allowed to tap these resources ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oil, oil shale, and natural gas that we cant touch thanks to environmentalists and their willing accomplices in the Gov't... what make you think we will be allowed to tap these resources?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500122</id>
	<title>That's Black Gold, Jim</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1268771220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Texas Li!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Texas Li !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Texas Li!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500230</id>
	<title>just who 'owns' what about to be resolved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268771760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>many of our greed/fear/ego based 'borders' are dissolving as we fail to communicate/care for one another etc...</p><p>never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, who, it appears, are willing to share everything with everyone at no charge. wonder what the problem is? borders?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>many of our greed/fear/ego based 'borders ' are dissolving as we fail to communicate/care for one another etc...never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators , who , it appears , are willing to share everything with everyone at no charge .
wonder what the problem is ?
borders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many of our greed/fear/ego based 'borders' are dissolving as we fail to communicate/care for one another etc...never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, who, it appears, are willing to share everything with everyone at no charge.
wonder what the problem is?
borders?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31502212</id>
	<title>But we won't use them.</title>
	<author>TaleSpinner</author>
	<datestamp>1268738040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; <i>the US has its own largely untapped reserves that could safeguard future tech innovation</i></p><p>Oh, sure, that'll help.  With the lunatic left running things we will <i>never</i> manage to open another mine - no matter <i>how</i> crucial the material might be to "future tech".  In fact, it's usefulness in future tech is probably proportional to the amount of protest it will create at proposals to mine it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the US has its own largely untapped reserves that could safeguard future tech innovationOh , sure , that 'll help .
With the lunatic left running things we will never manage to open another mine - no matter how crucial the material might be to " future tech " .
In fact , it 's usefulness in future tech is probably proportional to the amount of protest it will create at proposals to mine it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; the US has its own largely untapped reserves that could safeguard future tech innovationOh, sure, that'll help.
With the lunatic left running things we will never manage to open another mine - no matter how crucial the material might be to "future tech".
In fact, it's usefulness in future tech is probably proportional to the amount of protest it will create at proposals to mine it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1268769780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People really underestimate the greens when it comes to obstructing progress.</p><p>I mean come on, how can you trust a group that bitches about how unclean coal is and then holds up the building of Solar power with litigation waiting for environmental impact studies of plopping solar arrays in the middle of a desert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People really underestimate the greens when it comes to obstructing progress.I mean come on , how can you trust a group that bitches about how unclean coal is and then holds up the building of Solar power with litigation waiting for environmental impact studies of plopping solar arrays in the middle of a desert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People really underestimate the greens when it comes to obstructing progress.I mean come on, how can you trust a group that bitches about how unclean coal is and then holds up the building of Solar power with litigation waiting for environmental impact studies of plopping solar arrays in the middle of a desert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500670</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1268730540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you had been alive before Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act you wouldn't be so anti-environment. When I grew up in Cahokia, you could not drive through Sauget past the Monsanto plant with your windows down, even in hundred degree heat. It didn't just stink, it burned your lungs. Nowdays it's rare that you even smell anything.</p></div><p>What's with the straw man? I don't think ANYBODY would argue against regulating such things. However, regulating toxic chemicals and noxious vapors is very different than deciding (e.g.) you can't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had been alive before Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act you would n't be so anti-environment .
When I grew up in Cahokia , you could not drive through Sauget past the Monsanto plant with your windows down , even in hundred degree heat .
It did n't just stink , it burned your lungs .
Nowdays it 's rare that you even smell anything.What 's with the straw man ?
I do n't think ANYBODY would argue against regulating such things .
However , regulating toxic chemicals and noxious vapors is very different than deciding ( e.g .
) you ca n't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had been alive before Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act you wouldn't be so anti-environment.
When I grew up in Cahokia, you could not drive through Sauget past the Monsanto plant with your windows down, even in hundred degree heat.
It didn't just stink, it burned your lungs.
Nowdays it's rare that you even smell anything.What's with the straw man?
I don't think ANYBODY would argue against regulating such things.
However, regulating toxic chemicals and noxious vapors is very different than deciding (e.g.
) you can't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499386</id>
	<title>fisrt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268768280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fisrt</htmltext>
<tokenext>fisrt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fisrt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500860</id>
	<title>Strategic decisions half-implemented</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1268731440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems like a strategic decision more than anything, much like sitting on our tremendously huge oil reserves and not letting anyone drill them. The problem is, we lack refining capacity for raw materials such as petroleum, rare earths, and have even lost steel refineries in recent decades. Should there be a WWIII, without the production facilities in place, the US will be a sitting duck.  We buy all our shit from China and Russia, who in reality are not our friends, never were, and make no attempts today to be. They're happy to sell us stuff while we keep shutting down refining and manufacturing facilities, and helping us spend our way into bankruptcy. Should there be a war with China or even Russia, how can the US possibly win with no access to local manufacturing?</p><p>We've happily been selling China our banks, manufacturing tooling that 'we don't need anymore' (GM sold a lot of automotive manufacturing tooling to China, including Saab 9-5 tooling) and we've likewise shifted North American manufacturing to Mexico and Canada by and large (is your "American" car really american? Chances are the unibody, chassis and brake components were manufactured in Mexico, the electronics and interior items in China, and it was slapped together in either Canada or the USA by lazy low-skilled union workers.  What manufacturing and oil refining base do we have domestically, aside from rubber dog poop factories?</p><p>It's one thing to strategically set aside certain reserves for the sake of defense and possible combat or economic warfare, but it's a half-assed step at maintaining such leverage because if it takes 5-10 years to build production facilities, or oil refineries, and so forth, what good does having the reserves do but to give the would-be winners of any war unfettered access to the reserves? Even if the US decides to restrict mining/pumping and production of those materials, the infrastructure should be in place and be continuously running at levels which will ensure that not only do the production facilities work, but manpower and distribution are on hand to quickly ramp up production if required.</p><p>Why do we continue to build up the manufacturing base of potential enemies, and either destroy or export our own to those same potential enemies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like a strategic decision more than anything , much like sitting on our tremendously huge oil reserves and not letting anyone drill them .
The problem is , we lack refining capacity for raw materials such as petroleum , rare earths , and have even lost steel refineries in recent decades .
Should there be a WWIII , without the production facilities in place , the US will be a sitting duck .
We buy all our shit from China and Russia , who in reality are not our friends , never were , and make no attempts today to be .
They 're happy to sell us stuff while we keep shutting down refining and manufacturing facilities , and helping us spend our way into bankruptcy .
Should there be a war with China or even Russia , how can the US possibly win with no access to local manufacturing ? We 've happily been selling China our banks , manufacturing tooling that 'we do n't need anymore ' ( GM sold a lot of automotive manufacturing tooling to China , including Saab 9-5 tooling ) and we 've likewise shifted North American manufacturing to Mexico and Canada by and large ( is your " American " car really american ?
Chances are the unibody , chassis and brake components were manufactured in Mexico , the electronics and interior items in China , and it was slapped together in either Canada or the USA by lazy low-skilled union workers .
What manufacturing and oil refining base do we have domestically , aside from rubber dog poop factories ? It 's one thing to strategically set aside certain reserves for the sake of defense and possible combat or economic warfare , but it 's a half-assed step at maintaining such leverage because if it takes 5-10 years to build production facilities , or oil refineries , and so forth , what good does having the reserves do but to give the would-be winners of any war unfettered access to the reserves ?
Even if the US decides to restrict mining/pumping and production of those materials , the infrastructure should be in place and be continuously running at levels which will ensure that not only do the production facilities work , but manpower and distribution are on hand to quickly ramp up production if required.Why do we continue to build up the manufacturing base of potential enemies , and either destroy or export our own to those same potential enemies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like a strategic decision more than anything, much like sitting on our tremendously huge oil reserves and not letting anyone drill them.
The problem is, we lack refining capacity for raw materials such as petroleum, rare earths, and have even lost steel refineries in recent decades.
Should there be a WWIII, without the production facilities in place, the US will be a sitting duck.
We buy all our shit from China and Russia, who in reality are not our friends, never were, and make no attempts today to be.
They're happy to sell us stuff while we keep shutting down refining and manufacturing facilities, and helping us spend our way into bankruptcy.
Should there be a war with China or even Russia, how can the US possibly win with no access to local manufacturing?We've happily been selling China our banks, manufacturing tooling that 'we don't need anymore' (GM sold a lot of automotive manufacturing tooling to China, including Saab 9-5 tooling) and we've likewise shifted North American manufacturing to Mexico and Canada by and large (is your "American" car really american?
Chances are the unibody, chassis and brake components were manufactured in Mexico, the electronics and interior items in China, and it was slapped together in either Canada or the USA by lazy low-skilled union workers.
What manufacturing and oil refining base do we have domestically, aside from rubber dog poop factories?It's one thing to strategically set aside certain reserves for the sake of defense and possible combat or economic warfare, but it's a half-assed step at maintaining such leverage because if it takes 5-10 years to build production facilities, or oil refineries, and so forth, what good does having the reserves do but to give the would-be winners of any war unfettered access to the reserves?
Even if the US decides to restrict mining/pumping and production of those materials, the infrastructure should be in place and be continuously running at levels which will ensure that not only do the production facilities work, but manpower and distribution are on hand to quickly ramp up production if required.Why do we continue to build up the manufacturing base of potential enemies, and either destroy or export our own to those same potential enemies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500604</id>
	<title>at last!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268730120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we can finally control the worlds economy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we can finally control the worlds economy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we can finally control the worlds economy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503718</id>
	<title>Unobtainium</title>
	<author>blaster151</author>
	<datestamp>1268748720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can unobtainium not be a tag?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can unobtainium not be a tag ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can unobtainium not be a tag?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268771280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most likely the high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA, OSHA and various state agency regulations (not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies) make it more economical to just import the stuff from China rather than try to mine it and build a processing plant here.</i></p><p>If you had been alive before Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act you wouldn't be so anti-environment. When I grew up in Cahokia, you could not drive through Sauget past the Monsanto plant with your windows down, even in hundred degree heat. It didn't just stink, it burned your lungs. Nowdays it's rare that you even smell anything.</p><p>I think my right to breathe should trump Monsanto's privilege of making billions of dollars of profits more than they already do. THIS is why Free Trade is a BAD idea -- how can someone who likes to breathe compete with a country who doesn't give a damn how filthy and poisoned their country is?</p><p>As to OSHA, that protects YOU. Did you know that more people die in Chinese mines than all the other mines in the world? Protecting workers from sociopaths who don't value human life in the least is a GOOD thing, unless you're one of the sociopaths who don't care about human life and don't work in a dangerous industry.</p><p>EPA regs are a GOOD thing, and only the woefully ignorant think otherwise. It would do you good to read a little history.</p><p>Now get off my lawn, yuppie!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most likely the high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA , OSHA and various state agency regulations ( not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies ) make it more economical to just import the stuff from China rather than try to mine it and build a processing plant here.If you had been alive before Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act you would n't be so anti-environment .
When I grew up in Cahokia , you could not drive through Sauget past the Monsanto plant with your windows down , even in hundred degree heat .
It did n't just stink , it burned your lungs .
Nowdays it 's rare that you even smell anything.I think my right to breathe should trump Monsanto 's privilege of making billions of dollars of profits more than they already do .
THIS is why Free Trade is a BAD idea -- how can someone who likes to breathe compete with a country who does n't give a damn how filthy and poisoned their country is ? As to OSHA , that protects YOU .
Did you know that more people die in Chinese mines than all the other mines in the world ?
Protecting workers from sociopaths who do n't value human life in the least is a GOOD thing , unless you 're one of the sociopaths who do n't care about human life and do n't work in a dangerous industry.EPA regs are a GOOD thing , and only the woefully ignorant think otherwise .
It would do you good to read a little history.Now get off my lawn , yuppie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most likely the high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA, OSHA and various state agency regulations (not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies) make it more economical to just import the stuff from China rather than try to mine it and build a processing plant here.If you had been alive before Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act you wouldn't be so anti-environment.
When I grew up in Cahokia, you could not drive through Sauget past the Monsanto plant with your windows down, even in hundred degree heat.
It didn't just stink, it burned your lungs.
Nowdays it's rare that you even smell anything.I think my right to breathe should trump Monsanto's privilege of making billions of dollars of profits more than they already do.
THIS is why Free Trade is a BAD idea -- how can someone who likes to breathe compete with a country who doesn't give a damn how filthy and poisoned their country is?As to OSHA, that protects YOU.
Did you know that more people die in Chinese mines than all the other mines in the world?
Protecting workers from sociopaths who don't value human life in the least is a GOOD thing, unless you're one of the sociopaths who don't care about human life and don't work in a dangerous industry.EPA regs are a GOOD thing, and only the woefully ignorant think otherwise.
It would do you good to read a little history.Now get off my lawn, yuppie!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501688</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268735460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act</p><p>Those are good acts but still unconstitutional (per Bill of Rights 9 and 10). The U.S. Constitution should be AMENDED to specifically grant Congress said power to regulate the air and water's clarity. I support the Clean Air &amp; Water Acts, but also believe in following the Supreme Law as written, and amending it as needed..... not create a lawless society where congress can do whatever the hell it feels like doing, without restraint.</p><p>.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;THIS is why Free Trade is a BAD idea -- how can someone who likes to breathe compete with a country who doesn't give a damn how filthy and poisoned their country is?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>The typical argument is that Free Trade will raise China to our economic level, and then its wealthy citizens will demand clean air and water, just as the Americans and Europeans and Japanese did.  (Please note I'm not saying I agree with that argument... just repeating what Free Traders' claim.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Clean Air Act and the Clean Water actThose are good acts but still unconstitutional ( per Bill of Rights 9 and 10 ) .
The U.S. Constitution should be AMENDED to specifically grant Congress said power to regulate the air and water 's clarity .
I support the Clean Air &amp; Water Acts , but also believe in following the Supreme Law as written , and amending it as needed..... not create a lawless society where congress can do whatever the hell it feels like doing , without restraint.. &gt; &gt; &gt; THIS is why Free Trade is a BAD idea -- how can someone who likes to breathe compete with a country who does n't give a damn how filthy and poisoned their country is ? &gt; &gt; &gt; The typical argument is that Free Trade will raise China to our economic level , and then its wealthy citizens will demand clean air and water , just as the Americans and Europeans and Japanese did .
( Please note I 'm not saying I agree with that argument... just repeating what Free Traders ' claim .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Clean Air Act and the Clean Water actThose are good acts but still unconstitutional (per Bill of Rights 9 and 10).
The U.S. Constitution should be AMENDED to specifically grant Congress said power to regulate the air and water's clarity.
I support the Clean Air &amp; Water Acts, but also believe in following the Supreme Law as written, and amending it as needed..... not create a lawless society where congress can do whatever the hell it feels like doing, without restraint..&gt;&gt;&gt;THIS is why Free Trade is a BAD idea -- how can someone who likes to breathe compete with a country who doesn't give a damn how filthy and poisoned their country is?&gt;&gt;&gt;The typical argument is that Free Trade will raise China to our economic level, and then its wealthy citizens will demand clean air and water, just as the Americans and Europeans and Japanese did.
(Please note I'm not saying I agree with that argument... just repeating what Free Traders' claim.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503002</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1268742600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, heaven forbid we should ever obstruct <a href="http://www.dow.com/commitments/debates/bhopal/" title="dow.com" rel="nofollow">progress</a> [dow.com]..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , heaven forbid we should ever obstruct progress [ dow.com ] . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, heaven forbid we should ever obstruct progress [dow.com]..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500594</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268730060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I mean come on, how can you trust a group that bitches about how unclean coal is and then holds up the building of Solar power with litigation waiting for environmental impact studies of plopping solar arrays in the middle of a desert.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh yes.  Let's admit we have a problem, and then go ahead and implement a solution without bothering to evaluate that solution.<br> <br>I hope to God you don't have any sort of responsibility for any systems I use.<br> <br>And, for what it's worth, do you really think that "greens" are part of a single organized group with a single platform of goals and ideals?  Have you ever bothered to consider that "greens" constitute a large number of people with diverse concerns?  It's quite possible for some people who are "greens" to think it's OK to damage wild deserts in the name of reducing carbon output -- and there are some "greens" who are more concerned with maintaining a natural environment.<br> <br>But whatever dude... your tired complaint of a large group of people having members with sometimes conflicting interests is useless for any kind of rational discussion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean come on , how can you trust a group that bitches about how unclean coal is and then holds up the building of Solar power with litigation waiting for environmental impact studies of plopping solar arrays in the middle of a desert.Oh yes .
Let 's admit we have a problem , and then go ahead and implement a solution without bothering to evaluate that solution .
I hope to God you do n't have any sort of responsibility for any systems I use .
And , for what it 's worth , do you really think that " greens " are part of a single organized group with a single platform of goals and ideals ?
Have you ever bothered to consider that " greens " constitute a large number of people with diverse concerns ?
It 's quite possible for some people who are " greens " to think it 's OK to damage wild deserts in the name of reducing carbon output -- and there are some " greens " who are more concerned with maintaining a natural environment .
But whatever dude... your tired complaint of a large group of people having members with sometimes conflicting interests is useless for any kind of rational discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean come on, how can you trust a group that bitches about how unclean coal is and then holds up the building of Solar power with litigation waiting for environmental impact studies of plopping solar arrays in the middle of a desert.Oh yes.
Let's admit we have a problem, and then go ahead and implement a solution without bothering to evaluate that solution.
I hope to God you don't have any sort of responsibility for any systems I use.
And, for what it's worth, do you really think that "greens" are part of a single organized group with a single platform of goals and ideals?
Have you ever bothered to consider that "greens" constitute a large number of people with diverse concerns?
It's quite possible for some people who are "greens" to think it's OK to damage wild deserts in the name of reducing carbon output -- and there are some "greens" who are more concerned with maintaining a natural environment.
But whatever dude... your tired complaint of a large group of people having members with sometimes conflicting interests is useless for any kind of rational discussion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499820</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268769960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont forget that when these minerals are running out it'll be easier to get subsidies from the government to help<br>stop an entire industry or sector from dying and to generate more taxes/jobs/whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont forget that when these minerals are running out it 'll be easier to get subsidies from the government to helpstop an entire industry or sector from dying and to generate more taxes/jobs/whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont forget that when these minerals are running out it'll be easier to get subsidies from the government to helpstop an entire industry or sector from dying and to generate more taxes/jobs/whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31509670</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, our competitors will end up mining all of their resources to exhaustion and be without. We then have a supply, inside our borders (hopefully CONUS), that we can tap.</p><p>Partners are only partners until the economics change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , our competitors will end up mining all of their resources to exhaustion and be without .
We then have a supply , inside our borders ( hopefully CONUS ) , that we can tap.Partners are only partners until the economics change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, our competitors will end up mining all of their resources to exhaustion and be without.
We then have a supply, inside our borders (hopefully CONUS), that we can tap.Partners are only partners until the economics change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500094</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1268771100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheap labor and no environmental concerns.  You pollute the local village and give most of the kids cancer the maximum downside is they close the factory.  It's just a building.  You can always pull all the equipment out and build a factory somewhere else.  That might change in 20 years, but right now China is still in the middle of it's Industrial Revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheap labor and no environmental concerns .
You pollute the local village and give most of the kids cancer the maximum downside is they close the factory .
It 's just a building .
You can always pull all the equipment out and build a factory somewhere else .
That might change in 20 years , but right now China is still in the middle of it 's Industrial Revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheap labor and no environmental concerns.
You pollute the local village and give most of the kids cancer the maximum downside is they close the factory.
It's just a building.
You can always pull all the equipment out and build a factory somewhere else.
That might change in 20 years, but right now China is still in the middle of it's Industrial Revolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503964</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1268751120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree you can't bunch everyone with environmental concerns into one uniform, crazy group, but there is an element of truth in how environmental concerns seem to hold up any movement at all, in any direction.<br>
Whether it's nuclear, solar, biofuels, gas, wind, anything, environmental concerns come up and while people are "evaluating the solution" the solution doesn't get implemented and all of a sudden you're facing energy shortages (as Britain is).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree you ca n't bunch everyone with environmental concerns into one uniform , crazy group , but there is an element of truth in how environmental concerns seem to hold up any movement at all , in any direction .
Whether it 's nuclear , solar , biofuels , gas , wind , anything , environmental concerns come up and while people are " evaluating the solution " the solution does n't get implemented and all of a sudden you 're facing energy shortages ( as Britain is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree you can't bunch everyone with environmental concerns into one uniform, crazy group, but there is an element of truth in how environmental concerns seem to hold up any movement at all, in any direction.
Whether it's nuclear, solar, biofuels, gas, wind, anything, environmental concerns come up and while people are "evaluating the solution" the solution doesn't get implemented and all of a sudden you're facing energy shortages (as Britain is).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268768880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most likely the high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA, OSHA and various state agency regulations (not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies) make it more economical to just import the stuff from China rather than try to mine it and build a processing plant here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most likely the high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA , OSHA and various state agency regulations ( not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies ) make it more economical to just import the stuff from China rather than try to mine it and build a processing plant here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most likely the high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA, OSHA and various state agency regulations (not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies) make it more economical to just import the stuff from China rather than try to mine it and build a processing plant here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504544</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1268756460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As to OSHA, that protects YOU. Did you know that more people die in Chinese mines than all the other mines in the world?</p></div></blockquote><p>Twenty five in a coal mine fire in central Henan province last week.  We now get those numbers because there are serious inquiries into mine accidents now.  China is currently going through an effort to improve mine safety and things similar to those EPA regs, but they have a lot to clean up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As to OSHA , that protects YOU .
Did you know that more people die in Chinese mines than all the other mines in the world ? Twenty five in a coal mine fire in central Henan province last week .
We now get those numbers because there are serious inquiries into mine accidents now .
China is currently going through an effort to improve mine safety and things similar to those EPA regs , but they have a lot to clean up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As to OSHA, that protects YOU.
Did you know that more people die in Chinese mines than all the other mines in the world?Twenty five in a coal mine fire in central Henan province last week.
We now get those numbers because there are serious inquiries into mine accidents now.
China is currently going through an effort to improve mine safety and things similar to those EPA regs, but they have a lot to clean up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501240</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268733180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you're one of those guys who sees the word "desert" and thinks of the Sahara or the lunar surface-- the long and the short of it is, there's no such thing as a lifeless desert. If there's anything decades of environmental awareness (should have) taught us, it's that "plopping" stuff without thinking about how and where can have serious consequences. I'll be among the first to admit that groups like Greenpeace are probably too fanatical to be proposing solutions (rejection of all things nuclear, for example), but there has to come a point where we don't embrace the quick and easy solution without at least giving some thought to all the impacts.</p><p>I had a friend tell me once that oil/gas pipelines are beneficial to tundra wildlife because they get a warm place to cozy up to. Seriously. No thought whatsoever about how climate change will affect their habitats, or about how wildlife could starve to death as a result. I suppose it was all good in his head because moose get a free campfire out of the deal before they die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you 're one of those guys who sees the word " desert " and thinks of the Sahara or the lunar surface-- the long and the short of it is , there 's no such thing as a lifeless desert .
If there 's anything decades of environmental awareness ( should have ) taught us , it 's that " plopping " stuff without thinking about how and where can have serious consequences .
I 'll be among the first to admit that groups like Greenpeace are probably too fanatical to be proposing solutions ( rejection of all things nuclear , for example ) , but there has to come a point where we do n't embrace the quick and easy solution without at least giving some thought to all the impacts.I had a friend tell me once that oil/gas pipelines are beneficial to tundra wildlife because they get a warm place to cozy up to .
Seriously. No thought whatsoever about how climate change will affect their habitats , or about how wildlife could starve to death as a result .
I suppose it was all good in his head because moose get a free campfire out of the deal before they die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you're one of those guys who sees the word "desert" and thinks of the Sahara or the lunar surface-- the long and the short of it is, there's no such thing as a lifeless desert.
If there's anything decades of environmental awareness (should have) taught us, it's that "plopping" stuff without thinking about how and where can have serious consequences.
I'll be among the first to admit that groups like Greenpeace are probably too fanatical to be proposing solutions (rejection of all things nuclear, for example), but there has to come a point where we don't embrace the quick and easy solution without at least giving some thought to all the impacts.I had a friend tell me once that oil/gas pipelines are beneficial to tundra wildlife because they get a warm place to cozy up to.
Seriously. No thought whatsoever about how climate change will affect their habitats, or about how wildlife could starve to death as a result.
I suppose it was all good in his head because moose get a free campfire out of the deal before they die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410</id>
	<title>Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268768340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If these rare earths are so rare and valuable, and only going to become more so, why should the upfront cost matter? The plant should still make a huge profit, unless I am misunderstanding basic economics.</p><p>Seems people in America only want to invest in fraudulent get rich quick gambling schemes these days. Actual resource extraction and manufacturing is for the peons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If these rare earths are so rare and valuable , and only going to become more so , why should the upfront cost matter ?
The plant should still make a huge profit , unless I am misunderstanding basic economics.Seems people in America only want to invest in fraudulent get rich quick gambling schemes these days .
Actual resource extraction and manufacturing is for the peons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these rare earths are so rare and valuable, and only going to become more so, why should the upfront cost matter?
The plant should still make a huge profit, unless I am misunderstanding basic economics.Seems people in America only want to invest in fraudulent get rich quick gambling schemes these days.
Actual resource extraction and manufacturing is for the peons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499994</id>
	<title>The DR Congo</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1268770680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly why the warfare in the DR Congo is so important to the world. If anyone took a close look at it they'd realize that the modern world is raping that country by any means necessary in order to secure cobalt and other rare minerals. A lot of shady actions being taken by world governments and multi-nationals for control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why the warfare in the DR Congo is so important to the world .
If anyone took a close look at it they 'd realize that the modern world is raping that country by any means necessary in order to secure cobalt and other rare minerals .
A lot of shady actions being taken by world governments and multi-nationals for control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why the warfare in the DR Congo is so important to the world.
If anyone took a close look at it they'd realize that the modern world is raping that country by any means necessary in order to secure cobalt and other rare minerals.
A lot of shady actions being taken by world governments and multi-nationals for control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504148</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see you have never dealt with OSHA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see you have never dealt with OSHA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see you have never dealt with OSHA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500666</id>
	<title>Re:Supply and demand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268730540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are you talking about, fool?  The last time there was a collapse (WV, 2006), it was due to an explosion so an "emergency shelter" would have been pointless.  Modern mines don't just fall in nicely because they're having a bad day.<blockquote><div><p> <tt>They are trying to capture the costs of the pollution and environmental hazards caused by the use of oil.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Yeah, I'm sure your taxes are being directly used to clean the environment and improve safety.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about , fool ?
The last time there was a collapse ( WV , 2006 ) , it was due to an explosion so an " emergency shelter " would have been pointless .
Modern mines do n't just fall in nicely because they 're having a bad day .
They are trying to capture the costs of the pollution and environmental hazards caused by the use of oil .
Yeah , I 'm sure your taxes are being directly used to clean the environment and improve safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about, fool?
The last time there was a collapse (WV, 2006), it was due to an explosion so an "emergency shelter" would have been pointless.
Modern mines don't just fall in nicely because they're having a bad day.
They are trying to capture the costs of the pollution and environmental hazards caused by the use of oil.
Yeah, I'm sure your taxes are being directly used to clean the environment and improve safety.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500036</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31509670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1739241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1739241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499792
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504454
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500594
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503964
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500380
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31503002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501688
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501108
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500670
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501310
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31504286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501042
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31509670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500036
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1739241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1739241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1739241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1739241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31501340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1739241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1739241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1739241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31499828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1739241.31500356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
