<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_2131237</id>
	<title>Planned Nuclear Reactors Will Destroy Atomic Waste</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269252840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>separsons writes <i>"A group of French scientists are developing a nuclear reactor that <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry\_sectors/utilities/article7070403.ece">burns up actinides &mdash; highly radioactive uranium isotopes</a>. They estimate that 'the volume of high-level nuclear waste produced by all of France&rsquo;s 58 reactors over the past 40 years could fit in one Olympic-size swimming pool.' And they're not the only ones <a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/22/new-nuclear-reactors-may-almost-completely-destroy-atomic-waste/">trying to eliminate atomic waste</a>: Researchers at the University of Texas in Austin are <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1415200/Fusion-Fission-System-Burns-Hot-Radioactive-Waste">working on a fusion-fission reactor</a>. The reactor destroys waste by firing streams of neutrons at it, reducing atomic waste by up to 99 percent!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>separsons writes " A group of French scientists are developing a nuclear reactor that burns up actinides    highly radioactive uranium isotopes .
They estimate that 'the volume of high-level nuclear waste produced by all of France    s 58 reactors over the past 40 years could fit in one Olympic-size swimming pool .
' And they 're not the only ones trying to eliminate atomic waste : Researchers at the University of Texas in Austin are working on a fusion-fission reactor .
The reactor destroys waste by firing streams of neutrons at it , reducing atomic waste by up to 99 percent !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>separsons writes "A group of French scientists are developing a nuclear reactor that burns up actinides — highly radioactive uranium isotopes.
They estimate that 'the volume of high-level nuclear waste produced by all of France’s 58 reactors over the past 40 years could fit in one Olympic-size swimming pool.
' And they're not the only ones trying to eliminate atomic waste: Researchers at the University of Texas in Austin are working on a fusion-fission reactor.
The reactor destroys waste by firing streams of neutrons at it, reducing atomic waste by up to 99 percent!
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580300</id>
	<title>Pretty good going</title>
	<author>FreakyGreenLeaky</author>
	<datestamp>1269376140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They estimate that 'the volume of high-level nuclear waste produced by all of France&rsquo;s 58 reactors over the past 40 years could fit in one Olympic-size swimming pool.</p></div><p>Compared to the <i>billions</i> of tons of pollutants from coal-fired stations -- pollutants which make their way into the sea, drinking water and the very air we breath, I think a few thousand tons (safely ensconced in hardened and safe locations) from nuclear is pretty damn fine by me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They estimate that 'the volume of high-level nuclear waste produced by all of France    s 58 reactors over the past 40 years could fit in one Olympic-size swimming pool.Compared to the billions of tons of pollutants from coal-fired stations -- pollutants which make their way into the sea , drinking water and the very air we breath , I think a few thousand tons ( safely ensconced in hardened and safe locations ) from nuclear is pretty damn fine by me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They estimate that 'the volume of high-level nuclear waste produced by all of France’s 58 reactors over the past 40 years could fit in one Olympic-size swimming pool.Compared to the billions of tons of pollutants from coal-fired stations -- pollutants which make their way into the sea, drinking water and the very air we breath, I think a few thousand tons (safely ensconced in hardened and safe locations) from nuclear is pretty damn fine by me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31583806</id>
	<title>Uranium is not running out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269359820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The whole reason people have been saying for years that Uranium is running out is only because ore of very high purity was running out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>There is or was a mine in Namibia, the Rossing mine IIRC, that gets uranium out of 0.03 percent ore, but that probably depends or depended on very cheap labour. Most places the trend in the last 20-to-30 years has been to much <em>higher</em> grades, because that's what prospectors have been finding.</p><p>To within a half-order-of-magnitude, they've been finding about a thousand tonnes per day, and the cost of this finding has been a million dollars per day. That may sound like a lot, but the world's current oil burn rate is only a thousand tonne-U-equivalents per day, and for<br>petroleum propectors to find a kilotonne-U-equivalent has been costing $500 million.</p><p>If any large contingent of government-funded people really believed uranium was running out, they could accelerate the process by buying it and taking it on long ocean voyages and, on the way, dissolving it in acid and losing the solution overboard. By losing a dollar's worth of uranium in this way, they could force electricity vendors to burn $20 worth of natural gas instead; government would make more than a dollar on that. And the oceans would not be harmed. Not at all. Can you guess why not?</p><p>(<em> <a href="http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/" title="eagle.ca" rel="nofollow">How fire can be domesticated</a> [eagle.ca] </em>)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole reason people have been saying for years that Uranium is running out is only because ore of very high purity was running out ...There is or was a mine in Namibia , the Rossing mine IIRC , that gets uranium out of 0.03 percent ore , but that probably depends or depended on very cheap labour .
Most places the trend in the last 20-to-30 years has been to much higher grades , because that 's what prospectors have been finding.To within a half-order-of-magnitude , they 've been finding about a thousand tonnes per day , and the cost of this finding has been a million dollars per day .
That may sound like a lot , but the world 's current oil burn rate is only a thousand tonne-U-equivalents per day , and forpetroleum propectors to find a kilotonne-U-equivalent has been costing $ 500 million.If any large contingent of government-funded people really believed uranium was running out , they could accelerate the process by buying it and taking it on long ocean voyages and , on the way , dissolving it in acid and losing the solution overboard .
By losing a dollar 's worth of uranium in this way , they could force electricity vendors to burn $ 20 worth of natural gas instead ; government would make more than a dollar on that .
And the oceans would not be harmed .
Not at all .
Can you guess why not ?
( How fire can be domesticated [ eagle.ca ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole reason people have been saying for years that Uranium is running out is only because ore of very high purity was running out ...There is or was a mine in Namibia, the Rossing mine IIRC, that gets uranium out of 0.03 percent ore, but that probably depends or depended on very cheap labour.
Most places the trend in the last 20-to-30 years has been to much higher grades, because that's what prospectors have been finding.To within a half-order-of-magnitude, they've been finding about a thousand tonnes per day, and the cost of this finding has been a million dollars per day.
That may sound like a lot, but the world's current oil burn rate is only a thousand tonne-U-equivalents per day, and forpetroleum propectors to find a kilotonne-U-equivalent has been costing $500 million.If any large contingent of government-funded people really believed uranium was running out, they could accelerate the process by buying it and taking it on long ocean voyages and, on the way, dissolving it in acid and losing the solution overboard.
By losing a dollar's worth of uranium in this way, they could force electricity vendors to burn $20 worth of natural gas instead; government would make more than a dollar on that.
And the oceans would not be harmed.
Not at all.
Can you guess why not?
( How fire can be domesticated [eagle.ca] )
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576828</id>
	<title>the classics are the best...</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1269258600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/0016.html" title="northernsun.com">http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/0016.html</a> [northernsun.com]</p><p>Mutants for Nuclear Power!</p><p>*)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.northernsun.com/n/s/0016.html [ northernsun.com ] Mutants for Nuclear Power !
* )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/0016.html [northernsun.com]Mutants for Nuclear Power!
*)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579836</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, for about a millisecond...</title>
	<author>cthulhu11</author>
	<datestamp>1269282780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> but am I not the only one into whose mind this image sprung the moment we read the metaphor?</p></div><div><p>My first thought was that maybe the fuel waste itself would fit into such a volume, but in practical terms it would be encased in rods and other packaging and containment that would have a much greater volume.</p></div></blockquote></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but am I not the only one into whose mind this image sprung the moment we read the metaphor ? My first thought was that maybe the fuel waste itself would fit into such a volume , but in practical terms it would be encased in rods and other packaging and containment that would have a much greater volume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> but am I not the only one into whose mind this image sprung the moment we read the metaphor?My first thought was that maybe the fuel waste itself would fit into such a volume, but in practical terms it would be encased in rods and other packaging and containment that would have a much greater volume.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576492</id>
	<title>Someone informed here?</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1269256860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can it be that they don't know how many waste they created? I would (maybe falsely) assume that practically everything that happens in a reactor is measured? Keeping track of your waste looks to me like single most important job in a reactor besides preventing it to go kaboom on us. But definitely more important than producing power (for me, feel free to disagree). So I find it a bit scary that they 'think' they 'might'...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can it be that they do n't know how many waste they created ?
I would ( maybe falsely ) assume that practically everything that happens in a reactor is measured ?
Keeping track of your waste looks to me like single most important job in a reactor besides preventing it to go kaboom on us .
But definitely more important than producing power ( for me , feel free to disagree ) .
So I find it a bit scary that they 'think ' they 'might'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can it be that they don't know how many waste they created?
I would (maybe falsely) assume that practically everything that happens in a reactor is measured?
Keeping track of your waste looks to me like single most important job in a reactor besides preventing it to go kaboom on us.
But definitely more important than producing power (for me, feel free to disagree).
So I find it a bit scary that they 'think' they 'might'...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31588562</id>
	<title>Re: Just turn it off</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1269335160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you include insulation as an advance in efficiency, you can probably get rid of most of that 5 pm air conditioning spike.</p><p>Of course, I don't think the haves can conserve anywhere near fast enough to offset new use by the have nots, so I certainly see the need for increased production.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you include insulation as an advance in efficiency , you can probably get rid of most of that 5 pm air conditioning spike.Of course , I do n't think the haves can conserve anywhere near fast enough to offset new use by the have nots , so I certainly see the need for increased production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you include insulation as an advance in efficiency, you can probably get rid of most of that 5 pm air conditioning spike.Of course, I don't think the haves can conserve anywhere near fast enough to offset new use by the have nots, so I certainly see the need for increased production.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31587752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269256560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The anti-nuclear group will always come up with something to deter nuclear plants from taking off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The anti-nuclear group will always come up with something to deter nuclear plants from taking off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The anti-nuclear group will always come up with something to deter nuclear plants from taking off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579730</id>
	<title>21st Century version of "Too Cheap to Meter"</title>
	<author>rberger</author>
	<datestamp>1269281580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You people don't remember all the promises of Nuclear Power 1.0.</p><p>This is just another chorus of promises that mask the dangers and inefficiencies of using radioactive materials to boil water.</p><p>Why should we be spending orders of magnitude more than other power sources just to build new terrorist targets and devices that spew the ultimate terrorist material?</p><p>Even if somehow a scalable, cost effective process to "burn" nuclear waste was created, the reactors themselves become high level nuclear waste that has to be dealt with.</p><p>There are so many reasons that nuclear power technology now available or is on the horizon is bad and so many better alternatives, why are we wasting time on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You people do n't remember all the promises of Nuclear Power 1.0.This is just another chorus of promises that mask the dangers and inefficiencies of using radioactive materials to boil water.Why should we be spending orders of magnitude more than other power sources just to build new terrorist targets and devices that spew the ultimate terrorist material ? Even if somehow a scalable , cost effective process to " burn " nuclear waste was created , the reactors themselves become high level nuclear waste that has to be dealt with.There are so many reasons that nuclear power technology now available or is on the horizon is bad and so many better alternatives , why are we wasting time on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people don't remember all the promises of Nuclear Power 1.0.This is just another chorus of promises that mask the dangers and inefficiencies of using radioactive materials to boil water.Why should we be spending orders of magnitude more than other power sources just to build new terrorist targets and devices that spew the ultimate terrorist material?Even if somehow a scalable, cost effective process to "burn" nuclear waste was created, the reactors themselves become high level nuclear waste that has to be dealt with.There are so many reasons that nuclear power technology now available or is on the horizon is bad and so many better alternatives, why are we wasting time on it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580744</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1269339420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Destroy as in convert matter to energy?</i> <p>

No, it's going to break it. Working nuclear waste is radioactive, broken nuclear waste is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Destroy as in convert matter to energy ?
No , it 's going to break it .
Working nuclear waste is radioactive , broken nuclear waste is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Destroy as in convert matter to energy?
No, it's going to break it.
Working nuclear waste is radioactive, broken nuclear waste is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578658</id>
	<title>Re:LFTR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269270660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like LFTR a *lot*... and it appears that it might scale down far enough that you could fit it in a batch of 40' containers, stacked up on the corner of the distribution switchyard at about 3MWe... and distribute what little threat there was left...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like LFTR a * lot * ... and it appears that it might scale down far enough that you could fit it in a batch of 40 ' containers , stacked up on the corner of the distribution switchyard at about 3MWe... and distribute what little threat there was left.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like LFTR a *lot*... and it appears that it might scale down far enough that you could fit it in a batch of 40' containers, stacked up on the corner of the distribution switchyard at about 3MWe... and distribute what little threat there was left...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31589848</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1269341640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that the pro nuclear group has statistics and history on their side. TMI was a big press event, but not much of a nuclear event. Chernobyl was a big nuclear event, but that sort of reactor would never have been permitted in the U.S. or France at all (due to it's being inherently unsafe).</p><p>As for concentrated vs disbursed waste, the point is that if it's all in one place, it's easier to avoid drinking it at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that the pro nuclear group has statistics and history on their side .
TMI was a big press event , but not much of a nuclear event .
Chernobyl was a big nuclear event , but that sort of reactor would never have been permitted in the U.S. or France at all ( due to it 's being inherently unsafe ) .As for concentrated vs disbursed waste , the point is that if it 's all in one place , it 's easier to avoid drinking it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that the pro nuclear group has statistics and history on their side.
TMI was a big press event, but not much of a nuclear event.
Chernobyl was a big nuclear event, but that sort of reactor would never have been permitted in the U.S. or France at all (due to it's being inherently unsafe).As for concentrated vs disbursed waste, the point is that if it's all in one place, it's easier to avoid drinking it at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576580</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1269257340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The terms burn, burning, ignite, etc., are frequently used in the nuclear community for nuclear reactions as an analogy to chemical reactions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The terms burn , burning , ignite , etc. , are frequently used in the nuclear community for nuclear reactions as an analogy to chemical reactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terms burn, burning, ignite, etc., are frequently used in the nuclear community for nuclear reactions as an analogy to chemical reactions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580734</id>
	<title>Re:Olypic swimming pool</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1269339360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A better comparision would be the *area* required to safely store all that nuclear waste. That area is orders of magnitudes larger than the area of an olympic swimming pool.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The best comparison is to the volume of waste the preferred alternative generates.  Coal contains about 24 MJ/kg, and has a density of about 1.5 kg/L in its solid form.  2500 m^3 of coal thus contains about 90 GJ of energy.  That's enough to keep a 75 Watt light bulb lit for 40 years.  So for the same volume of waste, you could light one 75 W light bulb, or provide 80\% of the electricity of the entire nation of France.  Gee, which one is better do you think?
<br> <br>
And no, not even the "but nuclear waste is more dangerous!" argument works.  Coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium, which ends up in the coal ash and the smoke released into the atmosphere when you burn coal.  Those trace radioactives actually contain more energy than the coal itself.  So for an equal amount of energy produced, coal produces more radioactive waste.  With nuclear, at least that waste is concentrated and can be stored and handled as we wish instead of being dispersed in the air and in ash.  But because some people have an irrational fear of nuclear power, we instead rely on coal, generating more pollution, more CO2, more radioactive waste, and killing a whole lot more people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A better comparision would be the * area * required to safely store all that nuclear waste .
That area is orders of magnitudes larger than the area of an olympic swimming pool .
The best comparison is to the volume of waste the preferred alternative generates .
Coal contains about 24 MJ/kg , and has a density of about 1.5 kg/L in its solid form .
2500 m ^ 3 of coal thus contains about 90 GJ of energy .
That 's enough to keep a 75 Watt light bulb lit for 40 years .
So for the same volume of waste , you could light one 75 W light bulb , or provide 80 \ % of the electricity of the entire nation of France .
Gee , which one is better do you think ?
And no , not even the " but nuclear waste is more dangerous !
" argument works .
Coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium , which ends up in the coal ash and the smoke released into the atmosphere when you burn coal .
Those trace radioactives actually contain more energy than the coal itself .
So for an equal amount of energy produced , coal produces more radioactive waste .
With nuclear , at least that waste is concentrated and can be stored and handled as we wish instead of being dispersed in the air and in ash .
But because some people have an irrational fear of nuclear power , we instead rely on coal , generating more pollution , more CO2 , more radioactive waste , and killing a whole lot more people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better comparision would be the *area* required to safely store all that nuclear waste.
That area is orders of magnitudes larger than the area of an olympic swimming pool.
The best comparison is to the volume of waste the preferred alternative generates.
Coal contains about 24 MJ/kg, and has a density of about 1.5 kg/L in its solid form.
2500 m^3 of coal thus contains about 90 GJ of energy.
That's enough to keep a 75 Watt light bulb lit for 40 years.
So for the same volume of waste, you could light one 75 W light bulb, or provide 80\% of the electricity of the entire nation of France.
Gee, which one is better do you think?
And no, not even the "but nuclear waste is more dangerous!
" argument works.
Coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium, which ends up in the coal ash and the smoke released into the atmosphere when you burn coal.
Those trace radioactives actually contain more energy than the coal itself.
So for an equal amount of energy produced, coal produces more radioactive waste.
With nuclear, at least that waste is concentrated and can be stored and handled as we wish instead of being dispersed in the air and in ash.
But because some people have an irrational fear of nuclear power, we instead rely on coal, generating more pollution, more CO2, more radioactive waste, and killing a whole lot more people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578018</id>
	<title>Dear nuclear powerplant building people</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1269265680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I offer you my back yard to construct a power plant, and while I'm at it, wireless providers please feel free to put a cell tower back there too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I offer you my back yard to construct a power plant , and while I 'm at it , wireless providers please feel free to put a cell tower back there too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I offer you my back yard to construct a power plant, and while I'm at it, wireless providers please feel free to put a cell tower back there too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576922</id>
	<title>Re:Too early for April fools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269259020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yah there is a university in Texas, its a building that contains the only book in the entire state. Its a picture book too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah there is a university in Texas , its a building that contains the only book in the entire state .
Its a picture book too : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah there is a university in Texas, its a building that contains the only book in the entire state.
Its a picture book too :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577264</id>
	<title>Re:clean nuclear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269260880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A nuclear reactor consuming atomic waste?  How perverse!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A nuclear reactor consuming atomic waste ?
How perverse !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nuclear reactor consuming atomic waste?
How perverse!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577720</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1269263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The anti-nuclear group will always come up with something to deter nuclear plants from taking off.</i>
<br>
<br>
And the pro-nuclear group will always have a reason why nuclear plants are never a danger, any accident would never happen again, and nuclear waste is absolutely no problem because waste from burning coal is more radioactive, so that means concentrated nuclear waste has to be safer than diffuse coal plant waste, just like a glass of arsenic is safer to drink than a glass of sea water because there's more arsenic in the ocean than in a glass of arsenic.  Strawmen are fun on both sides!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The anti-nuclear group will always come up with something to deter nuclear plants from taking off .
And the pro-nuclear group will always have a reason why nuclear plants are never a danger , any accident would never happen again , and nuclear waste is absolutely no problem because waste from burning coal is more radioactive , so that means concentrated nuclear waste has to be safer than diffuse coal plant waste , just like a glass of arsenic is safer to drink than a glass of sea water because there 's more arsenic in the ocean than in a glass of arsenic .
Strawmen are fun on both sides !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The anti-nuclear group will always come up with something to deter nuclear plants from taking off.
And the pro-nuclear group will always have a reason why nuclear plants are never a danger, any accident would never happen again, and nuclear waste is absolutely no problem because waste from burning coal is more radioactive, so that means concentrated nuclear waste has to be safer than diffuse coal plant waste, just like a glass of arsenic is safer to drink than a glass of sea water because there's more arsenic in the ocean than in a glass of arsenic.
Strawmen are fun on both sides!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576576</id>
	<title>The problem??</title>
	<author>eclectro</author>
	<datestamp>1269257340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After 99\% of the waste is eliminated, the 1\% left is the pure blood of Cthulhu ready to make mankind wilt in horror??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After 99 \ % of the waste is eliminated , the 1 \ % left is the pure blood of Cthulhu ready to make mankind wilt in horror ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After 99\% of the waste is eliminated, the 1\% left is the pure blood of Cthulhu ready to make mankind wilt in horror?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576612</id>
	<title>Yea and what about that 1\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269257520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care if coal outputs an order of magnitude of radiation than all of the nuclear reactors combined. I don't care if the number of terrorists in the world will be stopped by reducing access to this deadly radioactive material. I don't even care if we are entrusting the French (yea the FRENCH!) with coming up with a solution to the world's power generation problems and global warming at the same time. No sir! I'm thinking of the Children. The C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N! And they are not too happy about this development. Even the children have a right to die of lung cancer in 50 years from the filthy air like the rest of us. Remember 3 mile island! The end is near! The march of socialism is upon us! They're coming for you!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Ah gosh darn it, who am I foolooin? Ok I give up, Obama just passed health care I guess this isn't the end times after all. There's always 2012!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if coal outputs an order of magnitude of radiation than all of the nuclear reactors combined .
I do n't care if the number of terrorists in the world will be stopped by reducing access to this deadly radioactive material .
I do n't even care if we are entrusting the French ( yea the FRENCH !
) with coming up with a solution to the world 's power generation problems and global warming at the same time .
No sir !
I 'm thinking of the Children .
The C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N !
And they are not too happy about this development .
Even the children have a right to die of lung cancer in 50 years from the filthy air like the rest of us .
Remember 3 mile island !
The end is near !
The march of socialism is upon us !
They 're coming for you !
... Ah gosh darn it , who am I foolooin ?
Ok I give up , Obama just passed health care I guess this is n't the end times after all .
There 's always 2012 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if coal outputs an order of magnitude of radiation than all of the nuclear reactors combined.
I don't care if the number of terrorists in the world will be stopped by reducing access to this deadly radioactive material.
I don't even care if we are entrusting the French (yea the FRENCH!
) with coming up with a solution to the world's power generation problems and global warming at the same time.
No sir!
I'm thinking of the Children.
The C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N!
And they are not too happy about this development.
Even the children have a right to die of lung cancer in 50 years from the filthy air like the rest of us.
Remember 3 mile island!
The end is near!
The march of socialism is upon us!
They're coming for you!
... Ah gosh darn it, who am I foolooin?
Ok I give up, Obama just passed health care I guess this isn't the end times after all.
There's always 2012!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578068</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>FatalChaos</author>
	<datestamp>1269266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I am pro nuclear, I think there is a misconception about the anti-nuclear group. A lot of ppl think that they are simply ignorant/retarded, and that if they simply took a few science courses or knew what we knew they would also be pro nuclear. However, there were two studies I read about that were pretty interesting. The first was quiz they gave to experts and ordinary college educated citizens deaths due to nuclear power for both normal operations and potential catastrophes. What they found out was that for deaths due to normal operations, radiation exposure, etc, ordinary citizens were actually MORE optimistic than the experts, and although the ordinary citizens predicted much more drastic fallout from a nuclear disaster, even after they were informed of the right answer, they still didn't change their opinions. The second study was one where they took college educated citizens, got their opinions on nuclear power and gave them a quiz to test for knowledge on nuclear power, and then gave them a few weeks of classes about nuclear power. Even though at the end of the courses the citizens scored very well on a similar quiz about nuclear power, their opinions on nuclear power essentially hadn't changed.

Basically, it's not that these people are necessarily ignorant of the facts or stupid, it's that they have a different idea of acceptable risk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I am pro nuclear , I think there is a misconception about the anti-nuclear group .
A lot of ppl think that they are simply ignorant/retarded , and that if they simply took a few science courses or knew what we knew they would also be pro nuclear .
However , there were two studies I read about that were pretty interesting .
The first was quiz they gave to experts and ordinary college educated citizens deaths due to nuclear power for both normal operations and potential catastrophes .
What they found out was that for deaths due to normal operations , radiation exposure , etc , ordinary citizens were actually MORE optimistic than the experts , and although the ordinary citizens predicted much more drastic fallout from a nuclear disaster , even after they were informed of the right answer , they still did n't change their opinions .
The second study was one where they took college educated citizens , got their opinions on nuclear power and gave them a quiz to test for knowledge on nuclear power , and then gave them a few weeks of classes about nuclear power .
Even though at the end of the courses the citizens scored very well on a similar quiz about nuclear power , their opinions on nuclear power essentially had n't changed .
Basically , it 's not that these people are necessarily ignorant of the facts or stupid , it 's that they have a different idea of acceptable risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I am pro nuclear, I think there is a misconception about the anti-nuclear group.
A lot of ppl think that they are simply ignorant/retarded, and that if they simply took a few science courses or knew what we knew they would also be pro nuclear.
However, there were two studies I read about that were pretty interesting.
The first was quiz they gave to experts and ordinary college educated citizens deaths due to nuclear power for both normal operations and potential catastrophes.
What they found out was that for deaths due to normal operations, radiation exposure, etc, ordinary citizens were actually MORE optimistic than the experts, and although the ordinary citizens predicted much more drastic fallout from a nuclear disaster, even after they were informed of the right answer, they still didn't change their opinions.
The second study was one where they took college educated citizens, got their opinions on nuclear power and gave them a quiz to test for knowledge on nuclear power, and then gave them a few weeks of classes about nuclear power.
Even though at the end of the courses the citizens scored very well on a similar quiz about nuclear power, their opinions on nuclear power essentially hadn't changed.
Basically, it's not that these people are necessarily ignorant of the facts or stupid, it's that they have a different idea of acceptable risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577220</id>
	<title>Re:clean nuclear</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1269260700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, the fantasy of the extractive industries.   Nobody who's interested in clean energy thinks that clean coal is anything other than a fantasy.   Unfortunately, they have bigger PR machines than we do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , the fantasy of the extractive industries .
Nobody who 's interested in clean energy thinks that clean coal is anything other than a fantasy .
Unfortunately , they have bigger PR machines than we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, the fantasy of the extractive industries.
Nobody who's interested in clean energy thinks that clean coal is anything other than a fantasy.
Unfortunately, they have bigger PR machines than we do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577814</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, for about a millisecond...</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1269264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I mean, yes, it would all fit into an Olympic swimming pool.   For about a millisecond.   Then it would go critical, and your swimming pool would be an area the size of texas covered in a very thin layer of radioactive waste, plus a big glass pit in the middle.</p> </div><p>But for that millisecond, you'd have <i>the most awesomely radical Olympic swim meet in the history of mankind</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , yes , it would all fit into an Olympic swimming pool .
For about a millisecond .
Then it would go critical , and your swimming pool would be an area the size of texas covered in a very thin layer of radioactive waste , plus a big glass pit in the middle .
But for that millisecond , you 'd have the most awesomely radical Olympic swim meet in the history of mankind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I mean, yes, it would all fit into an Olympic swimming pool.
For about a millisecond.
Then it would go critical, and your swimming pool would be an area the size of texas covered in a very thin layer of radioactive waste, plus a big glass pit in the middle.
But for that millisecond, you'd have the most awesomely radical Olympic swim meet in the history of mankind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580520</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, for about a millisecond...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269336600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I thought about how many teddy bears could be stuffed with that stuff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I thought about how many teddy bears could be stuffed with that stuff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I thought about how many teddy bears could be stuffed with that stuff</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579140</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>tibit</author>
	<datestamp>1269275400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The masses' idea of "acceptable risk" does not include the, pardon the misuse of the word, fallout from energy shortages as we run out of coal/oil/natural gas. All reactors blowing up in Chernobyl all at once, and the resulting graphite fire burning unabated for a century+ are nothing compared to what will happen when the fossil fuels will run out. If, that is, we're still in a situation where no high-density alternate power is available -- like from nuclear fission or fusion.</p><p>The problem with "masses" is that they only include what they immediately recognize as dangerous in their risk analysis. What they ignore is way more dangerous than the widely publicized snafus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The masses ' idea of " acceptable risk " does not include the , pardon the misuse of the word , fallout from energy shortages as we run out of coal/oil/natural gas .
All reactors blowing up in Chernobyl all at once , and the resulting graphite fire burning unabated for a century + are nothing compared to what will happen when the fossil fuels will run out .
If , that is , we 're still in a situation where no high-density alternate power is available -- like from nuclear fission or fusion.The problem with " masses " is that they only include what they immediately recognize as dangerous in their risk analysis .
What they ignore is way more dangerous than the widely publicized snafus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The masses' idea of "acceptable risk" does not include the, pardon the misuse of the word, fallout from energy shortages as we run out of coal/oil/natural gas.
All reactors blowing up in Chernobyl all at once, and the resulting graphite fire burning unabated for a century+ are nothing compared to what will happen when the fossil fuels will run out.
If, that is, we're still in a situation where no high-density alternate power is available -- like from nuclear fission or fusion.The problem with "masses" is that they only include what they immediately recognize as dangerous in their risk analysis.
What they ignore is way more dangerous than the widely publicized snafus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579294</id>
	<title>Thorium Based Reactors have also been Mentioned</title>
	<author>this\_is\_art</author>
	<datestamp>1269277200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently read about renewed interest in thorium reactor technology, which was explored by AEC physicists during the 50's.  Supposedly the thorium/uranium technology burns hotter, is more efficient, and leaves behind much shorter lived isotopes in the waste stream, i.e 10's to 100's of years.  In any case, there are now a bunch of interesting reactor possibilities on the table that make the nuclear power discussion much more promising than the old, "more of the same is good enough and safe enough, so just trust us."

Regards</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently read about renewed interest in thorium reactor technology , which was explored by AEC physicists during the 50 's .
Supposedly the thorium/uranium technology burns hotter , is more efficient , and leaves behind much shorter lived isotopes in the waste stream , i.e 10 's to 100 's of years .
In any case , there are now a bunch of interesting reactor possibilities on the table that make the nuclear power discussion much more promising than the old , " more of the same is good enough and safe enough , so just trust us .
" Regards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently read about renewed interest in thorium reactor technology, which was explored by AEC physicists during the 50's.
Supposedly the thorium/uranium technology burns hotter, is more efficient, and leaves behind much shorter lived isotopes in the waste stream, i.e 10's to 100's of years.
In any case, there are now a bunch of interesting reactor possibilities on the table that make the nuclear power discussion much more promising than the old, "more of the same is good enough and safe enough, so just trust us.
"

Regards</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576550</id>
	<title>So I heard!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269257220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill\_gates.html" title="ted.com">this</a> [ted.com]</p><p>You might not like Gates because of Windows, but if you're a fan of nuclear power this might stop your assassination attempt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch this [ ted.com ] You might not like Gates because of Windows , but if you 're a fan of nuclear power this might stop your assassination attempt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch this [ted.com]You might not like Gates because of Windows, but if you're a fan of nuclear power this might stop your assassination attempt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577458</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, for about a millisecond...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269262140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, yes, it would all fit into an Olympic swimming pool. For about a millisecond. Then it would go critical, and your swimming pool would be an area the size of texas covered in a very thin layer of radioactive waste, plus a big glass pit in the middle.</p></div><p>My lungs! The snorkel DOES NOTHING!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , yes , it would all fit into an Olympic swimming pool .
For about a millisecond .
Then it would go critical , and your swimming pool would be an area the size of texas covered in a very thin layer of radioactive waste , plus a big glass pit in the middle.My lungs !
The snorkel DOES NOTHING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, yes, it would all fit into an Olympic swimming pool.
For about a millisecond.
Then it would go critical, and your swimming pool would be an area the size of texas covered in a very thin layer of radioactive waste, plus a big glass pit in the middle.My lungs!
The snorkel DOES NOTHING!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577072</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1269259860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The anti-nuclear group will always come up with something to deter nuclear plants from taking off.</p></div><p>Sure, but there are detractors for almost all ideas, good and bad.  There are people who hate animal testing.  We're still going to continue making sure medicines are safe though.  Animal testing is one of the only real ways to do that, like it or not.  Furthermore, good ideas don't implement themselves even when there's not vague misgivings about them, as there is with nuclear power.  Most people don't know why chernobyl happened, they think it's inherent to nuclear power.  That could be changed, it would just require investing in an awareness campaign.  I guess that's more investment than anyone is willing to do.</p><p>To sum up, I see public ignorance, not an active anti-nuclear group, preventing nuclear power from taking off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The anti-nuclear group will always come up with something to deter nuclear plants from taking off.Sure , but there are detractors for almost all ideas , good and bad .
There are people who hate animal testing .
We 're still going to continue making sure medicines are safe though .
Animal testing is one of the only real ways to do that , like it or not .
Furthermore , good ideas do n't implement themselves even when there 's not vague misgivings about them , as there is with nuclear power .
Most people do n't know why chernobyl happened , they think it 's inherent to nuclear power .
That could be changed , it would just require investing in an awareness campaign .
I guess that 's more investment than anyone is willing to do.To sum up , I see public ignorance , not an active anti-nuclear group , preventing nuclear power from taking off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The anti-nuclear group will always come up with something to deter nuclear plants from taking off.Sure, but there are detractors for almost all ideas, good and bad.
There are people who hate animal testing.
We're still going to continue making sure medicines are safe though.
Animal testing is one of the only real ways to do that, like it or not.
Furthermore, good ideas don't implement themselves even when there's not vague misgivings about them, as there is with nuclear power.
Most people don't know why chernobyl happened, they think it's inherent to nuclear power.
That could be changed, it would just require investing in an awareness campaign.
I guess that's more investment than anyone is willing to do.To sum up, I see public ignorance, not an active anti-nuclear group, preventing nuclear power from taking off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576944</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>zero0ne</author>
	<datestamp>1269259140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Bill Gate's talk @ TED about the Travelling Wave <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling\_wave\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Reactor</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>How does that compare to this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Bill Gate 's talk @ TED about the Travelling Wave Reactor [ wikipedia.org ] How does that compare to this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Bill Gate's talk @ TED about the Travelling Wave Reactor [wikipedia.org]How does that compare to this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581096</id>
	<title>Re:The problem??</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269343800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>After 99\% of the waste is eliminated, the 1\% left is the pure blood of Cthulhu ready to make mankind wilt in horror??</i>

<p>Pretty much, actually. It's absolutely hideous, but there's not much of it and it's short-lived.

</p><p>Radioactives work that way. Radioactivity comes from the decay of unstable atomic nuclei. The more frequently decay events happen, the more intense the radioactivity, and the shorter the half-life. Uranium dug up from the ground is only mildly radioactive, but stays that way for billions of years; some of the byproducts of nuclear fission are intensely radioactive but only stay that way for a matter of days, and other byproducts are of intermediate radioactivity and stay that way for millennia. A spent fuel rod is mostly still uranium, but mixed in with all kinds of other byproducts. The idea here is to extract the uranium for fresh fuel, break down the longer-lived stuff and get energy out of it by doing so, and finally end up with a small amount of waste which is viciously radioactive <i>now</i>, but which has a half-life so short that it's less radioactive than the original uranium we dug up after maybe a century or so.

</p><p>It reduces the volume of waste dramatically, and it reduces the amount of time it has to be stored too - no more worrying about how to store it safely for ten thousand years and whether civilisation will still be around or the English language spoken and how to protect Mad Max's ignorant great-grandchildren from our wastes. Great news, right? Trouble is, it's tricky to do, and by tricky I mean expensive, so it hasn't really been done on a large scale. Especially since the last couple of decades have seen massive nuclear disarmament which has flooded the market with plutonium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After 99 \ % of the waste is eliminated , the 1 \ % left is the pure blood of Cthulhu ready to make mankind wilt in horror ? ?
Pretty much , actually .
It 's absolutely hideous , but there 's not much of it and it 's short-lived .
Radioactives work that way .
Radioactivity comes from the decay of unstable atomic nuclei .
The more frequently decay events happen , the more intense the radioactivity , and the shorter the half-life .
Uranium dug up from the ground is only mildly radioactive , but stays that way for billions of years ; some of the byproducts of nuclear fission are intensely radioactive but only stay that way for a matter of days , and other byproducts are of intermediate radioactivity and stay that way for millennia .
A spent fuel rod is mostly still uranium , but mixed in with all kinds of other byproducts .
The idea here is to extract the uranium for fresh fuel , break down the longer-lived stuff and get energy out of it by doing so , and finally end up with a small amount of waste which is viciously radioactive now , but which has a half-life so short that it 's less radioactive than the original uranium we dug up after maybe a century or so .
It reduces the volume of waste dramatically , and it reduces the amount of time it has to be stored too - no more worrying about how to store it safely for ten thousand years and whether civilisation will still be around or the English language spoken and how to protect Mad Max 's ignorant great-grandchildren from our wastes .
Great news , right ?
Trouble is , it 's tricky to do , and by tricky I mean expensive , so it has n't really been done on a large scale .
Especially since the last couple of decades have seen massive nuclear disarmament which has flooded the market with plutonium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After 99\% of the waste is eliminated, the 1\% left is the pure blood of Cthulhu ready to make mankind wilt in horror??
Pretty much, actually.
It's absolutely hideous, but there's not much of it and it's short-lived.
Radioactives work that way.
Radioactivity comes from the decay of unstable atomic nuclei.
The more frequently decay events happen, the more intense the radioactivity, and the shorter the half-life.
Uranium dug up from the ground is only mildly radioactive, but stays that way for billions of years; some of the byproducts of nuclear fission are intensely radioactive but only stay that way for a matter of days, and other byproducts are of intermediate radioactivity and stay that way for millennia.
A spent fuel rod is mostly still uranium, but mixed in with all kinds of other byproducts.
The idea here is to extract the uranium for fresh fuel, break down the longer-lived stuff and get energy out of it by doing so, and finally end up with a small amount of waste which is viciously radioactive now, but which has a half-life so short that it's less radioactive than the original uranium we dug up after maybe a century or so.
It reduces the volume of waste dramatically, and it reduces the amount of time it has to be stored too - no more worrying about how to store it safely for ten thousand years and whether civilisation will still be around or the English language spoken and how to protect Mad Max's ignorant great-grandchildren from our wastes.
Great news, right?
Trouble is, it's tricky to do, and by tricky I mean expensive, so it hasn't really been done on a large scale.
Especially since the last couple of decades have seen massive nuclear disarmament which has flooded the market with plutonium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580804</id>
	<title>Re:See?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269340200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But you've been completely wrong, it's exactly like calling what you excrete food.</p> </div><p>What I excrete becomes food for plants after sitting around for just one year. It's literally true in my case because my house has a septic system. My crap keeps the grass real green in a certain portion of the lawn.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the things about some newer designs is they are nowhere near as fussy about their fuel, so a shortage of high purity Uranium ore doesn't matter to them,</p></div><p>Kind of like how the grass on my lawn isn't picky about <em>its</em> food, either.</p><p>Shit <em>is</em> food, just not for people. Nuclear waste <em>is</em> fuel, just not for current reactors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you 've been completely wrong , it 's exactly like calling what you excrete food .
What I excrete becomes food for plants after sitting around for just one year .
It 's literally true in my case because my house has a septic system .
My crap keeps the grass real green in a certain portion of the lawn.One of the things about some newer designs is they are nowhere near as fussy about their fuel , so a shortage of high purity Uranium ore does n't matter to them,Kind of like how the grass on my lawn is n't picky about its food , either.Shit is food , just not for people .
Nuclear waste is fuel , just not for current reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you've been completely wrong, it's exactly like calling what you excrete food.
What I excrete becomes food for plants after sitting around for just one year.
It's literally true in my case because my house has a septic system.
My crap keeps the grass real green in a certain portion of the lawn.One of the things about some newer designs is they are nowhere near as fussy about their fuel, so a shortage of high purity Uranium ore doesn't matter to them,Kind of like how the grass on my lawn isn't picky about its food, either.Shit is food, just not for people.
Nuclear waste is fuel, just not for current reactors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576980</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1269259320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because they hate progress, not nuclear power. If the general public could understand who really apposes Nuclear power and their reasons are simply that they want to return us to some mythical agrarian society where everyone lives off vegetables they grow in their back yards and spends the evening reading books and listening to bluegrass, I think we might have a chance. But as-is they just associate any nuclear reaction with BOMB and all the sheep get scared.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they hate progress , not nuclear power .
If the general public could understand who really apposes Nuclear power and their reasons are simply that they want to return us to some mythical agrarian society where everyone lives off vegetables they grow in their back yards and spends the evening reading books and listening to bluegrass , I think we might have a chance .
But as-is they just associate any nuclear reaction with BOMB and all the sheep get scared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they hate progress, not nuclear power.
If the general public could understand who really apposes Nuclear power and their reasons are simply that they want to return us to some mythical agrarian society where everyone lives off vegetables they grow in their back yards and spends the evening reading books and listening to bluegrass, I think we might have a chance.
But as-is they just associate any nuclear reaction with BOMB and all the sheep get scared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580422</id>
	<title>I'm kind of pro-nuclear power, but ...</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1269335220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... WTF are these guys smoking?</p><p>Actinides aren't the big problem as far as nuclear waste is concerned - fission products are. Especially the long-lived ones that are very mobile in the environment, easy to incorporate (iodine, cesium, strontium) and basically impossible to separate from the rest of the waste chemically (unlike actinides). Heck, many actinides are actually nuclear fuel or could be turned into nuclear fuel. Fission products are just nasty, deadly poisons.</p><p>That's why I'd rather spend more on researching fusion power - you'll still end up with some radioactive waste, but you have some degree of control over its composition and you will not create any of the problematic isotopes mentioned above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... WTF are these guys smoking ? Actinides are n't the big problem as far as nuclear waste is concerned - fission products are .
Especially the long-lived ones that are very mobile in the environment , easy to incorporate ( iodine , cesium , strontium ) and basically impossible to separate from the rest of the waste chemically ( unlike actinides ) .
Heck , many actinides are actually nuclear fuel or could be turned into nuclear fuel .
Fission products are just nasty , deadly poisons.That 's why I 'd rather spend more on researching fusion power - you 'll still end up with some radioactive waste , but you have some degree of control over its composition and you will not create any of the problematic isotopes mentioned above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... WTF are these guys smoking?Actinides aren't the big problem as far as nuclear waste is concerned - fission products are.
Especially the long-lived ones that are very mobile in the environment, easy to incorporate (iodine, cesium, strontium) and basically impossible to separate from the rest of the waste chemically (unlike actinides).
Heck, many actinides are actually nuclear fuel or could be turned into nuclear fuel.
Fission products are just nasty, deadly poisons.That's why I'd rather spend more on researching fusion power - you'll still end up with some radioactive waste, but you have some degree of control over its composition and you will not create any of the problematic isotopes mentioned above.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577318</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Shimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1269261240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or is this fission, where they convert the actinides into other less-dangerous elements via fission?</p></div><p>It's not really so much induced fission as in a normal reactor, it's that you push the isotopes past the point where they are long term active into really unstable ones. It's like a fast breeder reactor in reverse. Since they are French, they are probably talking about using a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER" title="wikipedia.org">magnetic confined fusion reactor</a> [wikipedia.org] as the neutron source.</p><p>The 'burn up' analogy isn't bad really. Partially burnt products of normal combustion like soot and carbon monoxide are toxic. Add more oxygen and heat, and the problem goes away (mostly).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is this fission , where they convert the actinides into other less-dangerous elements via fission ? It 's not really so much induced fission as in a normal reactor , it 's that you push the isotopes past the point where they are long term active into really unstable ones .
It 's like a fast breeder reactor in reverse .
Since they are French , they are probably talking about using a magnetic confined fusion reactor [ wikipedia.org ] as the neutron source.The 'burn up ' analogy is n't bad really .
Partially burnt products of normal combustion like soot and carbon monoxide are toxic .
Add more oxygen and heat , and the problem goes away ( mostly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is this fission, where they convert the actinides into other less-dangerous elements via fission?It's not really so much induced fission as in a normal reactor, it's that you push the isotopes past the point where they are long term active into really unstable ones.
It's like a fast breeder reactor in reverse.
Since they are French, they are probably talking about using a magnetic confined fusion reactor [wikipedia.org] as the neutron source.The 'burn up' analogy isn't bad really.
Partially burnt products of normal combustion like soot and carbon monoxide are toxic.
Add more oxygen and heat, and the problem goes away (mostly).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577376</id>
	<title>Re:and yet</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1269261540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enough energy falls on the surface of the earth from the sun every day to power the US for a year - capturing and harnessing that energy is the tricky part. Even if you can only grab a small part of that energy, it is still more than "adept" as powering much more than just calculators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enough energy falls on the surface of the earth from the sun every day to power the US for a year - capturing and harnessing that energy is the tricky part .
Even if you can only grab a small part of that energy , it is still more than " adept " as powering much more than just calculators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enough energy falls on the surface of the earth from the sun every day to power the US for a year - capturing and harnessing that energy is the tricky part.
Even if you can only grab a small part of that energy, it is still more than "adept" as powering much more than just calculators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581036</id>
	<title>Re:See?</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1269343020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But you've been completely wrong, it's exactly like calling what you excrete food.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=biogas+lilla+edet" title="google.com">around here</a> [google.com] you might not eat what your excrete but you can drive your car on it. Or your tractor if you happen to be a farmer, have enough livestock and ignore the stupid tax laws which still keep farmers from running their machinery on locally produced biogas...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you 've been completely wrong , it 's exactly like calling what you excrete food.Well , around here [ google.com ] you might not eat what your excrete but you can drive your car on it .
Or your tractor if you happen to be a farmer , have enough livestock and ignore the stupid tax laws which still keep farmers from running their machinery on locally produced biogas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you've been completely wrong, it's exactly like calling what you excrete food.Well, around here [google.com] you might not eat what your excrete but you can drive your car on it.
Or your tractor if you happen to be a farmer, have enough livestock and ignore the stupid tax laws which still keep farmers from running their machinery on locally produced biogas...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581516</id>
	<title>It they had imposed population control back when</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269348120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the world had imposed population control back in the fifties to prevent it rising we would have hit all of the targets by now without changing anyone's living habits and we could be putting our energies into something more useful now, but no, people just insist on their right to breed like rabbits (and think like them too).</p><p>Would it have been practical? Of course. China was able to do it, why not the glorious capitalist west. We could have created a market in low children households with profit to be made by those who avoided having more than one or two. Zero benefit for households with three or more children. Higher rate tax for larger families. Of course it was doable. Now all you people with large families think the childless people ought to change their habits to save your children's future. Well get stuffed. I'm going on driving my four by four.</p><p>Before anyone starts moaning about civil liberties let me just say this; stuff em. When the bus is being driven towards a cliff, we don't have to consider the feelings of the driver as we wrestle the steering wheel from her grip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the world had imposed population control back in the fifties to prevent it rising we would have hit all of the targets by now without changing anyone 's living habits and we could be putting our energies into something more useful now , but no , people just insist on their right to breed like rabbits ( and think like them too ) .Would it have been practical ?
Of course .
China was able to do it , why not the glorious capitalist west .
We could have created a market in low children households with profit to be made by those who avoided having more than one or two .
Zero benefit for households with three or more children .
Higher rate tax for larger families .
Of course it was doable .
Now all you people with large families think the childless people ought to change their habits to save your children 's future .
Well get stuffed .
I 'm going on driving my four by four.Before anyone starts moaning about civil liberties let me just say this ; stuff em .
When the bus is being driven towards a cliff , we do n't have to consider the feelings of the driver as we wrestle the steering wheel from her grip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the world had imposed population control back in the fifties to prevent it rising we would have hit all of the targets by now without changing anyone's living habits and we could be putting our energies into something more useful now, but no, people just insist on their right to breed like rabbits (and think like them too).Would it have been practical?
Of course.
China was able to do it, why not the glorious capitalist west.
We could have created a market in low children households with profit to be made by those who avoided having more than one or two.
Zero benefit for households with three or more children.
Higher rate tax for larger families.
Of course it was doable.
Now all you people with large families think the childless people ought to change their habits to save your children's future.
Well get stuffed.
I'm going on driving my four by four.Before anyone starts moaning about civil liberties let me just say this; stuff em.
When the bus is being driven towards a cliff, we don't have to consider the feelings of the driver as we wrestle the steering wheel from her grip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577456</id>
	<title>Olypic swimming pool</title>
	<author>bjourne</author>
	<datestamp>1269262140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite the intentions of the summary to say otherwise, the volume of an olympic swimming pool is actually a lot. For example, all gold ever mined would also fit in an a pool of that size. The comparision is therefore meaningless. A better comparision would be the *area* required to safely store all that nuclear waste. That area is orders of magnitudes larger than the area of an olympic swimming pool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the intentions of the summary to say otherwise , the volume of an olympic swimming pool is actually a lot .
For example , all gold ever mined would also fit in an a pool of that size .
The comparision is therefore meaningless .
A better comparision would be the * area * required to safely store all that nuclear waste .
That area is orders of magnitudes larger than the area of an olympic swimming pool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the intentions of the summary to say otherwise, the volume of an olympic swimming pool is actually a lot.
For example, all gold ever mined would also fit in an a pool of that size.
The comparision is therefore meaningless.
A better comparision would be the *area* required to safely store all that nuclear waste.
That area is orders of magnitudes larger than the area of an olympic swimming pool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577070</id>
	<title>See?</title>
	<author>RoboRay</author>
	<datestamp>1269259860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us have been saying for decades that another way to say "nuclear waste" is "nuclear fuel."  The current view of "spent" fuel is akin to refining crude oil to make gasoline and then having to store all the waste diesel, fuel oil and other petroleum byproducts until the end of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us have been saying for decades that another way to say " nuclear waste " is " nuclear fuel .
" The current view of " spent " fuel is akin to refining crude oil to make gasoline and then having to store all the waste diesel , fuel oil and other petroleum byproducts until the end of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us have been saying for decades that another way to say "nuclear waste" is "nuclear fuel.
"  The current view of "spent" fuel is akin to refining crude oil to make gasoline and then having to store all the waste diesel, fuel oil and other petroleum byproducts until the end of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579214</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, for about a millisecond...</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1269276120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is it's easy to pick apart if you don't actually know what you're talking about. Gotcha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is it 's easy to pick apart if you do n't actually know what you 're talking about .
Gotcha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is it's easy to pick apart if you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Gotcha.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31587752</id>
	<title>Re: Just turn it off</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1269374340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone that seriously believes that we can get out of the current situation through "energy efficiency" is seriously deluded.  If there was a way to effectively (not even efficiently) store energy so that wind and solar could be used 24x7x365 we could have a chance at doing that.  But there isn't an effective way to store energy today and so with much of the load coming after 5PM in the US there is no way that wind or solar are going to really help all that much.</p><p>After 5PM is when people get home from work, turn on the cooking appliances, turn down the air conditioner (in the summer) and turn on the TV.  There is a huge load increase and it is way past the peak time for solar.  Wind?  Maybe, but the problem is that it is always "maybe".</p><p>The simple answer is to just turn it off.  If there isn't wind power available, no TV.  No computers, no Internet.  No air conditioning.  The US lived like that in the 1930s and the standard of living was a lot lower then so we could certainly get along.  Use ice instead of refrigeration. Use batteries.  Use whatever there is as long as it doesn't depend on a steady supply of electricity.</p><p>This would certainly be a "conservation" choice.  If it deterred some growth, some additional resource usage this too would be welcomed by folks that think we can conserve our way out of needing more electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone that seriously believes that we can get out of the current situation through " energy efficiency " is seriously deluded .
If there was a way to effectively ( not even efficiently ) store energy so that wind and solar could be used 24x7x365 we could have a chance at doing that .
But there is n't an effective way to store energy today and so with much of the load coming after 5PM in the US there is no way that wind or solar are going to really help all that much.After 5PM is when people get home from work , turn on the cooking appliances , turn down the air conditioner ( in the summer ) and turn on the TV .
There is a huge load increase and it is way past the peak time for solar .
Wind ? Maybe , but the problem is that it is always " maybe " .The simple answer is to just turn it off .
If there is n't wind power available , no TV .
No computers , no Internet .
No air conditioning .
The US lived like that in the 1930s and the standard of living was a lot lower then so we could certainly get along .
Use ice instead of refrigeration .
Use batteries .
Use whatever there is as long as it does n't depend on a steady supply of electricity.This would certainly be a " conservation " choice .
If it deterred some growth , some additional resource usage this too would be welcomed by folks that think we can conserve our way out of needing more electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone that seriously believes that we can get out of the current situation through "energy efficiency" is seriously deluded.
If there was a way to effectively (not even efficiently) store energy so that wind and solar could be used 24x7x365 we could have a chance at doing that.
But there isn't an effective way to store energy today and so with much of the load coming after 5PM in the US there is no way that wind or solar are going to really help all that much.After 5PM is when people get home from work, turn on the cooking appliances, turn down the air conditioner (in the summer) and turn on the TV.
There is a huge load increase and it is way past the peak time for solar.
Wind?  Maybe, but the problem is that it is always "maybe".The simple answer is to just turn it off.
If there isn't wind power available, no TV.
No computers, no Internet.
No air conditioning.
The US lived like that in the 1930s and the standard of living was a lot lower then so we could certainly get along.
Use ice instead of refrigeration.
Use batteries.
Use whatever there is as long as it doesn't depend on a steady supply of electricity.This would certainly be a "conservation" choice.
If it deterred some growth, some additional resource usage this too would be welcomed by folks that think we can conserve our way out of needing more electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31583298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581852</id>
	<title>Hummmmm.</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1269351060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The reactor destroys waste by firing streams of neutrons at it, reducing atomic waste by up to 99 percent!</p><p>I wonder when I hear this, is it going up in smoke into the atmosphere, or really disintegrating...<br>there is a difference, as the smoke could be toxic, and should it get out, contaminate the air,<br>where as disintegrating it, would mean exactly that, no longer exists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The reactor destroys waste by firing streams of neutrons at it , reducing atomic waste by up to 99 percent ! I wonder when I hear this , is it going up in smoke into the atmosphere , or really disintegrating...there is a difference , as the smoke could be toxic , and should it get out , contaminate the air,where as disintegrating it , would mean exactly that , no longer exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The reactor destroys waste by firing streams of neutrons at it, reducing atomic waste by up to 99 percent!I wonder when I hear this, is it going up in smoke into the atmosphere, or really disintegrating...there is a difference, as the smoke could be toxic, and should it get out, contaminate the air,where as disintegrating it, would mean exactly that, no longer exists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577060</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269259800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576498</id>
	<title>Too early for April fools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269256860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>French</em> Scientists?</p><p>A university in <em>Texas</em>?</p><p>I think you tried a little too hard on that one. Less is more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>French Scientists ? A university in Texas ? I think you tried a little too hard on that one .
Less is more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>French Scientists?A university in Texas?I think you tried a little too hard on that one.
Less is more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578126</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, for about a millisecond...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you are in fact, the only person on the planet, who upon reading that sentence imagined, in almost pornographic detail, the destruction of Texas.  If in fact, I am wrong and there were two of you, you were certainly without a doubt, the only one who imagined the glass pit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you are in fact , the only person on the planet , who upon reading that sentence imagined , in almost pornographic detail , the destruction of Texas .
If in fact , I am wrong and there were two of you , you were certainly without a doubt , the only one who imagined the glass pit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you are in fact, the only person on the planet, who upon reading that sentence imagined, in almost pornographic detail, the destruction of Texas.
If in fact, I am wrong and there were two of you, you were certainly without a doubt, the only one who imagined the glass pit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576596</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269257460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fission. They are fissioning minor actinides which normally do not completely fission. This needs a reactor with improved neutron economy (such as a fast reactor), because these MAs will need more than one neutron per atom to fission (usually they will first capture one more neutrons (transmuting in the process) before fissioning).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fission .
They are fissioning minor actinides which normally do not completely fission .
This needs a reactor with improved neutron economy ( such as a fast reactor ) , because these MAs will need more than one neutron per atom to fission ( usually they will first capture one more neutrons ( transmuting in the process ) before fissioning ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fission.
They are fissioning minor actinides which normally do not completely fission.
This needs a reactor with improved neutron economy (such as a fast reactor), because these MAs will need more than one neutron per atom to fission (usually they will first capture one more neutrons (transmuting in the process) before fissioning).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</id>
	<title>Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269256800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Planned Nuclear Reactors Will Destroy Atomic Waste</p></div></blockquote><p>Destroy as in convert matter to energy?</p><blockquote><div><p>a nuclear reactor that burns up actinides</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Wait, so it's a chemical reaction (rapid oxidation)?

</p><p>Or is this fission, where they convert the actinides into other less-dangerous elements via fission?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Planned Nuclear Reactors Will Destroy Atomic WasteDestroy as in convert matter to energy ? a nuclear reactor that burns up actinides Wait , so it 's a chemical reaction ( rapid oxidation ) ?
Or is this fission , where they convert the actinides into other less-dangerous elements via fission ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Planned Nuclear Reactors Will Destroy Atomic WasteDestroy as in convert matter to energy?a nuclear reactor that burns up actinides
Wait, so it's a chemical reaction (rapid oxidation)?
Or is this fission, where they convert the actinides into other less-dangerous elements via fission?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577302</id>
	<title>The anti-nukers still have a fall back position</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1269261060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That this thing pollutes by producing lead. (Which last I checked is the end product of alot of this stuff.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That this thing pollutes by producing lead .
( Which last I checked is the end product of alot of this stuff .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That this thing pollutes by producing lead.
(Which last I checked is the end product of alot of this stuff.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577298</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269261060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They just want to be able to say "Get off my lawn!" like their parents did!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They just want to be able to say " Get off my lawn !
" like their parents did !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just want to be able to say "Get off my lawn!
" like their parents did!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576852</id>
	<title>Wait...what's in the swimming pool?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269258720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the 1\% left over in the swimming pool, or is the 100\% prior to "burning up the actinides"? Also, where is this pool?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the 1 \ % left over in the swimming pool , or is the 100 \ % prior to " burning up the actinides " ?
Also , where is this pool ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the 1\% left over in the swimming pool, or is the 100\% prior to "burning up the actinides"?
Also, where is this pool?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31584328</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269361800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Destroy as in transmute (via neutron capture) to a non-radioactive element.</p><p>Most of these approaches (and they have been under consideration for a long time) involve seperating out the reusable uranium/plutonium and then transmuting the high radioactive leftovers.</p><p>Most of the high radioactive stuff doesn't fission to any significant degree, and even when atoms do fission only a very small amount of the mass is converted to energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Destroy as in transmute ( via neutron capture ) to a non-radioactive element.Most of these approaches ( and they have been under consideration for a long time ) involve seperating out the reusable uranium/plutonium and then transmuting the high radioactive leftovers.Most of the high radioactive stuff does n't fission to any significant degree , and even when atoms do fission only a very small amount of the mass is converted to energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Destroy as in transmute (via neutron capture) to a non-radioactive element.Most of these approaches (and they have been under consideration for a long time) involve seperating out the reusable uranium/plutonium and then transmuting the high radioactive leftovers.Most of the high radioactive stuff doesn't fission to any significant degree, and even when atoms do fission only a very small amount of the mass is converted to energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577338</id>
	<title>Dupe</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1269261300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Already discussed this more than a year ago.  <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1415200/Fusion-Fission-System-Burns-Hot-Radioactive-Waste" title="slashdot.org">http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1415200/Fusion-Fission-System-Burns-Hot-Radioactive-Waste</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Already discussed this more than a year ago .
http : //hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1415200/Fusion-Fission-System-Burns-Hot-Radioactive-Waste [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already discussed this more than a year ago.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1415200/Fusion-Fission-System-Burns-Hot-Radioactive-Waste [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581020</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Aradiel</author>
	<datestamp>1269342780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, it's a new iteration of those self-sustaining reactors we shut down years ago?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , it 's a new iteration of those self-sustaining reactors we shut down years ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, it's a new iteration of those self-sustaining reactors we shut down years ago?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577432</id>
	<title>Gotta love marketing</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1269262020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A process that doesn't work at all, or in fact that even makes it worse, can still fall under the marketing claim 'up to 99\%'. Think about it. The only way that claim can be false is if the marketing claim is EXCEEDED.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A process that does n't work at all , or in fact that even makes it worse , can still fall under the marketing claim 'up to 99 \ % ' .
Think about it .
The only way that claim can be false is if the marketing claim is EXCEEDED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A process that doesn't work at all, or in fact that even makes it worse, can still fall under the marketing claim 'up to 99\%'.
Think about it.
The only way that claim can be false is if the marketing claim is EXCEEDED.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576500</id>
	<title>LFTR</title>
	<author>Motor</author>
	<datestamp>1269256860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article doesn't make it clear which technology they are referring to... however <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8&amp;feature=channel" title="youtube.com">this google tech talk on LFTR</a> [youtube.com] is absolutely fascinating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't make it clear which technology they are referring to... however this google tech talk on LFTR [ youtube.com ] is absolutely fascinating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't make it clear which technology they are referring to... however this google tech talk on LFTR [youtube.com] is absolutely fascinating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576664</id>
	<title>and yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269257700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we will still waste time, effort, and money on solar which thus far has proven adept at powering calculators but not much else on the scale required for the energy needs of the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we will still waste time , effort , and money on solar which thus far has proven adept at powering calculators but not much else on the scale required for the energy needs of the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we will still waste time, effort, and money on solar which thus far has proven adept at powering calculators but not much else on the scale required for the energy needs of the planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578544</id>
	<title>Re:See?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1269269700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Some of us have been saying for decades that another way to say "nuclear waste" is "nuclear fuel."</p></div></blockquote><p>But you've been completely wrong, it's exactly like calling what you excrete food.  While there is plenty of energy that can be recovered from that it takes a lot of work or something else with a completely different digestive system.<br>The whole reason people have been saying for years that Uranium is running out is only because ore of very high purity was running out - there was a lot of other stuff but it was a lot more expensive to turn it into fuel.<br>One of the things about some newer designs is they are nowhere near as fussy about their fuel, so a shortage of high purity Uranium ore doesn't matter to them, or they can use retired or stockpiled weapon material, or even some kinds of waste.  It's a lot better than the reprocessing attempts by the French over the last thirty years that resulted in fuel a lot more expensive than making new fuel from ore in the first place - use something that can use the waste without so much reprocessing instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us have been saying for decades that another way to say " nuclear waste " is " nuclear fuel .
" But you 've been completely wrong , it 's exactly like calling what you excrete food .
While there is plenty of energy that can be recovered from that it takes a lot of work or something else with a completely different digestive system.The whole reason people have been saying for years that Uranium is running out is only because ore of very high purity was running out - there was a lot of other stuff but it was a lot more expensive to turn it into fuel.One of the things about some newer designs is they are nowhere near as fussy about their fuel , so a shortage of high purity Uranium ore does n't matter to them , or they can use retired or stockpiled weapon material , or even some kinds of waste .
It 's a lot better than the reprocessing attempts by the French over the last thirty years that resulted in fuel a lot more expensive than making new fuel from ore in the first place - use something that can use the waste without so much reprocessing instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us have been saying for decades that another way to say "nuclear waste" is "nuclear fuel.
"But you've been completely wrong, it's exactly like calling what you excrete food.
While there is plenty of energy that can be recovered from that it takes a lot of work or something else with a completely different digestive system.The whole reason people have been saying for years that Uranium is running out is only because ore of very high purity was running out - there was a lot of other stuff but it was a lot more expensive to turn it into fuel.One of the things about some newer designs is they are nowhere near as fussy about their fuel, so a shortage of high purity Uranium ore doesn't matter to them, or they can use retired or stockpiled weapon material, or even some kinds of waste.
It's a lot better than the reprocessing attempts by the French over the last thirty years that resulted in fuel a lot more expensive than making new fuel from ore in the first place - use something that can use the waste without so much reprocessing instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31584046</id>
	<title>Re:The anti-nukers still have a fall back position</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269360780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All car batteries for internal combustion autos use lead-acid batteries. There are other uses for lead as well, which is why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe\_Run\_Company" title="wikipedia.org">it's mined</a> [wikipedia.org] in Missouri.</p><blockquote><div><p>Doe Run has been cited regularly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for infringing emission limits, contaminating roads and generally polluting the immediate vicinity of the smelter[7]. Exceeding of emission limits has resulted in the reduction of the permitted capacity of the Herculaneum smelter[1]. Road contamination has resulted in orders to clean up certain roads and to wash down vehicles before they go onto public roads[8]. The company has also been ordered by the EPA to address issues relating to elevated lead blood levels in the community and lead in community soils adjacent to the smelter. It has also spent US$10.4 million on buying up to 160 residential properties close to the smelter that are contaminated and is to clean up contaminated soils[9].</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All car batteries for internal combustion autos use lead-acid batteries .
There are other uses for lead as well , which is why it 's mined [ wikipedia.org ] in Missouri.Doe Run has been cited regularly by the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) for infringing emission limits , contaminating roads and generally polluting the immediate vicinity of the smelter [ 7 ] .
Exceeding of emission limits has resulted in the reduction of the permitted capacity of the Herculaneum smelter [ 1 ] .
Road contamination has resulted in orders to clean up certain roads and to wash down vehicles before they go onto public roads [ 8 ] .
The company has also been ordered by the EPA to address issues relating to elevated lead blood levels in the community and lead in community soils adjacent to the smelter .
It has also spent US $ 10.4 million on buying up to 160 residential properties close to the smelter that are contaminated and is to clean up contaminated soils [ 9 ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All car batteries for internal combustion autos use lead-acid batteries.
There are other uses for lead as well, which is why it's mined [wikipedia.org] in Missouri.Doe Run has been cited regularly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for infringing emission limits, contaminating roads and generally polluting the immediate vicinity of the smelter[7].
Exceeding of emission limits has resulted in the reduction of the permitted capacity of the Herculaneum smelter[1].
Road contamination has resulted in orders to clean up certain roads and to wash down vehicles before they go onto public roads[8].
The company has also been ordered by the EPA to address issues relating to elevated lead blood levels in the community and lead in community soils adjacent to the smelter.
It has also spent US$10.4 million on buying up to 160 residential properties close to the smelter that are contaminated and is to clean up contaminated soils[9].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577638</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>domatic</author>
	<datestamp>1269263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if chucking in a few hippies might help the efficiency of the whole operation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if chucking in a few hippies might help the efficiency of the whole operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if chucking in a few hippies might help the efficiency of the whole operation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579300</id>
	<title>Will Corporation making promise guarantee it</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1269277260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the corporation trying to sell this reactor design guarantee it's promises will be backed up with real cash.</p><p>NO! Not one has. Not one corporation has stood behind a reactor it built through decommissioning. They spin off the property the reactor sits on to a subsidiary, and let spun off subsidiary go bankrupt.</p><p>Every damn one of these power utilities that has built a nuclear reactor has abandoned the reactors along with and the cost for decommissioning the reactors on the US Federal Government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the corporation trying to sell this reactor design guarantee it 's promises will be backed up with real cash.NO !
Not one has .
Not one corporation has stood behind a reactor it built through decommissioning .
They spin off the property the reactor sits on to a subsidiary , and let spun off subsidiary go bankrupt.Every damn one of these power utilities that has built a nuclear reactor has abandoned the reactors along with and the cost for decommissioning the reactors on the US Federal Government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the corporation trying to sell this reactor design guarantee it's promises will be backed up with real cash.NO!
Not one has.
Not one corporation has stood behind a reactor it built through decommissioning.
They spin off the property the reactor sits on to a subsidiary, and let spun off subsidiary go bankrupt.Every damn one of these power utilities that has built a nuclear reactor has abandoned the reactors along with and the cost for decommissioning the reactors on the US Federal Government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31615550</id>
	<title>Re:Too early for April fools</title>
	<author>bigkahunah</author>
	<datestamp>1269547560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The University of Texas in Austin is perennially ranked among the top engineering institutions in the country.  I think you are trying a little too hard to blindly spew ignorant generalizations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The University of Texas in Austin is perennially ranked among the top engineering institutions in the country .
I think you are trying a little too hard to blindly spew ignorant generalizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The University of Texas in Austin is perennially ranked among the top engineering institutions in the country.
I think you are trying a little too hard to blindly spew ignorant generalizations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579904</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm, this sounds like what the Canadian CANDU reactors can do... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu#Fuel\_cycles)</p><p>The CANDU not only "burns" thorium, plutonium, actinides, nuclear waste, regular uranium fuel, enriched uranium fuel and natural uranium but it basically "breeds" tritium which is going to be a really good thing if we ever expect D-T fusion power plants to succeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , this sounds like what the Canadian CANDU reactors can do... ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu # Fuel \ _cycles ) The CANDU not only " burns " thorium , plutonium , actinides , nuclear waste , regular uranium fuel , enriched uranium fuel and natural uranium but it basically " breeds " tritium which is going to be a really good thing if we ever expect D-T fusion power plants to succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, this sounds like what the Canadian CANDU reactors can do... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu#Fuel\_cycles)The CANDU not only "burns" thorium, plutonium, actinides, nuclear waste, regular uranium fuel, enriched uranium fuel and natural uranium but it basically "breeds" tritium which is going to be a really good thing if we ever expect D-T fusion power plants to succeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578372</id>
	<title>Is this the "new" nuclear physics?</title>
	<author>Kazymyr</author>
	<datestamp>1269268260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...actinides -- highly radioactive uranium isotopes that are the waste products of nuclear fission inside a reactor"</p><p>Really?</p><p>Whoo boy.</p><p>I wasn't aware nuclear physics had been rewritten to that extent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...actinides -- highly radioactive uranium isotopes that are the waste products of nuclear fission inside a reactor " Really ? Whoo boy.I was n't aware nuclear physics had been rewritten to that extent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...actinides -- highly radioactive uranium isotopes that are the waste products of nuclear fission inside a reactor"Really?Whoo boy.I wasn't aware nuclear physics had been rewritten to that extent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580216</id>
	<title>Radioactive isotope transmutation isn't "new".</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1269374760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have known how to do it for several decades.  Scientists at Los Alamos have an active program on using accelerators to transmute nuclear waste, e.g.
<a href="http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/science21/ATW.html" title="lanl.gov">http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/science21/ATW.html</a> [lanl.gov]
and books have been published on the topic, e.g.
<a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record\_id=4912" title="nap.edu">http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record\_id=4912</a> [nap.edu]
</p><p>
The problem is simply deciding to build the required facilities and incorporate the cost of making the radioactive material non-radioactive into the cost of producing electricity (which I suspect is the toughest hurdle).
</p><p>
It is also worth noting that if real molecular nanotechnology were available the "separation" part of the equation (producing a stream of pure radioactive isotope ions) would be much easier (and presumably cheaper).  All concern regarding long term storage of radioactive isotopes is completely pointless since we will have the technology within this century to completely get rid of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have known how to do it for several decades .
Scientists at Los Alamos have an active program on using accelerators to transmute nuclear waste , e.g .
http : //www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/science21/ATW.html [ lanl.gov ] and books have been published on the topic , e.g .
http : //www.nap.edu/catalog.php ? record \ _id = 4912 [ nap.edu ] The problem is simply deciding to build the required facilities and incorporate the cost of making the radioactive material non-radioactive into the cost of producing electricity ( which I suspect is the toughest hurdle ) .
It is also worth noting that if real molecular nanotechnology were available the " separation " part of the equation ( producing a stream of pure radioactive isotope ions ) would be much easier ( and presumably cheaper ) .
All concern regarding long term storage of radioactive isotopes is completely pointless since we will have the technology within this century to completely get rid of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have known how to do it for several decades.
Scientists at Los Alamos have an active program on using accelerators to transmute nuclear waste, e.g.
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/science21/ATW.html [lanl.gov]
and books have been published on the topic, e.g.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record\_id=4912 [nap.edu]

The problem is simply deciding to build the required facilities and incorporate the cost of making the radioactive material non-radioactive into the cost of producing electricity (which I suspect is the toughest hurdle).
It is also worth noting that if real molecular nanotechnology were available the "separation" part of the equation (producing a stream of pure radioactive isotope ions) would be much easier (and presumably cheaper).
All concern regarding long term storage of radioactive isotopes is completely pointless since we will have the technology within this century to completely get rid of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577006</id>
	<title>in soviet russia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269259500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in soviet russia, nuclear waste will destroy you</p><p>(sad but true i guess)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in soviet russia , nuclear waste will destroy you ( sad but true i guess )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in soviet russia, nuclear waste will destroy you(sad but true i guess)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577104</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1269260100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea is that the fission releases most of its energy as neutrons, and these neutrons would get captured by heavy nuclei, which would then undergo either an alpha or beta decay and end up as something non-radioactive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is that the fission releases most of its energy as neutrons , and these neutrons would get captured by heavy nuclei , which would then undergo either an alpha or beta decay and end up as something non-radioactive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea is that the fission releases most of its energy as neutrons, and these neutrons would get captured by heavy nuclei, which would then undergo either an alpha or beta decay and end up as something non-radioactive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31582884</id>
	<title>RE: Fusion - More  Hypefull than Hopefull</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269355980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This process requires fusion &amp; was even mentioned at the end of this Scientific American podcast.The podcast points out that fusion's PR about the hoped for "break even point" is somewhat misleading - to put it mildly.<br> <br>

Fusion's False Dawn episode page<br>
<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=wheres-my-fusion-reactor-10-03-17" title="scientificamerican.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=wheres-my-fusion-reactor-10-03-17</a> [scientificamerican.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This process requires fusion &amp; was even mentioned at the end of this Scientific American podcast.The podcast points out that fusion 's PR about the hoped for " break even point " is somewhat misleading - to put it mildly .
Fusion 's False Dawn episode page http : //www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm ? id = wheres-my-fusion-reactor-10-03-17 [ scientificamerican.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This process requires fusion &amp; was even mentioned at the end of this Scientific American podcast.The podcast points out that fusion's PR about the hoped for "break even point" is somewhat misleading - to put it mildly.
Fusion's False Dawn episode page
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=wheres-my-fusion-reactor-10-03-17 [scientificamerican.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580272</id>
	<title>Re:Yea and what about that 1\%</title>
	<author>kronosopher</author>
	<datestamp>1269375540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's always <b>1984</b>!</p></div><p>there, fixed that for you</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's always 1984 ! there , fixed that for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's always 1984!there, fixed that for you
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166</id>
	<title>Yeah, sure, for about a millisecond...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269260460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They estimate that 'the volume of high-level nuclear waste produced by all of France&rsquo;s 58 reactors over the past 40 years could fit in one Olympic-size swimming pool.'</p></div> </blockquote><p>Why do the nuclear industry always trot out these cutesy metaphors?   They're so easy to pick fun of that even people who are reasonably friendly toward the industry can't resist.   I mean, yes, it would all fit into an Olympic swimming pool.   For about a millisecond.   Then it would go critical, and your swimming pool would be an area the size of texas covered in a very thin layer of radioactive waste, plus a big glass pit in the middle.   Or maybe not--I don't actually know if such a pile would go critical, but am I not the only one into whose mind this image sprung the moment we read the metaphor?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They estimate that 'the volume of high-level nuclear waste produced by all of France    s 58 reactors over the past 40 years could fit in one Olympic-size swimming pool .
' Why do the nuclear industry always trot out these cutesy metaphors ?
They 're so easy to pick fun of that even people who are reasonably friendly toward the industry ca n't resist .
I mean , yes , it would all fit into an Olympic swimming pool .
For about a millisecond .
Then it would go critical , and your swimming pool would be an area the size of texas covered in a very thin layer of radioactive waste , plus a big glass pit in the middle .
Or maybe not--I do n't actually know if such a pile would go critical , but am I not the only one into whose mind this image sprung the moment we read the metaphor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They estimate that 'the volume of high-level nuclear waste produced by all of France’s 58 reactors over the past 40 years could fit in one Olympic-size swimming pool.
' Why do the nuclear industry always trot out these cutesy metaphors?
They're so easy to pick fun of that even people who are reasonably friendly toward the industry can't resist.
I mean, yes, it would all fit into an Olympic swimming pool.
For about a millisecond.
Then it would go critical, and your swimming pool would be an area the size of texas covered in a very thin layer of radioactive waste, plus a big glass pit in the middle.
Or maybe not--I don't actually know if such a pile would go critical, but am I not the only one into whose mind this image sprung the moment we read the metaphor?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577044</id>
	<title>Re:and yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269259680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lol, idiots like you always make me laugh when you completely ignore any advances made by solar in the past several years. Also forgetting that part of the problem for large scale is land requirements</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lol , idiots like you always make me laugh when you completely ignore any advances made by solar in the past several years .
Also forgetting that part of the problem for large scale is land requirements</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lol, idiots like you always make me laugh when you completely ignore any advances made by solar in the past several years.
Also forgetting that part of the problem for large scale is land requirements</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31584450</id>
	<title>Re:Converts to energy? Burns? Or fissions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article describes both outfits as working on using a fusion-neutron source to irradiate the actinides, eventually converting them to fissionable isotopes, which would then fission.</p><p>The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) and Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) are two deep-burn reactor types that do the same thing.  I'm somewhat partial to the MSR myself, because while it needs fissile material to start up ("spent" Uranium, AKA nuclear waste, will do), once going it can use Thorium (three times as plentiful as Uranium), unenriched Uranium, and even depleted Uranium.  Clean up our nuclear waste and use up all that depleted Uranium we have left in storage, while providing "carbon-free" power.</p><p>The energy return on "burning" Uranium and Thorium is so high, it would actually pay to extract them from rock, even if richer ores weren't available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article describes both outfits as working on using a fusion-neutron source to irradiate the actinides , eventually converting them to fissionable isotopes , which would then fission.The Integral Fast Reactor ( IFR ) and Molten Salt Reactor ( MSR ) are two deep-burn reactor types that do the same thing .
I 'm somewhat partial to the MSR myself , because while it needs fissile material to start up ( " spent " Uranium , AKA nuclear waste , will do ) , once going it can use Thorium ( three times as plentiful as Uranium ) , unenriched Uranium , and even depleted Uranium .
Clean up our nuclear waste and use up all that depleted Uranium we have left in storage , while providing " carbon-free " power.The energy return on " burning " Uranium and Thorium is so high , it would actually pay to extract them from rock , even if richer ores were n't available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article describes both outfits as working on using a fusion-neutron source to irradiate the actinides, eventually converting them to fissionable isotopes, which would then fission.The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) and Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) are two deep-burn reactor types that do the same thing.
I'm somewhat partial to the MSR myself, because while it needs fissile material to start up ("spent" Uranium, AKA nuclear waste, will do), once going it can use Thorium (three times as plentiful as Uranium), unenriched Uranium, and even depleted Uranium.
Clean up our nuclear waste and use up all that depleted Uranium we have left in storage, while providing "carbon-free" power.The energy return on "burning" Uranium and Thorium is so high, it would actually pay to extract them from rock, even if richer ores weren't available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577970</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, for about a millisecond...</title>
	<author>shermo</author>
	<datestamp>1269265320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More importantly, have you ever tried to swim the length of an Olympic sized swimming pool? Those things are BIG, man.</p><p>Yes I did fail swimming howdidyouknow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , have you ever tried to swim the length of an Olympic sized swimming pool ?
Those things are BIG , man.Yes I did fail swimming howdidyouknow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, have you ever tried to swim the length of an Olympic sized swimming pool?
Those things are BIG, man.Yes I did fail swimming howdidyouknow?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577020</id>
	<title>Greenpeace</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1269259560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to go upstairs and find the nearest Greenpeace doom-sayer (I work on a Uni campus, there's usually 2-3 around trying to snag them some suckers) and hand them a print out of this. Lately they've been deriding Obama's nuclear power policy.</p><p>Of course they'd probably call me a tree killer, you can't ever win with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to go upstairs and find the nearest Greenpeace doom-sayer ( I work on a Uni campus , there 's usually 2-3 around trying to snag them some suckers ) and hand them a print out of this .
Lately they 've been deriding Obama 's nuclear power policy.Of course they 'd probably call me a tree killer , you ca n't ever win with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to go upstairs and find the nearest Greenpeace doom-sayer (I work on a Uni campus, there's usually 2-3 around trying to snag them some suckers) and hand them a print out of this.
Lately they've been deriding Obama's nuclear power policy.Of course they'd probably call me a tree killer, you can't ever win with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580580</id>
	<title>Re:LFTR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269337620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The article doesn't make it clear which technology they are referring to...</p></div><p>The earlier<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article is better. They are talking about putting a fission jacket round a 'conventional' fusion reactor. The French are hosting the next generation Tokamak, ITER.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't make it clear which technology they are referring to...The earlier / .
article is better .
They are talking about putting a fission jacket round a 'conventional ' fusion reactor .
The French are hosting the next generation Tokamak , ITER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't make it clear which technology they are referring to...The earlier /.
article is better.
They are talking about putting a fission jacket round a 'conventional' fusion reactor.
The French are hosting the next generation Tokamak, ITER.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31588092</id>
	<title>Re:21st Century version of "Too Cheap to Meter"</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1269375900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the next best thing would be employing all the unemployed to pedal stationary bicycles to generate electricity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the next best thing would be employing all the unemployed to pedal stationary bicycles to generate electricity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the next best thing would be employing all the unemployed to pedal stationary bicycles to generate electricity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576592</id>
	<title>clean nuclear</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1269257400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clean nuclear is far more realistic than the fantasy that is clean coal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clean nuclear is far more realistic than the fantasy that is clean coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clean nuclear is far more realistic than the fantasy that is clean coal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31583298</id>
	<title>Nuclear, cost too much, does too little.</title>
	<author>alex\_guy\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1269357660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The issues of renewable energy and energy independence have taken center stage in both media and political conversations lately, but the means of achieving various energy goals have proven to be rather controversial. Proposed options dominating news headlines include clean coal, nuclear energy, and offshore drilling. Is there an energy path that we can all agree upon?<p>The answer is yes, and this morning <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.rmi.org&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">Rocky Mountain Institute</a> [rmi.org] and Chief Scientist <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.rmi.org\%2Fsitepages\%2Fpid56.php&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">Amory Lovins</a> [rmi.org] were featured in a <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.rmi.org\%2Fsitepages\%2Fpid51.php&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">New York Times</a> [rmi.org] blog in response to last years Presidential Debate. Energy efficiency, a solution at the core of <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.rmi.org&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">RMIs</a> [rmi.org] work, was discussed as a viable and economically profitable resolution to both energy and economy issues. New York Times writer Kate Galbraith points out that <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Frmi.org&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">RMI</a> [rmi.org] and <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fhttp\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.rmi.org\%2Fsitepages\%2Fpid56.php&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">Amory Lovins</a> [rmi.org] have consistently advocated the benefits of a soft-path approach to energy, with efficiency at its core. You can read the article <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.rmi.org\%2Fsitepages\%2Fpid51.php&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">here</a> [rmi.org].</p><p>When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and micropower (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams). Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!</p><p>These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.rmi.org\%2Fsitepages\%2Fpid467.php&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">Forget Nuclear</a> [rmi.org], and fully documented in <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.rmi.org\%2Fsitepages\%2Fpid257.php&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">The Nuclear Illusion</a> [rmi.org], available for download <a href="http://nc.rmi.org//page.redir?target=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.rmi.org\%2Fimages\%2FPDFs\%2FEnergy\%2FE08-01\_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf&amp;srcid=12187&amp;srctid=1&amp;erid=195080" title="rmi.org">here</a> [rmi.org], which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences journal Ambio.</p><p>Hopefully our vision will help put these widely publicized issues into perspective and move us all toward a better understanding that takes us beyond politically divisive issues to collective and viable solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issues of renewable energy and energy independence have taken center stage in both media and political conversations lately , but the means of achieving various energy goals have proven to be rather controversial .
Proposed options dominating news headlines include clean coal , nuclear energy , and offshore drilling .
Is there an energy path that we can all agree upon ? The answer is yes , and this morning Rocky Mountain Institute [ rmi.org ] and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins [ rmi.org ] were featured in a New York Times [ rmi.org ] blog in response to last years Presidential Debate .
Energy efficiency , a solution at the core of RMIs [ rmi.org ] work , was discussed as a viable and economically profitable resolution to both energy and economy issues .
New York Times writer Kate Galbraith points out that RMI [ rmi.org ] and Amory Lovins [ rmi.org ] have consistently advocated the benefits of a soft-path approach to energy , with efficiency at its core .
You can read the article here [ rmi.org ] .When it comes to nuclear power specifically , every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon , and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower , than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and micropower ( cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams ) .
Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants ! These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in Forget Nuclear [ rmi.org ] , and fully documented in The Nuclear Illusion [ rmi.org ] , available for download here [ rmi.org ] , which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences journal Ambio.Hopefully our vision will help put these widely publicized issues into perspective and move us all toward a better understanding that takes us beyond politically divisive issues to collective and viable solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issues of renewable energy and energy independence have taken center stage in both media and political conversations lately, but the means of achieving various energy goals have proven to be rather controversial.
Proposed options dominating news headlines include clean coal, nuclear energy, and offshore drilling.
Is there an energy path that we can all agree upon?The answer is yes, and this morning Rocky Mountain Institute [rmi.org] and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins [rmi.org] were featured in a New York Times [rmi.org] blog in response to last years Presidential Debate.
Energy efficiency, a solution at the core of RMIs [rmi.org] work, was discussed as a viable and economically profitable resolution to both energy and economy issues.
New York Times writer Kate Galbraith points out that RMI [rmi.org] and Amory Lovins [rmi.org] have consistently advocated the benefits of a soft-path approach to energy, with efficiency at its core.
You can read the article here [rmi.org].When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and micropower (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams).
Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in Forget Nuclear [rmi.org], and fully documented in The Nuclear Illusion [rmi.org], available for download here [rmi.org], which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences journal Ambio.Hopefully our vision will help put these widely publicized issues into perspective and move us all toward a better understanding that takes us beyond politically divisive issues to collective and viable solutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31615550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31589848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31584450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31588092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31583806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31584328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31584046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31588562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31587752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31583298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2131237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31583298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31587752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31588562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31584046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31583806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31584450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31584328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31581852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31615550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31589848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31580272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31576980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31578068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31577072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2131237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31579730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2131237.31588092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
