<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_27_1330213</id>
	<title>NRC Relicensing Old "Zombie" Nuclear Plants</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259334540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mdsolar writes <i>"In the Dec. 7 edition of The Nation, Christian Parenti details what he considers to be the real problem with nuclear power as a solution to carbon emissions in the US:  Not the <a href="http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01\_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly">high cost of new nuclear power</a>, but rather the <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/parenti/single">irresponsible relicensing of existing nuclear power plants</a> by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The claim is that the relicensed plants &mdash; amounting to more than half ot the 104 original 1970s-era nukes in the US &mdash; operate like zombies beyond their design lifetimes only because of lax regulation spurred by concern over carbon dioxide emissions. But these plants are actually failing, as demonstrated by a rash of accidents. And some of the ancient plants are now being allowed to operate at 120\% of their designed capacity. There is a <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/25/as\_us\_probes\_radiation\_at\_three">video interview with Parenti</a> up at Democracy Now."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mdsolar writes " In the Dec. 7 edition of The Nation , Christian Parenti details what he considers to be the real problem with nuclear power as a solution to carbon emissions in the US : Not the high cost of new nuclear power , but rather the irresponsible relicensing of existing nuclear power plants by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
The claim is that the relicensed plants    amounting to more than half ot the 104 original 1970s-era nukes in the US    operate like zombies beyond their design lifetimes only because of lax regulation spurred by concern over carbon dioxide emissions .
But these plants are actually failing , as demonstrated by a rash of accidents .
And some of the ancient plants are now being allowed to operate at 120 \ % of their designed capacity .
There is a video interview with Parenti up at Democracy Now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mdsolar writes "In the Dec. 7 edition of The Nation, Christian Parenti details what he considers to be the real problem with nuclear power as a solution to carbon emissions in the US:  Not the high cost of new nuclear power, but rather the irresponsible relicensing of existing nuclear power plants by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The claim is that the relicensed plants — amounting to more than half ot the 104 original 1970s-era nukes in the US — operate like zombies beyond their design lifetimes only because of lax regulation spurred by concern over carbon dioxide emissions.
But these plants are actually failing, as demonstrated by a rash of accidents.
And some of the ancient plants are now being allowed to operate at 120\% of their designed capacity.
There is a video interview with Parenti up at Democracy Now.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246108</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>Shatrat</author>
	<datestamp>1259341380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using terms such as 'zombie', "decrepit" and 'unprecidented' without a shred of evidence makes me think that the article and the author have a bit too much bias to really believe.</p></div><p>On the other hand, maybe they're onto something.<br>Should I stop driving my 'zombie' car now that the warranty has expired?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using terms such as 'zombie ' , " decrepit " and 'unprecidented ' without a shred of evidence makes me think that the article and the author have a bit too much bias to really believe.On the other hand , maybe they 're onto something.Should I stop driving my 'zombie ' car now that the warranty has expired ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using terms such as 'zombie', "decrepit" and 'unprecidented' without a shred of evidence makes me think that the article and the author have a bit too much bias to really believe.On the other hand, maybe they're onto something.Should I stop driving my 'zombie' car now that the warranty has expired?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246550</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>mirkob</author>
	<datestamp>1259344620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, that's what happen if you use all your uranium and plutonium for atomic bombs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , that 's what happen if you use all your uranium and plutonium for atomic bombs : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, that's what happen if you use all your uranium and plutonium for atomic bombs :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245772</id>
	<title>Sorry to say that, but you are wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to say that, but you are wrong. The Chernonbyl disaster happened when they were testing a new reactor. Reactor 4, where the disater happened was commissioned in 1983 and the disaster happened in 1986. The reactor has not passed it's design life time at the time of the disaster.</p><p>Summarizing, your post is just scaremongering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to say that , but you are wrong .
The Chernonbyl disaster happened when they were testing a new reactor .
Reactor 4 , where the disater happened was commissioned in 1983 and the disaster happened in 1986 .
The reactor has not passed it 's design life time at the time of the disaster.Summarizing , your post is just scaremongering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to say that, but you are wrong.
The Chernonbyl disaster happened when they were testing a new reactor.
Reactor 4, where the disater happened was commissioned in 1983 and the disaster happened in 1986.
The reactor has not passed it's design life time at the time of the disaster.Summarizing, your post is just scaremongering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246240</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1259342340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a huge fan of Nuclear Power, however, I sometimes wonder if all the irrational fear of Nuclear Power was Good for the industry?  I kinda think all the negative attention and scare tactics and stuff made the nuclear industry have to go over and above to continue proving, without doubt, that they were safe..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a huge fan of Nuclear Power , however , I sometimes wonder if all the irrational fear of Nuclear Power was Good for the industry ?
I kinda think all the negative attention and scare tactics and stuff made the nuclear industry have to go over and above to continue proving , without doubt , that they were safe. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a huge fan of Nuclear Power, however, I sometimes wonder if all the irrational fear of Nuclear Power was Good for the industry?
I kinda think all the negative attention and scare tactics and stuff made the nuclear industry have to go over and above to continue proving, without doubt, that they were safe..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247666</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1259351820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>waste that remains dangerous for decades rather than thousands of years</p></div></blockquote><p>Is only a problem for us - i.e. we have 100\% of the problems.</p><p>Now, if it is dangerous for thousands of years, it'll be a problem for maybe 100 generations - then we only have 1\% of the problems.</p><p>And I'd rather have 1\% of the problem than 100\% of it!</p><p>&lt;/joke&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>waste that remains dangerous for decades rather than thousands of yearsIs only a problem for us - i.e .
we have 100 \ % of the problems.Now , if it is dangerous for thousands of years , it 'll be a problem for maybe 100 generations - then we only have 1 \ % of the problems.And I 'd rather have 1 \ % of the problem than 100 \ % of it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>waste that remains dangerous for decades rather than thousands of yearsIs only a problem for us - i.e.
we have 100\% of the problems.Now, if it is dangerous for thousands of years, it'll be a problem for maybe 100 generations - then we only have 1\% of the problems.And I'd rather have 1\% of the problem than 100\% of it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246330</id>
	<title>IS SNPP on the list?</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259343000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IS SNPP on the list?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IS SNPP on the list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IS SNPP on the list?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247412</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259350440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Chernobyl happened because engineers bypassed safety devices and did stupid things in a plant without a containment vessel. I've not read that the overrating had anything to do with the disaster. Pure, unadulterated human stupidity did.</em>

it is a good thing that only Russia has a lock on stupidity?

it seems your argument hinges on an unstated.."and in the US, people could NEVAR be stupids."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chernobyl happened because engineers bypassed safety devices and did stupid things in a plant without a containment vessel .
I 've not read that the overrating had anything to do with the disaster .
Pure , unadulterated human stupidity did .
it is a good thing that only Russia has a lock on stupidity ?
it seems your argument hinges on an unstated.. " and in the US , people could NEVAR be stupids .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chernobyl happened because engineers bypassed safety devices and did stupid things in a plant without a containment vessel.
I've not read that the overrating had anything to do with the disaster.
Pure, unadulterated human stupidity did.
it is a good thing that only Russia has a lock on stupidity?
it seems your argument hinges on an unstated.."and in the US, people could NEVAR be stupids.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246512</id>
	<title>kdawson, thanks</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1259344320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the post says I wrote that, your edits are a big improvement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the post says I wrote that , your edits are a big improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the post says I wrote that, your edits are a big improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247380</id>
	<title>Re:If I understand it right</title>
	<author>Chandon Seldon</author>
	<datestamp>1259350200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are really missing the point.
</p><p>1970's era reactors were somewhat dangerous. If you set the knobs in the control room wrong, they'd melt down. The plant would be completely destroyed. People standing nearby might even get a dangerous dose of radiation. Probably there wouldn't be any radioactive materials released because of the containment domes, but it'd still be bad news.
</p><p>Modern designs largely don't have that sort of problem. You set the knobs wrong, and the plant mechanically and chemically tends towards a safe state. There's no meltdown because the system isn't unstable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are really missing the point .
1970 's era reactors were somewhat dangerous .
If you set the knobs in the control room wrong , they 'd melt down .
The plant would be completely destroyed .
People standing nearby might even get a dangerous dose of radiation .
Probably there would n't be any radioactive materials released because of the containment domes , but it 'd still be bad news .
Modern designs largely do n't have that sort of problem .
You set the knobs wrong , and the plant mechanically and chemically tends towards a safe state .
There 's no meltdown because the system is n't unstable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are really missing the point.
1970's era reactors were somewhat dangerous.
If you set the knobs in the control room wrong, they'd melt down.
The plant would be completely destroyed.
People standing nearby might even get a dangerous dose of radiation.
Probably there wouldn't be any radioactive materials released because of the containment domes, but it'd still be bad news.
Modern designs largely don't have that sort of problem.
You set the knobs wrong, and the plant mechanically and chemically tends towards a safe state.
There's no meltdown because the system isn't unstable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30253954</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn....</title>
	<author>DrBoumBoum</author>
	<datestamp>1259415960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions. And their alternatives aren't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out, or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical.</p></div><p>Solutions are readily available and have been for a long time. From <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,550544,00.html" title="spiegel.de" rel="nofollow">here</a> [spiegel.de]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But if it is all so simple, then why do countries with enough solar radiation build expensive and dangerous nuclear power plants, instead of investing in this simple technology? Are there not deserts in the US? Why are Americans not freeing themselves from their oil dependence through solar power? And why has no one really started to exploit the technology?
<br> <br>
"After the solar thermal power plants were built in California and Nevada, people lost interest in solar thermal power because fossil fuels became unbeatably cheap," says M&#252;ller-Steinhagen. Solar power was neglected even though the US was in the advantageous position, compared to the MENA region, of being a single political entity rather than a conglomerate of countries with differing interests. The US could achieve energy self-sufficiency through solar thermal power plants in the sunny south-west. But it was only recently that scientists writing in the respected magazine Scientific American unveiled a "Solar Grand Plan" for the US.</p></div><p>And they only look expensive when you neglect environmental impact and risks associated with other energy sources, including nuclear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we ca n't do rather than some suggestions .
And their alternatives are n't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out , or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical.Solutions are readily available and have been for a long time .
From here [ spiegel.de ] : But if it is all so simple , then why do countries with enough solar radiation build expensive and dangerous nuclear power plants , instead of investing in this simple technology ?
Are there not deserts in the US ?
Why are Americans not freeing themselves from their oil dependence through solar power ?
And why has no one really started to exploit the technology ?
" After the solar thermal power plants were built in California and Nevada , people lost interest in solar thermal power because fossil fuels became unbeatably cheap , " says M   ller-Steinhagen .
Solar power was neglected even though the US was in the advantageous position , compared to the MENA region , of being a single political entity rather than a conglomerate of countries with differing interests .
The US could achieve energy self-sufficiency through solar thermal power plants in the sunny south-west .
But it was only recently that scientists writing in the respected magazine Scientific American unveiled a " Solar Grand Plan " for the US.And they only look expensive when you neglect environmental impact and risks associated with other energy sources , including nuclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions.
And their alternatives aren't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out, or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical.Solutions are readily available and have been for a long time.
From here [spiegel.de]:But if it is all so simple, then why do countries with enough solar radiation build expensive and dangerous nuclear power plants, instead of investing in this simple technology?
Are there not deserts in the US?
Why are Americans not freeing themselves from their oil dependence through solar power?
And why has no one really started to exploit the technology?
"After the solar thermal power plants were built in California and Nevada, people lost interest in solar thermal power because fossil fuels became unbeatably cheap," says Müller-Steinhagen.
Solar power was neglected even though the US was in the advantageous position, compared to the MENA region, of being a single political entity rather than a conglomerate of countries with differing interests.
The US could achieve energy self-sufficiency through solar thermal power plants in the sunny south-west.
But it was only recently that scientists writing in the respected magazine Scientific American unveiled a "Solar Grand Plan" for the US.And they only look expensive when you neglect environmental impact and risks associated with other energy sources, including nuclear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247656</id>
	<title>exactly the same is happening in France</title>
	<author>Herve5</author>
	<datestamp>1259351760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the very same scenario here, with specific laws voted to expand EOL'ed plants by more than 10 years without any improvements, etc.<br>But the most incredible part is, at the time of voting, the surrounding discussions only have addressed the financial part of the trick (giving more value to the private owner), not really the safety...</p><p>At present some 15 plants out of a total of some 80 are stopped for repair after (obviously minor) failures, an all-time record here, and the consequence is for the first time in my personal lifetime, predictions for this winter are we'll have to import energy from european neighbors -yet another all-times first...<br>H.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the very same scenario here , with specific laws voted to expand EOL'ed plants by more than 10 years without any improvements , etc.But the most incredible part is , at the time of voting , the surrounding discussions only have addressed the financial part of the trick ( giving more value to the private owner ) , not really the safety...At present some 15 plants out of a total of some 80 are stopped for repair after ( obviously minor ) failures , an all-time record here , and the consequence is for the first time in my personal lifetime , predictions for this winter are we 'll have to import energy from european neighbors -yet another all-times first...H .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the very same scenario here, with specific laws voted to expand EOL'ed plants by more than 10 years without any improvements, etc.But the most incredible part is, at the time of voting, the surrounding discussions only have addressed the financial part of the trick (giving more value to the private owner), not really the safety...At present some 15 plants out of a total of some 80 are stopped for repair after (obviously minor) failures, an all-time record here, and the consequence is for the first time in my personal lifetime, predictions for this winter are we'll have to import energy from european neighbors -yet another all-times first...H.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30250474</id>
	<title>Re:"Zombie nukes?" Puh-leaze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259324460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm sure there are spreadsheets that can tell us when maintenance is to be expected and performed under a given load level, so it's not like OMG it'll only be inspected when it's DUE to wear out under the lesser load. Something like an aircraft's airworthyness directives, yes?,</i><br>Just so. The FAA's regulatory standards look downright permissive compared to what parts suppliers have to go through to get an "N-stamp" on their product. The NRC takes its job <i>very</i> seriously. In the last forty years we've learned a great deal about what parts of a light water reactor fail -- when, how, how to detect it early, and what to do about it. Moreover, NRC requires plant operators to fix things in a way that minimizes radioactive exposure to workers. The limit on occupational dose is 5,000 mrem / year. Most workers get an order of magnitude less that that -- barely more radiation exposure than a member of the general public (~300-400 mrem / year, depending on where you live).</p><p>When people talk about the nuclear "safety culture," they aren't just repeating an industry slogan. How many people have died working in US nuclear power plants? None. Uranium mining/milling? Zero. Fuel enrichment/fabrication? Nada. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader looking up how many annual worker fatalities there are associated with coal-fired power generation... The answer may surprise you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there are spreadsheets that can tell us when maintenance is to be expected and performed under a given load level , so it 's not like OMG it 'll only be inspected when it 's DUE to wear out under the lesser load .
Something like an aircraft 's airworthyness directives , yes ? ,Just so .
The FAA 's regulatory standards look downright permissive compared to what parts suppliers have to go through to get an " N-stamp " on their product .
The NRC takes its job very seriously .
In the last forty years we 've learned a great deal about what parts of a light water reactor fail -- when , how , how to detect it early , and what to do about it .
Moreover , NRC requires plant operators to fix things in a way that minimizes radioactive exposure to workers .
The limit on occupational dose is 5,000 mrem / year .
Most workers get an order of magnitude less that that -- barely more radiation exposure than a member of the general public ( ~ 300-400 mrem / year , depending on where you live ) .When people talk about the nuclear " safety culture , " they are n't just repeating an industry slogan .
How many people have died working in US nuclear power plants ?
None. Uranium mining/milling ?
Zero. Fuel enrichment/fabrication ?
Nada. I 'll leave as an exercise for the reader looking up how many annual worker fatalities there are associated with coal-fired power generation... The answer may surprise you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there are spreadsheets that can tell us when maintenance is to be expected and performed under a given load level, so it's not like OMG it'll only be inspected when it's DUE to wear out under the lesser load.
Something like an aircraft's airworthyness directives, yes?,Just so.
The FAA's regulatory standards look downright permissive compared to what parts suppliers have to go through to get an "N-stamp" on their product.
The NRC takes its job very seriously.
In the last forty years we've learned a great deal about what parts of a light water reactor fail -- when, how, how to detect it early, and what to do about it.
Moreover, NRC requires plant operators to fix things in a way that minimizes radioactive exposure to workers.
The limit on occupational dose is 5,000 mrem / year.
Most workers get an order of magnitude less that that -- barely more radiation exposure than a member of the general public (~300-400 mrem / year, depending on where you live).When people talk about the nuclear "safety culture," they aren't just repeating an industry slogan.
How many people have died working in US nuclear power plants?
None. Uranium mining/milling?
Zero. Fuel enrichment/fabrication?
Nada. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader looking up how many annual worker fatalities there are associated with coal-fired power generation... The answer may surprise you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246666</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>DollarOfReactivity</author>
	<datestamp>1259345340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is (and has always been) false. We could, if we wanted to, reduce all long-lived (say thousands or more year half-life) isotopes to hundreds of years or less by neutron bombardment (pick any of a number of sources). The cost would be tremendous, so we usually don't talk about it aside from a few academic studies.</p><p>Nuclear power will produce waste, and that waste will ultimately need to be dealt with. I think non-permanent burial is the best option because in the future reprocessing will be much more economical. But there will be some parts that are always trash, like most other things we humans use that produces trash. But compared to other big energy producers, the trash nuclear plants produce (including emissions, mining waste, spent materials) is amazingly small. To go to a nuclear plant and see, for instance, all the spent fuel of decades of operation standing in a few casks is impressive. Nuclear's advantage is so much energy contained in a small fuel form. At the back end of the process that means the most radioactive waste is also contained in a very small form.</p><p>We are smart enough to hold it somewhere safely. I'm sure in the near future we will be even better equipped in ways we can't imagine, but I think today's tech is adequate. This doesn't mean we can't deal with it, or should stop thinking of how to improve waste management, that means we *are* dealing with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ( and has always been ) false .
We could , if we wanted to , reduce all long-lived ( say thousands or more year half-life ) isotopes to hundreds of years or less by neutron bombardment ( pick any of a number of sources ) .
The cost would be tremendous , so we usually do n't talk about it aside from a few academic studies.Nuclear power will produce waste , and that waste will ultimately need to be dealt with .
I think non-permanent burial is the best option because in the future reprocessing will be much more economical .
But there will be some parts that are always trash , like most other things we humans use that produces trash .
But compared to other big energy producers , the trash nuclear plants produce ( including emissions , mining waste , spent materials ) is amazingly small .
To go to a nuclear plant and see , for instance , all the spent fuel of decades of operation standing in a few casks is impressive .
Nuclear 's advantage is so much energy contained in a small fuel form .
At the back end of the process that means the most radioactive waste is also contained in a very small form.We are smart enough to hold it somewhere safely .
I 'm sure in the near future we will be even better equipped in ways we ca n't imagine , but I think today 's tech is adequate .
This does n't mean we ca n't deal with it , or should stop thinking of how to improve waste management , that means we * are * dealing with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is (and has always been) false.
We could, if we wanted to, reduce all long-lived (say thousands or more year half-life) isotopes to hundreds of years or less by neutron bombardment (pick any of a number of sources).
The cost would be tremendous, so we usually don't talk about it aside from a few academic studies.Nuclear power will produce waste, and that waste will ultimately need to be dealt with.
I think non-permanent burial is the best option because in the future reprocessing will be much more economical.
But there will be some parts that are always trash, like most other things we humans use that produces trash.
But compared to other big energy producers, the trash nuclear plants produce (including emissions, mining waste, spent materials) is amazingly small.
To go to a nuclear plant and see, for instance, all the spent fuel of decades of operation standing in a few casks is impressive.
Nuclear's advantage is so much energy contained in a small fuel form.
At the back end of the process that means the most radioactive waste is also contained in a very small form.We are smart enough to hold it somewhere safely.
I'm sure in the near future we will be even better equipped in ways we can't imagine, but I think today's tech is adequate.
This doesn't mean we can't deal with it, or should stop thinking of how to improve waste management, that means we *are* dealing with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247000</id>
	<title>Re:"Zombie nukes?" Puh-leaze</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1259347560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll start off by saying the article presents a lot of spin and fear, but not a lot of facts.  Some of it is troubling though.<br><i><br>You'll note that of the "shocking" lapses in power plant operations, ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity. ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries.<br></i><br>Are you seriously suggesting that the only time for concern is AFTER we get the significant releases of radioactivity, or worker deaths?<br><i><br>
&nbsp; The worst of the bunch, the "six inch deep hole" in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head, wasn't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud.<br></i><br>WTF?  You think everyone in the world is honest, and "regulation" doesn't involve actually going out and doing inspections?  The article also claims the other plant failure was due to lack of maintenance due to incorrect records.  (Possible fraud, but it can't be proven).  But hey, as long as everyone is honest and forthright it'll all be OK..  everyone is honest and forthright, right?  Just ask <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut\_Corporation\_of\_America" title="wikipedia.org">The Peanut Corporation of America</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><i><br>Forty years of operational experience has demonstrated to everyone but the most anti-nuke environmentalists that there is sufficient safety margin to operate safely for another twenty years.<br></i><br>Everyone?  Seriously everyone?  I'm not convinced, but then I don't actually know anything about reactor design, embrittle, nuclear plant regulations, etc.  40 years of something operating with few incidents doesn't convince me it could operate for another 20 years, why would it?  (Oh, and I'm hardly "the must anti-nuke environmentalists").</p><p>The article is a lot of spin and fear mongering, but your response is about equally so.  It's so dismissive of what may be some legitimate concerns that it makes me more inclined to believe the spin-filled article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll start off by saying the article presents a lot of spin and fear , but not a lot of facts .
Some of it is troubling though.You 'll note that of the " shocking " lapses in power plant operations , ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity .
ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries.Are you seriously suggesting that the only time for concern is AFTER we get the significant releases of radioactivity , or worker deaths ?
  The worst of the bunch , the " six inch deep hole " in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head , was n't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud.WTF ?
You think everyone in the world is honest , and " regulation " does n't involve actually going out and doing inspections ?
The article also claims the other plant failure was due to lack of maintenance due to incorrect records .
( Possible fraud , but it ca n't be proven ) .
But hey , as long as everyone is honest and forthright it 'll all be OK.. everyone is honest and forthright , right ?
Just ask The Peanut Corporation of America [ wikipedia.org ] Forty years of operational experience has demonstrated to everyone but the most anti-nuke environmentalists that there is sufficient safety margin to operate safely for another twenty years.Everyone ?
Seriously everyone ?
I 'm not convinced , but then I do n't actually know anything about reactor design , embrittle , nuclear plant regulations , etc .
40 years of something operating with few incidents does n't convince me it could operate for another 20 years , why would it ?
( Oh , and I 'm hardly " the must anti-nuke environmentalists " ) .The article is a lot of spin and fear mongering , but your response is about equally so .
It 's so dismissive of what may be some legitimate concerns that it makes me more inclined to believe the spin-filled article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll start off by saying the article presents a lot of spin and fear, but not a lot of facts.
Some of it is troubling though.You'll note that of the "shocking" lapses in power plant operations, ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity.
ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries.Are you seriously suggesting that the only time for concern is AFTER we get the significant releases of radioactivity, or worker deaths?
  The worst of the bunch, the "six inch deep hole" in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head, wasn't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud.WTF?
You think everyone in the world is honest, and "regulation" doesn't involve actually going out and doing inspections?
The article also claims the other plant failure was due to lack of maintenance due to incorrect records.
(Possible fraud, but it can't be proven).
But hey, as long as everyone is honest and forthright it'll all be OK..  everyone is honest and forthright, right?
Just ask The Peanut Corporation of America [wikipedia.org]Forty years of operational experience has demonstrated to everyone but the most anti-nuke environmentalists that there is sufficient safety margin to operate safely for another twenty years.Everyone?
Seriously everyone?
I'm not convinced, but then I don't actually know anything about reactor design, embrittle, nuclear plant regulations, etc.
40 years of something operating with few incidents doesn't convince me it could operate for another 20 years, why would it?
(Oh, and I'm hardly "the must anti-nuke environmentalists").The article is a lot of spin and fear mongering, but your response is about equally so.
It's so dismissive of what may be some legitimate concerns that it makes me more inclined to believe the spin-filled article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246582</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1259344740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, coal plants produce zero nuclear waste.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , coal plants produce zero nuclear waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, coal plants produce zero nuclear waste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248772</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn....</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259315700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mercury - Here are some mercury FACTS from the department of energy... <a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview\_mercurycontrols.html" title="energy.gov">http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview\_mercurycontrols.html</a> [energy.gov].</p> </div><p>Do you know even the definition of that word that you&rsquo;re shouting so loudly? Because if you&rsquo;re not simply lying, then you&rsquo;re not.</p><p>Just to give you a perspective: You trust in your brain, your eyes, your screen, your cables, your graphics card, your data bus, your CPU, your network card, your drivers, your OS, your browser, your provider, every server, network device, cable and owner of that equipment between here and there, the government servers, the admins, the website builders, the authors of the content, the extractors of information from the data set, the collectors of the data set, the creators of the data set, the source of what was measured, <em>and</em> the physics to be equal where you are and where all those things are, just to get to the point where you are able to compare that input to your own inner model of the world.</p><p>And then, <em>solely</em> because it is consistent in itself, and with your inner model, you accept it as a &ldquo;FACT&rdquo; and scream it out loud. Which also screams &ldquo;look at how defensive I am, because I thing else nobody will believe me&rdquo;. (Cry me a river.)<br>And of course, because you now accepted it, you will stand behind it until the bitter and ugly end. Because your inner &ldquo;it&rdquo; literally associates the breakdown of your inner model with real death, and therefore massively repress everything that conflicts with it. (Cry me an ocean.)</p><p>You passively live in a tiny teeny little box of your own simple world, acting in a walking daze, and you can&rsquo;t even get out. It is so sad that I would cry. If I would care even the tiniest bit about you and your world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mercury - Here are some mercury FACTS from the department of energy... http : //www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview \ _mercurycontrols.html [ energy.gov ] .
Do you know even the definition of that word that you    re shouting so loudly ?
Because if you    re not simply lying , then you    re not.Just to give you a perspective : You trust in your brain , your eyes , your screen , your cables , your graphics card , your data bus , your CPU , your network card , your drivers , your OS , your browser , your provider , every server , network device , cable and owner of that equipment between here and there , the government servers , the admins , the website builders , the authors of the content , the extractors of information from the data set , the collectors of the data set , the creators of the data set , the source of what was measured , and the physics to be equal where you are and where all those things are , just to get to the point where you are able to compare that input to your own inner model of the world.And then , solely because it is consistent in itself , and with your inner model , you accept it as a    FACT    and scream it out loud .
Which also screams    look at how defensive I am , because I thing else nobody will believe me    .
( Cry me a river .
) And of course , because you now accepted it , you will stand behind it until the bitter and ugly end .
Because your inner    it    literally associates the breakdown of your inner model with real death , and therefore massively repress everything that conflicts with it .
( Cry me an ocean .
) You passively live in a tiny teeny little box of your own simple world , acting in a walking daze , and you can    t even get out .
It is so sad that I would cry .
If I would care even the tiniest bit about you and your world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mercury - Here are some mercury FACTS from the department of energy... http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview\_mercurycontrols.html [energy.gov].
Do you know even the definition of that word that you’re shouting so loudly?
Because if you’re not simply lying, then you’re not.Just to give you a perspective: You trust in your brain, your eyes, your screen, your cables, your graphics card, your data bus, your CPU, your network card, your drivers, your OS, your browser, your provider, every server, network device, cable and owner of that equipment between here and there, the government servers, the admins, the website builders, the authors of the content, the extractors of information from the data set, the collectors of the data set, the creators of the data set, the source of what was measured, and the physics to be equal where you are and where all those things are, just to get to the point where you are able to compare that input to your own inner model of the world.And then, solely because it is consistent in itself, and with your inner model, you accept it as a “FACT” and scream it out loud.
Which also screams “look at how defensive I am, because I thing else nobody will believe me”.
(Cry me a river.
)And of course, because you now accepted it, you will stand behind it until the bitter and ugly end.
Because your inner “it” literally associates the breakdown of your inner model with real death, and therefore massively repress everything that conflicts with it.
(Cry me an ocean.
)You passively live in a tiny teeny little box of your own simple world, acting in a walking daze, and you can’t even get out.
It is so sad that I would cry.
If I would care even the tiniest bit about you and your world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248890</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1259316240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's more to it. The side effect of the Greens' pushing of wind is the massive expansion and increased reliance on natural gas backup. Gas backup is integral to wind power, as otherwise it simply cannot participate in the grid. This piece information suggests that at least some of anti-nuclear activism might be sponsored by fossil fuel companies that want to protect their NG investment - they are the only ones really set to lose from a nuclear renaissance. Ever seen the typical energy company ad? They will always say that country X needs all the energy resources, and they mention wind, solar and gas - never nuclear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more to it .
The side effect of the Greens ' pushing of wind is the massive expansion and increased reliance on natural gas backup .
Gas backup is integral to wind power , as otherwise it simply can not participate in the grid .
This piece information suggests that at least some of anti-nuclear activism might be sponsored by fossil fuel companies that want to protect their NG investment - they are the only ones really set to lose from a nuclear renaissance .
Ever seen the typical energy company ad ?
They will always say that country X needs all the energy resources , and they mention wind , solar and gas - never nuclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's more to it.
The side effect of the Greens' pushing of wind is the massive expansion and increased reliance on natural gas backup.
Gas backup is integral to wind power, as otherwise it simply cannot participate in the grid.
This piece information suggests that at least some of anti-nuclear activism might be sponsored by fossil fuel companies that want to protect their NG investment - they are the only ones really set to lose from a nuclear renaissance.
Ever seen the typical energy company ad?
They will always say that country X needs all the energy resources, and they mention wind, solar and gas - never nuclear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668</id>
	<title>Yawn....</title>
	<author>johnlcallaway</author>
	<datestamp>1259338920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions. And their alternatives aren't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out, or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical.
<br> <br>
We can't build new nuclear because of the NIMBY crowd. We can't build new coal fired because of the eco-nuts. We can't drill for more oil because of the morons in congress. We don't have to wait for Obama to ruin this country, these groups are doing it for us.
<br> <br>
Hey<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. mdsolar<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... go back and stick your head in the sand until you have grow some more FUD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we ca n't do rather than some suggestions .
And their alternatives are n't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out , or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical .
We ca n't build new nuclear because of the NIMBY crowd .
We ca n't build new coal fired because of the eco-nuts .
We ca n't drill for more oil because of the morons in congress .
We do n't have to wait for Obama to ruin this country , these groups are doing it for us .
Hey .. mdsolar ... go back and stick your head in the sand until you have grow some more FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions.
And their alternatives aren't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out, or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical.
We can't build new nuclear because of the NIMBY crowd.
We can't build new coal fired because of the eco-nuts.
We can't drill for more oil because of the morons in congress.
We don't have to wait for Obama to ruin this country, these groups are doing it for us.
Hey .. mdsolar ... go back and stick your head in the sand until you have grow some more FUD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247884</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>cartman</author>
	<datestamp>1259353140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> there exists no solution for radioactive waste. Maybe we won't have a Chernoby like desaster again - however with every single hour we have nuclear power plants running, we are producing toxins that will be lethal for centuries.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are many solutions for rad waste, most of which are easy, well-understood, and inexpensive.</p><p>One common solution is to vitrify the waste in borosilicate glass, pour it inside a chromium-nickel alloy container, and bury it in a geologic disposal that has remained immobile for millions of years. Any one of these measures by itself would prevent dispersal of rad waste for thousands of years, which is longer than it takes for all the short-lived fission products to disappear.</p><p>That would not prevent dispersal of <i>long-lived</i> fission product, since those last for millions of years which is longer than any containment will last. However, the long-lived fission products are extremely small in volume--about 1,000 tons from all nuclear power plants in the US over 40 years; that amount could fit easily in a large closet. That amount is so small, that we could easily launch it all into space, and out of our solar system, by using saturn-V rockets (about 10 of them) like were launched in the early 1960s. I'm not suggesting that that would be the most practical way of disposing of the waste. However, the volume of long-lived fission products is so small that there are many obvious options.</p><p>Personally, I think we should separate the LLFPs and put them into interim storage for 200 years. At that time, we can launch them out of the solar system if it has become cheaper and more reliable to launch things into space. If not, we can adulterate them with Sr90, and set them on an antarctic ice sheet. They would melt their way down (over decades) and settle on bedrock in antarctica, after which the Sr90 would be gone and the waste would lose its heat. The LLFPs would then remain under 1 mile of ice for a very long time. Even if human civilization collapses, our hunter-gatherer offspring will not reside one mile beneath the ice in antarctica. There would be no plausible human exposure to rad waste ever. The rad waste could never tunnel its way upwards through 1 mile of ice, then migrate to other continents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there exists no solution for radioactive waste .
Maybe we wo n't have a Chernoby like desaster again - however with every single hour we have nuclear power plants running , we are producing toxins that will be lethal for centuries.There are many solutions for rad waste , most of which are easy , well-understood , and inexpensive.One common solution is to vitrify the waste in borosilicate glass , pour it inside a chromium-nickel alloy container , and bury it in a geologic disposal that has remained immobile for millions of years .
Any one of these measures by itself would prevent dispersal of rad waste for thousands of years , which is longer than it takes for all the short-lived fission products to disappear.That would not prevent dispersal of long-lived fission product , since those last for millions of years which is longer than any containment will last .
However , the long-lived fission products are extremely small in volume--about 1,000 tons from all nuclear power plants in the US over 40 years ; that amount could fit easily in a large closet .
That amount is so small , that we could easily launch it all into space , and out of our solar system , by using saturn-V rockets ( about 10 of them ) like were launched in the early 1960s .
I 'm not suggesting that that would be the most practical way of disposing of the waste .
However , the volume of long-lived fission products is so small that there are many obvious options.Personally , I think we should separate the LLFPs and put them into interim storage for 200 years .
At that time , we can launch them out of the solar system if it has become cheaper and more reliable to launch things into space .
If not , we can adulterate them with Sr90 , and set them on an antarctic ice sheet .
They would melt their way down ( over decades ) and settle on bedrock in antarctica , after which the Sr90 would be gone and the waste would lose its heat .
The LLFPs would then remain under 1 mile of ice for a very long time .
Even if human civilization collapses , our hunter-gatherer offspring will not reside one mile beneath the ice in antarctica .
There would be no plausible human exposure to rad waste ever .
The rad waste could never tunnel its way upwards through 1 mile of ice , then migrate to other continents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> there exists no solution for radioactive waste.
Maybe we won't have a Chernoby like desaster again - however with every single hour we have nuclear power plants running, we are producing toxins that will be lethal for centuries.There are many solutions for rad waste, most of which are easy, well-understood, and inexpensive.One common solution is to vitrify the waste in borosilicate glass, pour it inside a chromium-nickel alloy container, and bury it in a geologic disposal that has remained immobile for millions of years.
Any one of these measures by itself would prevent dispersal of rad waste for thousands of years, which is longer than it takes for all the short-lived fission products to disappear.That would not prevent dispersal of long-lived fission product, since those last for millions of years which is longer than any containment will last.
However, the long-lived fission products are extremely small in volume--about 1,000 tons from all nuclear power plants in the US over 40 years; that amount could fit easily in a large closet.
That amount is so small, that we could easily launch it all into space, and out of our solar system, by using saturn-V rockets (about 10 of them) like were launched in the early 1960s.
I'm not suggesting that that would be the most practical way of disposing of the waste.
However, the volume of long-lived fission products is so small that there are many obvious options.Personally, I think we should separate the LLFPs and put them into interim storage for 200 years.
At that time, we can launch them out of the solar system if it has become cheaper and more reliable to launch things into space.
If not, we can adulterate them with Sr90, and set them on an antarctic ice sheet.
They would melt their way down (over decades) and settle on bedrock in antarctica, after which the Sr90 would be gone and the waste would lose its heat.
The LLFPs would then remain under 1 mile of ice for a very long time.
Even if human civilization collapses, our hunter-gatherer offspring will not reside one mile beneath the ice in antarctica.
There would be no plausible human exposure to rad waste ever.
The rad waste could never tunnel its way upwards through 1 mile of ice, then migrate to other continents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30252836</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1259349420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Kinda OT but related. Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year. Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?</i></p><p>Umm... you *are* aware that the flu season has just started, right?  That that 10^2 people who've died did so when there should never have been a flu going around in the first place?</p><p>Besides which, assuming a successful vaccination campaign, the numbers *should* be low.</p><p>The problem, of course, is that just like the stimulus packages passed by congress, success means nothing bad happens.  So the nay-sayers can claim nothing bad would've happened either way, while the proponents say that things would've been worse without the intervention.  In both cases, the only way to be provably right is for very bad things to happen.</p><p>As for the rest, your little tirade about SUV cameras has precisely *zero* to do with environmentalism.  Meanwhile, only a child or an idiot complains when they're told they shouldn't do something because it's provably bad for them.  Or do you bitch about doctors because those bastards tell you not to eat salty foods?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda OT but related .
Swine flu vaccinations - about 10 ^ 5 people die from the ( regular ) flu every year .
Swine flu has claimed what , 10 ^ 2 ? Umm... you * are * aware that the flu season has just started , right ?
That that 10 ^ 2 people who 've died did so when there should never have been a flu going around in the first place ? Besides which , assuming a successful vaccination campaign , the numbers * should * be low.The problem , of course , is that just like the stimulus packages passed by congress , success means nothing bad happens .
So the nay-sayers can claim nothing bad would 've happened either way , while the proponents say that things would 've been worse without the intervention .
In both cases , the only way to be provably right is for very bad things to happen.As for the rest , your little tirade about SUV cameras has precisely * zero * to do with environmentalism .
Meanwhile , only a child or an idiot complains when they 're told they should n't do something because it 's provably bad for them .
Or do you bitch about doctors because those bastards tell you not to eat salty foods ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda OT but related.
Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year.
Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?Umm... you *are* aware that the flu season has just started, right?
That that 10^2 people who've died did so when there should never have been a flu going around in the first place?Besides which, assuming a successful vaccination campaign, the numbers *should* be low.The problem, of course, is that just like the stimulus packages passed by congress, success means nothing bad happens.
So the nay-sayers can claim nothing bad would've happened either way, while the proponents say that things would've been worse without the intervention.
In both cases, the only way to be provably right is for very bad things to happen.As for the rest, your little tirade about SUV cameras has precisely *zero* to do with environmentalism.
Meanwhile, only a child or an idiot complains when they're told they shouldn't do something because it's provably bad for them.
Or do you bitch about doctors because those bastards tell you not to eat salty foods?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>torkus</author>
	<datestamp>1259342880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well i'm with you on most of it...except the greens supporting good things.</p><p>All we seem to hear is 1) Stop doing this-and-that because it's bad and B) 'This' magical technology is the panacea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... at 10x the cost and in 5-15 years when it goes from laboratory process to initial commercial production<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and another 10 for large-scale usage.</p><p>I understand that cleaner generation plants, cars, etc. are a good thing but the cost-reward balance is often so far off I can do nothing but shake my head.  Remember the father that backed a large SUV over his child?  They fought (probably still are) to get a law passed *requiring* every SUV have a back-up camera in it.  Never mind that many children aren't visible behind a normal size CAR.  So because one person is a complete IDIOT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we should put a ~$1000+ camera system in *every* car?  Funny, my parents just made sure they could see each of us before backing out of the driveway when I was a kid.</p><p>Kinda OT but related.  Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year.  Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?  Yet how many millions/billions have been spend on this vaccination?  For a sickness that's generally NOT deadly to healthy people?  Come on people, stop living in fear and look at the big picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well i 'm with you on most of it...except the greens supporting good things.All we seem to hear is 1 ) Stop doing this-and-that because it 's bad and B ) 'This ' magical technology is the panacea ... at 10x the cost and in 5-15 years when it goes from laboratory process to initial commercial production ... and another 10 for large-scale usage.I understand that cleaner generation plants , cars , etc .
are a good thing but the cost-reward balance is often so far off I can do nothing but shake my head .
Remember the father that backed a large SUV over his child ?
They fought ( probably still are ) to get a law passed * requiring * every SUV have a back-up camera in it .
Never mind that many children are n't visible behind a normal size CAR .
So because one person is a complete IDIOT ... we should put a ~ $ 1000 + camera system in * every * car ?
Funny , my parents just made sure they could see each of us before backing out of the driveway when I was a kid.Kinda OT but related .
Swine flu vaccinations - about 10 ^ 5 people die from the ( regular ) flu every year .
Swine flu has claimed what , 10 ^ 2 ?
Yet how many millions/billions have been spend on this vaccination ?
For a sickness that 's generally NOT deadly to healthy people ?
Come on people , stop living in fear and look at the big picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well i'm with you on most of it...except the greens supporting good things.All we seem to hear is 1) Stop doing this-and-that because it's bad and B) 'This' magical technology is the panacea ... at 10x the cost and in 5-15 years when it goes from laboratory process to initial commercial production ... and another 10 for large-scale usage.I understand that cleaner generation plants, cars, etc.
are a good thing but the cost-reward balance is often so far off I can do nothing but shake my head.
Remember the father that backed a large SUV over his child?
They fought (probably still are) to get a law passed *requiring* every SUV have a back-up camera in it.
Never mind that many children aren't visible behind a normal size CAR.
So because one person is a complete IDIOT ... we should put a ~$1000+ camera system in *every* car?
Funny, my parents just made sure they could see each of us before backing out of the driveway when I was a kid.Kinda OT but related.
Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year.
Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?
Yet how many millions/billions have been spend on this vaccination?
For a sickness that's generally NOT deadly to healthy people?
Come on people, stop living in fear and look at the big picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247066</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>cnaumann</author>
	<datestamp>1259347980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even barring reprocessing, breeders, and new reactor technology, waste disposal really isn't that big of a problem. Very little waste is actually produced -- on the order of kilotons a year, as opposed to gigatons for many other industrial processes. The waste is not placed into the atmosphere or dumped into ground water sources either. It is self contained. Disposing of waste simply takes time... many, many centuries. The solution really is to dig deep hole in a stable area and bury the stuff. It is not that difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even barring reprocessing , breeders , and new reactor technology , waste disposal really is n't that big of a problem .
Very little waste is actually produced -- on the order of kilotons a year , as opposed to gigatons for many other industrial processes .
The waste is not placed into the atmosphere or dumped into ground water sources either .
It is self contained .
Disposing of waste simply takes time... many , many centuries .
The solution really is to dig deep hole in a stable area and bury the stuff .
It is not that difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even barring reprocessing, breeders, and new reactor technology, waste disposal really isn't that big of a problem.
Very little waste is actually produced -- on the order of kilotons a year, as opposed to gigatons for many other industrial processes.
The waste is not placed into the atmosphere or dumped into ground water sources either.
It is self contained.
Disposing of waste simply takes time... many, many centuries.
The solution really is to dig deep hole in a stable area and bury the stuff.
It is not that difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246198</id>
	<title>Wow, that is clever</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1259342040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>By having zombies run the places you don't have to give the workers protection against radiation since they're already dead. I hear they work pretty cheaply too, just give them some cow brains and they don't know the difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By having zombies run the places you do n't have to give the workers protection against radiation since they 're already dead .
I hear they work pretty cheaply too , just give them some cow brains and they do n't know the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By having zombies run the places you don't have to give the workers protection against radiation since they're already dead.
I hear they work pretty cheaply too, just give them some cow brains and they don't know the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248516</id>
	<title>Re:Odd</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1259314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost all the real "progress" that has happened in the US and Western Europe occurred during a time when labor was pretty cheap, when there were few environmental obstacles and when people were interested in "progress".</p><p>Today, environmental obstacles are placed in front of everything making it nearly impossible to build a bridge, a large factory or a power plant of any kind.  Everything is going to affect the environment in some way, generally negatively for flora and fauna other than humans.  We have lost the "mandate" to say that human considerations should trump all.  And with that loss, we have pretty much said that if building a bridge will kill some fish, then we better not do it.  100 years ago the attitude was "So what?"  That is a big difference. It is political suicide to come out and say something like a project will kill plenty of fish and animals, but that is the price of progress.</p><p>Almost nobody is interested in "progress" today.  Many people actively distrust anyone in a professional or scientific capacity - the assumption is that they are in it for themselves somehow.  So that means that the opinions of an engineer are actively discounted over the opinions of a housewife.  We have become anti-intellectual and this has a real effect on everyone's ability to get things done.</p><p>Labor has also reached unbelievable proportions of any project.  Building anything big has always cost lives, lives that today we cannot accept losing.  Construction management knows that to build a large bridge there will be some number of people per mile that are injured and some number per mile killed.  These statistics haven't really changed in over 100 years.  The cost for building a large building used to be steel, concrete and other materials with labor being a factor but significantly less than the materials.  Today the labor cost is probably double that of all other materials combined.  This means a lot of projects simply aren't going to get done at all.</p><p>In China, India or Singapore there aren't such considerations and buildings are being built, bridges constructed and power plants and factories are going up rapidly.  It isn't possible to generate the electricity in China and ship it to the US or Europe, so it is likely we are just going to have to do without.  Fortunately, they can make lots of candles in China and ship them elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost all the real " progress " that has happened in the US and Western Europe occurred during a time when labor was pretty cheap , when there were few environmental obstacles and when people were interested in " progress " .Today , environmental obstacles are placed in front of everything making it nearly impossible to build a bridge , a large factory or a power plant of any kind .
Everything is going to affect the environment in some way , generally negatively for flora and fauna other than humans .
We have lost the " mandate " to say that human considerations should trump all .
And with that loss , we have pretty much said that if building a bridge will kill some fish , then we better not do it .
100 years ago the attitude was " So what ?
" That is a big difference .
It is political suicide to come out and say something like a project will kill plenty of fish and animals , but that is the price of progress.Almost nobody is interested in " progress " today .
Many people actively distrust anyone in a professional or scientific capacity - the assumption is that they are in it for themselves somehow .
So that means that the opinions of an engineer are actively discounted over the opinions of a housewife .
We have become anti-intellectual and this has a real effect on everyone 's ability to get things done.Labor has also reached unbelievable proportions of any project .
Building anything big has always cost lives , lives that today we can not accept losing .
Construction management knows that to build a large bridge there will be some number of people per mile that are injured and some number per mile killed .
These statistics have n't really changed in over 100 years .
The cost for building a large building used to be steel , concrete and other materials with labor being a factor but significantly less than the materials .
Today the labor cost is probably double that of all other materials combined .
This means a lot of projects simply are n't going to get done at all.In China , India or Singapore there are n't such considerations and buildings are being built , bridges constructed and power plants and factories are going up rapidly .
It is n't possible to generate the electricity in China and ship it to the US or Europe , so it is likely we are just going to have to do without .
Fortunately , they can make lots of candles in China and ship them elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost all the real "progress" that has happened in the US and Western Europe occurred during a time when labor was pretty cheap, when there were few environmental obstacles and when people were interested in "progress".Today, environmental obstacles are placed in front of everything making it nearly impossible to build a bridge, a large factory or a power plant of any kind.
Everything is going to affect the environment in some way, generally negatively for flora and fauna other than humans.
We have lost the "mandate" to say that human considerations should trump all.
And with that loss, we have pretty much said that if building a bridge will kill some fish, then we better not do it.
100 years ago the attitude was "So what?
"  That is a big difference.
It is political suicide to come out and say something like a project will kill plenty of fish and animals, but that is the price of progress.Almost nobody is interested in "progress" today.
Many people actively distrust anyone in a professional or scientific capacity - the assumption is that they are in it for themselves somehow.
So that means that the opinions of an engineer are actively discounted over the opinions of a housewife.
We have become anti-intellectual and this has a real effect on everyone's ability to get things done.Labor has also reached unbelievable proportions of any project.
Building anything big has always cost lives, lives that today we cannot accept losing.
Construction management knows that to build a large bridge there will be some number of people per mile that are injured and some number per mile killed.
These statistics haven't really changed in over 100 years.
The cost for building a large building used to be steel, concrete and other materials with labor being a factor but significantly less than the materials.
Today the labor cost is probably double that of all other materials combined.
This means a lot of projects simply aren't going to get done at all.In China, India or Singapore there aren't such considerations and buildings are being built, bridges constructed and power plants and factories are going up rapidly.
It isn't possible to generate the electricity in China and ship it to the US or Europe, so it is likely we are just going to have to do without.
Fortunately, they can make lots of candles in China and ship them elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249038</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1259316900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There ARE rewards without risks (trying hugging your mom/kid), and risks without rewards (try playing russian roulette). So the whole "there a no rewards without risks" is just a bland, stupid statement.</p><p>Nuclear power did a lot of damage in Tchnernobyl because greens did not instill enough fear in it, there.</p><p>It's a balance thingy. I wouldn't trust my balance to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There ARE rewards without risks ( trying hugging your mom/kid ) , and risks without rewards ( try playing russian roulette ) .
So the whole " there a no rewards without risks " is just a bland , stupid statement.Nuclear power did a lot of damage in Tchnernobyl because greens did not instill enough fear in it , there.It 's a balance thingy .
I would n't trust my balance to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There ARE rewards without risks (trying hugging your mom/kid), and risks without rewards (try playing russian roulette).
So the whole "there a no rewards without risks" is just a bland, stupid statement.Nuclear power did a lot of damage in Tchnernobyl because greens did not instill enough fear in it, there.It's a balance thingy.
I wouldn't trust my balance to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738</id>
	<title>New stations NOW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Greenes did huge damage to this country by instilling fear in nuclear power. While Greens mostly support good things to protect environment their opposition and fearmongering of nuclear plants caused us to build economy on oil.<br>Besides that we canceled all large-scale development of next generation reactors (breeders, lead-cooled, etc.) capable of burning 99\% of fuel and leaving almost no waste.</p><p>On the bigger picture in the last twenty-thirty years people became more comfortable and lazy and unwilling to take any risks. This affected everything in the society - cancellation of Space Shuttle program, public safety even kids wearing helmets on the bicycles. If there is no risk there is no reward but it seems we kind of forgot about it.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenes did huge damage to this country by instilling fear in nuclear power .
While Greens mostly support good things to protect environment their opposition and fearmongering of nuclear plants caused us to build economy on oil.Besides that we canceled all large-scale development of next generation reactors ( breeders , lead-cooled , etc .
) capable of burning 99 \ % of fuel and leaving almost no waste.On the bigger picture in the last twenty-thirty years people became more comfortable and lazy and unwilling to take any risks .
This affected everything in the society - cancellation of Space Shuttle program , public safety even kids wearing helmets on the bicycles .
If there is no risk there is no reward but it seems we kind of forgot about it .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenes did huge damage to this country by instilling fear in nuclear power.
While Greens mostly support good things to protect environment their opposition and fearmongering of nuclear plants caused us to build economy on oil.Besides that we canceled all large-scale development of next generation reactors (breeders, lead-cooled, etc.
) capable of burning 99\% of fuel and leaving almost no waste.On the bigger picture in the last twenty-thirty years people became more comfortable and lazy and unwilling to take any risks.
This affected everything in the society - cancellation of Space Shuttle program, public safety even kids wearing helmets on the bicycles.
If there is no risk there is no reward but it seems we kind of forgot about it.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245760</id>
	<title>Why not update?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not streamline the process to upgrade to newer reactor technology? The basics are there at these sites now (power lines, steam turbines, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not streamline the process to upgrade to newer reactor technology ?
The basics are there at these sites now ( power lines , steam turbines , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not streamline the process to upgrade to newer reactor technology?
The basics are there at these sites now (power lines, steam turbines, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245960</id>
	<title>120\% of capacity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259340360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Industrial plants almost always run at rates greater than nameplate capacity  Think of this: 5 plants running at 120\% is like getting one plant free.  Capital cost are huge for these project, and eking out every We out of plant so another plant does not need to be built is a always a goal.</p><p>Large plants are complicated and increasing rates are not as easy was moving a dial from 100\% to 120\%.  An increase in rate takes time, for a 20\% it would be several weeks of slowly ramping up, modifying protocols and even plant modification (if capital spending is allowed for the project).  While to a lay person 120\% sounds like the plant is 20\% more likely to meltdown there are plenty of things that would go wrong first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Industrial plants almost always run at rates greater than nameplate capacity Think of this : 5 plants running at 120 \ % is like getting one plant free .
Capital cost are huge for these project , and eking out every We out of plant so another plant does not need to be built is a always a goal.Large plants are complicated and increasing rates are not as easy was moving a dial from 100 \ % to 120 \ % .
An increase in rate takes time , for a 20 \ % it would be several weeks of slowly ramping up , modifying protocols and even plant modification ( if capital spending is allowed for the project ) .
While to a lay person 120 \ % sounds like the plant is 20 \ % more likely to meltdown there are plenty of things that would go wrong first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Industrial plants almost always run at rates greater than nameplate capacity  Think of this: 5 plants running at 120\% is like getting one plant free.
Capital cost are huge for these project, and eking out every We out of plant so another plant does not need to be built is a always a goal.Large plants are complicated and increasing rates are not as easy was moving a dial from 100\% to 120\%.
An increase in rate takes time, for a 20\% it would be several weeks of slowly ramping up, modifying protocols and even plant modification (if capital spending is allowed for the project).
While to a lay person 120\% sounds like the plant is 20\% more likely to meltdown there are plenty of things that would go wrong first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246418</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn....</title>
	<author>slewfo0t</author>
	<datestamp>1259343600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh, I see the eco-nuts are in full force with this post... Putting on tin-foil hat...<br> <br>

Nuclear power - PLEASE put one of these in my back yard! <a href="http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html" title="nextenergynews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html</a> [nextenergynews.com] <br> <br>

Mercury - Here are some mercury FACTS from the department of energy... <a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview\_mercurycontrols.html" title="energy.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview\_mercurycontrols.html</a> [energy.gov]. <br> <br>

Drilling for oil -  So while the rest of the world goes out and drills for oil, going so far as to cross drill under US soil, the United States should take a back seat and watch these resources be taken and used against us. Gee, I certainly hope the countries that are actually drilling for oil don't stop sending it to us. I'd hate to see what that would do to our economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , I see the eco-nuts are in full force with this post... Putting on tin-foil hat.. . Nuclear power - PLEASE put one of these in my back yard !
http : //www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html [ nextenergynews.com ] Mercury - Here are some mercury FACTS from the department of energy... http : //www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview \ _mercurycontrols.html [ energy.gov ] .
Drilling for oil - So while the rest of the world goes out and drills for oil , going so far as to cross drill under US soil , the United States should take a back seat and watch these resources be taken and used against us .
Gee , I certainly hope the countries that are actually drilling for oil do n't stop sending it to us .
I 'd hate to see what that would do to our economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, I see the eco-nuts are in full force with this post... Putting on tin-foil hat... 

Nuclear power - PLEASE put one of these in my back yard!
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html [nextenergynews.com]  

Mercury - Here are some mercury FACTS from the department of energy... http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview\_mercurycontrols.html [energy.gov].
Drilling for oil -  So while the rest of the world goes out and drills for oil, going so far as to cross drill under US soil, the United States should take a back seat and watch these resources be taken and used against us.
Gee, I certainly hope the countries that are actually drilling for oil don't stop sending it to us.
I'd hate to see what that would do to our economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245914</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn....</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259340120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions. And their alternatives aren't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out, or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical.



We can't build new nuclear because of the NIMBY crowd. We can't build new coal fired because of the eco-nuts. We can't drill for more oil because of the morons in congress. We don't have to wait for Obama to ruin this country, these groups are doing it for us.



Hey<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. mdsolar<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... go back and stick your head in the sand until you have grow some more FUD.</p></div><p>Damn straight!</p><p>I <i>know exactly</i> where to put the new power plants: in the neighborhoods of the major stockholders and executives of the power plants. Hey, if they're going to be making money on those things, wouldn't they want to be near their investments to keep an eye on them? They sure would! </p><p>And you're right about those Eco-Nuts! I for one have no problem with children getting lead poisoning from smelters and mercury poisoning from burning coal! And the old people and small children who are at risk for respiratory ailments  from the air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, well, fuck'em! Darwin baby!
</p><p>Drilling for oil: tell me about it. Those damn eco-fags and the pussy fishermen too! And the tourism industry homos! They think that no one wants to see oil rigs when they're vacationing? They're wrong! There's nothing more beautiful that seeing an oil rig at dawn - it looks of - victory! Anyway, oil brings in a hell of a lot more money than tourism. </p><p>I'm done for now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we ca n't do rather than some suggestions .
And their alternatives are n't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out , or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical .
We ca n't build new nuclear because of the NIMBY crowd .
We ca n't build new coal fired because of the eco-nuts .
We ca n't drill for more oil because of the morons in congress .
We do n't have to wait for Obama to ruin this country , these groups are doing it for us .
Hey .. mdsolar ... go back and stick your head in the sand until you have grow some more FUD.Damn straight ! I know exactly where to put the new power plants : in the neighborhoods of the major stockholders and executives of the power plants .
Hey , if they 're going to be making money on those things , would n't they want to be near their investments to keep an eye on them ?
They sure would !
And you 're right about those Eco-Nuts !
I for one have no problem with children getting lead poisoning from smelters and mercury poisoning from burning coal !
And the old people and small children who are at risk for respiratory ailments from the air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels , well , fuck'em !
Darwin baby !
Drilling for oil : tell me about it .
Those damn eco-fags and the pussy fishermen too !
And the tourism industry homos !
They think that no one wants to see oil rigs when they 're vacationing ?
They 're wrong !
There 's nothing more beautiful that seeing an oil rig at dawn - it looks of - victory !
Anyway , oil brings in a hell of a lot more money than tourism .
I 'm done for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions.
And their alternatives aren't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out, or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical.
We can't build new nuclear because of the NIMBY crowd.
We can't build new coal fired because of the eco-nuts.
We can't drill for more oil because of the morons in congress.
We don't have to wait for Obama to ruin this country, these groups are doing it for us.
Hey .. mdsolar ... go back and stick your head in the sand until you have grow some more FUD.Damn straight!I know exactly where to put the new power plants: in the neighborhoods of the major stockholders and executives of the power plants.
Hey, if they're going to be making money on those things, wouldn't they want to be near their investments to keep an eye on them?
They sure would!
And you're right about those Eco-Nuts!
I for one have no problem with children getting lead poisoning from smelters and mercury poisoning from burning coal!
And the old people and small children who are at risk for respiratory ailments  from the air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, well, fuck'em!
Darwin baby!
Drilling for oil: tell me about it.
Those damn eco-fags and the pussy fishermen too!
And the tourism industry homos!
They think that no one wants to see oil rigs when they're vacationing?
They're wrong!
There's nothing more beautiful that seeing an oil rig at dawn - it looks of - victory!
Anyway, oil brings in a hell of a lot more money than tourism.
I'm done for now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30255808</id>
	<title>Re:Very disipointed in you, Slashdot</title>
	<author>Zak3056</author>
	<datestamp>1259437140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Another lie in the article, which is a common political lie used by certain anti-nuclear energy interests is "The government has put up $18.5 billion in subsidies to build atomic plants." That is simply not true. The only thing the government put up is what are called loan guarantees, which basically is to say that the government has agreed to underwrite loans on nuclear plants, a common practice in many private public works projects. It's a means of assuring that the plant can get financing at a reasonable interest rate. The government is not handing out 18.5 billion dollars.</p></div> </blockquote><p>IIRC, there were direct subsidies to operators written into the 2005 energy bill for the first half dozen or so new nukes to go into operation (a couple of cents per KWH generated.)  Certainly not eighteen billion dollars worth, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another lie in the article , which is a common political lie used by certain anti-nuclear energy interests is " The government has put up $ 18.5 billion in subsidies to build atomic plants .
" That is simply not true .
The only thing the government put up is what are called loan guarantees , which basically is to say that the government has agreed to underwrite loans on nuclear plants , a common practice in many private public works projects .
It 's a means of assuring that the plant can get financing at a reasonable interest rate .
The government is not handing out 18.5 billion dollars .
IIRC , there were direct subsidies to operators written into the 2005 energy bill for the first half dozen or so new nukes to go into operation ( a couple of cents per KWH generated .
) Certainly not eighteen billion dollars worth , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another lie in the article, which is a common political lie used by certain anti-nuclear energy interests is "The government has put up $18.5 billion in subsidies to build atomic plants.
" That is simply not true.
The only thing the government put up is what are called loan guarantees, which basically is to say that the government has agreed to underwrite loans on nuclear plants, a common practice in many private public works projects.
It's a means of assuring that the plant can get financing at a reasonable interest rate.
The government is not handing out 18.5 billion dollars.
IIRC, there were direct subsidies to operators written into the 2005 energy bill for the first half dozen or so new nukes to go into operation (a couple of cents per KWH generated.
)  Certainly not eighteen billion dollars worth, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246118</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>emilper</author>
	<datestamp>1259341440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using terms such as 'zombie', "decrepit" and 'unprecidented' without a shred of evidence makes me think that the article and the author have a bit too much bias to really believe.</p></div><p>yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "rash of" also indicates negative bias<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  could have written "series of", "number of", but it had to go into the colloquial  register<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using terms such as 'zombie ' , " decrepit " and 'unprecidented ' without a shred of evidence makes me think that the article and the author have a bit too much bias to really believe.yes ... " rash of " also indicates negative bias ... could have written " series of " , " number of " , but it had to go into the colloquial register .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using terms such as 'zombie', "decrepit" and 'unprecidented' without a shred of evidence makes me think that the article and the author have a bit too much bias to really believe.yes ... "rash of" also indicates negative bias ...  could have written "series of", "number of", but it had to go into the colloquial  register ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245940</id>
	<title>We need to shut down the zombie plants!</title>
	<author>Palpatine\_li</author>
	<datestamp>1259340300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear plants emits green radioactive smoke that mutates men into zombies!

wait...

since when has water vapour become green?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear plants emits green radioactive smoke that mutates men into zombies !
wait.. . since when has water vapour become green ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear plants emits green radioactive smoke that mutates men into zombies!
wait...

since when has water vapour become green?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246028</id>
	<title>Profits not power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259340840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is about squeezing every last cent out of existing power plants. New plants are extremely expensive to build and license so it's seen as just cheaper and easier to keep the current reactors churning out power. We aren't talking about offsetting fossil fuels just maintaining the power nuclear is contributing now. Under a best case scenario it takes around 10 years to build and license a nuclear reactor. Most also go radically over budget. I was around the unfinished reactor in South Carolina. Most think it was anti nuke people that killed it. It actually was the fact that they were 200\% over budget and they only had one reactor half finished and were still many years away from producing their first watt of electricity. We literally can't build and license plants fast enough to meet demand. I know people don't want to hear wind and solar even though they are the fastest and easiest to get on-line. What does that leave us with? Coal. Coal doesn't just release CO2 there's heavy metals like lead and mercury that are released. Also guess how a lot of it is mined? They cut off the top of a mountain then fill in a neighboring valley with the mine tailings. Not only does it destroy the landscape but the tailings pollute the water supply. There is no simple and painless solution but we have to get it out of our heads that nuclear power is some magic bullet that will let us all us as much power as we want cheaply. It's slow to roll out and is very expensive to build the plants. It would cost north of a 100 billion just to replace the existing plants and that won't reduce dependance on fossil fuels. We simply don't have the money to replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants. Do the math and you'll be in for a shock. To replace coal it would cost more than the Iraq war and that doesn't cover clean up and storage. As a nation we simply don't have the cash to spend on replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power. The catch-22 is we have to get off fossil fuels. We need to embrace cheaper clean options. The problem is the lobbyist are forcing us onto things like corn ethanol which is a joke and just lines corporation pockets. I always hear nuclear called "cheap". It's hard to call it cheap when we're talking around a billion dollars for one reactor. For the cost of one reactor we can put 30K in solar cells on 30,000+ roofs. Just using the cash needed to replace existing nuclear plants would put solar panels on 3 to 5 million roofs. The service life is similar to a reactor and they require little maintenance. Reactors still need fuel and constant care. We can't keep depending on 30 to 50 year old reactors that have already passed their life expectancy and we can't aford to replace coal with new nuclear plants. We need to consider other options. We need other options than solar but it makes more sense to put the cash into other high tech solutions instead of propping up the nuclear industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about squeezing every last cent out of existing power plants .
New plants are extremely expensive to build and license so it 's seen as just cheaper and easier to keep the current reactors churning out power .
We are n't talking about offsetting fossil fuels just maintaining the power nuclear is contributing now .
Under a best case scenario it takes around 10 years to build and license a nuclear reactor .
Most also go radically over budget .
I was around the unfinished reactor in South Carolina .
Most think it was anti nuke people that killed it .
It actually was the fact that they were 200 \ % over budget and they only had one reactor half finished and were still many years away from producing their first watt of electricity .
We literally ca n't build and license plants fast enough to meet demand .
I know people do n't want to hear wind and solar even though they are the fastest and easiest to get on-line .
What does that leave us with ?
Coal. Coal does n't just release CO2 there 's heavy metals like lead and mercury that are released .
Also guess how a lot of it is mined ?
They cut off the top of a mountain then fill in a neighboring valley with the mine tailings .
Not only does it destroy the landscape but the tailings pollute the water supply .
There is no simple and painless solution but we have to get it out of our heads that nuclear power is some magic bullet that will let us all us as much power as we want cheaply .
It 's slow to roll out and is very expensive to build the plants .
It would cost north of a 100 billion just to replace the existing plants and that wo n't reduce dependance on fossil fuels .
We simply do n't have the money to replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants .
Do the math and you 'll be in for a shock .
To replace coal it would cost more than the Iraq war and that does n't cover clean up and storage .
As a nation we simply do n't have the cash to spend on replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power .
The catch-22 is we have to get off fossil fuels .
We need to embrace cheaper clean options .
The problem is the lobbyist are forcing us onto things like corn ethanol which is a joke and just lines corporation pockets .
I always hear nuclear called " cheap " .
It 's hard to call it cheap when we 're talking around a billion dollars for one reactor .
For the cost of one reactor we can put 30K in solar cells on 30,000 + roofs .
Just using the cash needed to replace existing nuclear plants would put solar panels on 3 to 5 million roofs .
The service life is similar to a reactor and they require little maintenance .
Reactors still need fuel and constant care .
We ca n't keep depending on 30 to 50 year old reactors that have already passed their life expectancy and we ca n't aford to replace coal with new nuclear plants .
We need to consider other options .
We need other options than solar but it makes more sense to put the cash into other high tech solutions instead of propping up the nuclear industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about squeezing every last cent out of existing power plants.
New plants are extremely expensive to build and license so it's seen as just cheaper and easier to keep the current reactors churning out power.
We aren't talking about offsetting fossil fuels just maintaining the power nuclear is contributing now.
Under a best case scenario it takes around 10 years to build and license a nuclear reactor.
Most also go radically over budget.
I was around the unfinished reactor in South Carolina.
Most think it was anti nuke people that killed it.
It actually was the fact that they were 200\% over budget and they only had one reactor half finished and were still many years away from producing their first watt of electricity.
We literally can't build and license plants fast enough to meet demand.
I know people don't want to hear wind and solar even though they are the fastest and easiest to get on-line.
What does that leave us with?
Coal. Coal doesn't just release CO2 there's heavy metals like lead and mercury that are released.
Also guess how a lot of it is mined?
They cut off the top of a mountain then fill in a neighboring valley with the mine tailings.
Not only does it destroy the landscape but the tailings pollute the water supply.
There is no simple and painless solution but we have to get it out of our heads that nuclear power is some magic bullet that will let us all us as much power as we want cheaply.
It's slow to roll out and is very expensive to build the plants.
It would cost north of a 100 billion just to replace the existing plants and that won't reduce dependance on fossil fuels.
We simply don't have the money to replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants.
Do the math and you'll be in for a shock.
To replace coal it would cost more than the Iraq war and that doesn't cover clean up and storage.
As a nation we simply don't have the cash to spend on replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power.
The catch-22 is we have to get off fossil fuels.
We need to embrace cheaper clean options.
The problem is the lobbyist are forcing us onto things like corn ethanol which is a joke and just lines corporation pockets.
I always hear nuclear called "cheap".
It's hard to call it cheap when we're talking around a billion dollars for one reactor.
For the cost of one reactor we can put 30K in solar cells on 30,000+ roofs.
Just using the cash needed to replace existing nuclear plants would put solar panels on 3 to 5 million roofs.
The service life is similar to a reactor and they require little maintenance.
Reactors still need fuel and constant care.
We can't keep depending on 30 to 50 year old reactors that have already passed their life expectancy and we can't aford to replace coal with new nuclear plants.
We need to consider other options.
We need other options than solar but it makes more sense to put the cash into other high tech solutions instead of propping up the nuclear industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248426</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Kinda OT but related. Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year. Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?</p></div></blockquote><p>The devil's advocate would argue that the decreased death rate is due to a massive vaccination campaign, the likes of which the seasonal flu never had.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda OT but related .
Swine flu vaccinations - about 10 ^ 5 people die from the ( regular ) flu every year .
Swine flu has claimed what , 10 ^ 2 ? The devil 's advocate would argue that the decreased death rate is due to a massive vaccination campaign , the likes of which the seasonal flu never had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda OT but related.
Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year.
Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?The devil's advocate would argue that the decreased death rate is due to a massive vaccination campaign, the likes of which the seasonal flu never had.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247738</id>
	<title>Re:"Zombie nukes?" Puh-leaze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259352180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This article is garbage. Others have noted the inflammatory language ("Zombie nukes?" really?). The author is misleading his readers on the issue of radiation-induced embrittlement and stress-corrosion cracking -- whether through ignorance or deliberately deceptive language, it's hard to say. You'll note that of the "shocking" lapses in power plant operations, ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity. ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries. The worst of the bunch, the "six inch deep hole" in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head, wasn't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud. Inspection records were faked, and the people responsible are currently serving time in federal prison. That does point out a legitimate concern: if the operator is willing to lie to the NRC, then bad things can happen. NRC could probably use a shot in the arm, but to suggest it's merely a lapdog of the industry is highly inflammatory, and evidence suggests, not especially accurate.</p></div><p>Yes, mostly garbage, but the wide safety margins are there for a good reason. You just have to look at the Three Mile Island accident that was caused by a problem in the secondary system and a stuck-open pilot relief valve (according to wikipedia.com). I'm sure they've made very certain that this specific issue wouldn't be repeated, but those plants are old, and built when there was no data on the operation of the plants. Unless you want to practically replace the entire plant in-place, it doesn't really make sense to run them much beyond their predicted life. The predictions are statistical guesses anyway.</p><p>They should be replaced by modern plant designs, but I doubt they'll actually be in danger of exploding in sequence anytime soon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is garbage .
Others have noted the inflammatory language ( " Zombie nukes ?
" really ? ) .
The author is misleading his readers on the issue of radiation-induced embrittlement and stress-corrosion cracking -- whether through ignorance or deliberately deceptive language , it 's hard to say .
You 'll note that of the " shocking " lapses in power plant operations , ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity .
ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries .
The worst of the bunch , the " six inch deep hole " in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head , was n't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud .
Inspection records were faked , and the people responsible are currently serving time in federal prison .
That does point out a legitimate concern : if the operator is willing to lie to the NRC , then bad things can happen .
NRC could probably use a shot in the arm , but to suggest it 's merely a lapdog of the industry is highly inflammatory , and evidence suggests , not especially accurate.Yes , mostly garbage , but the wide safety margins are there for a good reason .
You just have to look at the Three Mile Island accident that was caused by a problem in the secondary system and a stuck-open pilot relief valve ( according to wikipedia.com ) .
I 'm sure they 've made very certain that this specific issue would n't be repeated , but those plants are old , and built when there was no data on the operation of the plants .
Unless you want to practically replace the entire plant in-place , it does n't really make sense to run them much beyond their predicted life .
The predictions are statistical guesses anyway.They should be replaced by modern plant designs , but I doubt they 'll actually be in danger of exploding in sequence anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is garbage.
Others have noted the inflammatory language ("Zombie nukes?
" really?).
The author is misleading his readers on the issue of radiation-induced embrittlement and stress-corrosion cracking -- whether through ignorance or deliberately deceptive language, it's hard to say.
You'll note that of the "shocking" lapses in power plant operations, ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity.
ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries.
The worst of the bunch, the "six inch deep hole" in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head, wasn't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud.
Inspection records were faked, and the people responsible are currently serving time in federal prison.
That does point out a legitimate concern: if the operator is willing to lie to the NRC, then bad things can happen.
NRC could probably use a shot in the arm, but to suggest it's merely a lapdog of the industry is highly inflammatory, and evidence suggests, not especially accurate.Yes, mostly garbage, but the wide safety margins are there for a good reason.
You just have to look at the Three Mile Island accident that was caused by a problem in the secondary system and a stuck-open pilot relief valve (according to wikipedia.com).
I'm sure they've made very certain that this specific issue wouldn't be repeated, but those plants are old, and built when there was no data on the operation of the plants.
Unless you want to practically replace the entire plant in-place, it doesn't really make sense to run them much beyond their predicted life.
The predictions are statistical guesses anyway.They should be replaced by modern plant designs, but I doubt they'll actually be in danger of exploding in sequence anytime soon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248780</id>
	<title>Re:Odd</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1259315760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Somehow in the last 30 years we lost the ability to undertake large infrastructure, which you would think given the wealth, technology, etc... that it would be easier."</p><p>I think Vietnam was the tipping point. A huge military expenditure forced the curtailment of domestic infrastructure subsidies. Which led to industrial stagnation, and those of us who were kids in the 70s remember it being a bit grim: strikes, inflation, gas price rises, quality problems, and so on.</p><p>Then came Reagan like the white knight, and his "solution" for Morning In America was to deregulate, which let private infrastructure companies morph into Enron-like shell games. Finance became the new "sunrise industry", alongside microcomputing and networking - the focus was on production of information rather than investment in the old crumbling infrastructure. It was easier and cheaper to make profits by repackaging ownership and debt than doing the hard work. Image, not substance, was what the free market rewarded, so that's what we got.</p><p>If you look at early 80s science fiction, like the cyberpunks, you see a lot of sunny optimism, even mixed in with terror, of how efficient private companies were going to be at building infrastructure. But that didn't happen except in computing, and I'm kind of surprised as to why even that occurred - I presume the Pentagon and Wall Street were the main drivers there.</p><p>Clinton slowed back a bit but kept mostly on the same privatisation track, and W accelerated it again. Now Obama's trying to reinvest in social infrastructure (healthcare) and gets called the worst of names for that. Far from Kennedy's space race era, half of the USA now sees the mere idea of national-level investment in anything but war as inherently evil. As an outsider, I don't understand why, but I can see the effects.</p><p>Space, for instance, was really all just about the ICBM buildout. Once the Minutemen were built, and the military got their spy and comms networks, and computers had shown that a manned space presence wasn't necessary to achieve the military objectives... there wasn't a whole lot left to do. Just more commsats.</p><p>Infrastructure is a hard problem to start with. When there's a political movement which actively believes even having a shared infrastructure to be a bad thing and that it's a moral duty to prevent those who don't have their own capital reserves from getting access to services... it gets a lot harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Somehow in the last 30 years we lost the ability to undertake large infrastructure , which you would think given the wealth , technology , etc... that it would be easier .
" I think Vietnam was the tipping point .
A huge military expenditure forced the curtailment of domestic infrastructure subsidies .
Which led to industrial stagnation , and those of us who were kids in the 70s remember it being a bit grim : strikes , inflation , gas price rises , quality problems , and so on.Then came Reagan like the white knight , and his " solution " for Morning In America was to deregulate , which let private infrastructure companies morph into Enron-like shell games .
Finance became the new " sunrise industry " , alongside microcomputing and networking - the focus was on production of information rather than investment in the old crumbling infrastructure .
It was easier and cheaper to make profits by repackaging ownership and debt than doing the hard work .
Image , not substance , was what the free market rewarded , so that 's what we got.If you look at early 80s science fiction , like the cyberpunks , you see a lot of sunny optimism , even mixed in with terror , of how efficient private companies were going to be at building infrastructure .
But that did n't happen except in computing , and I 'm kind of surprised as to why even that occurred - I presume the Pentagon and Wall Street were the main drivers there.Clinton slowed back a bit but kept mostly on the same privatisation track , and W accelerated it again .
Now Obama 's trying to reinvest in social infrastructure ( healthcare ) and gets called the worst of names for that .
Far from Kennedy 's space race era , half of the USA now sees the mere idea of national-level investment in anything but war as inherently evil .
As an outsider , I do n't understand why , but I can see the effects.Space , for instance , was really all just about the ICBM buildout .
Once the Minutemen were built , and the military got their spy and comms networks , and computers had shown that a manned space presence was n't necessary to achieve the military objectives... there was n't a whole lot left to do .
Just more commsats.Infrastructure is a hard problem to start with .
When there 's a political movement which actively believes even having a shared infrastructure to be a bad thing and that it 's a moral duty to prevent those who do n't have their own capital reserves from getting access to services... it gets a lot harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Somehow in the last 30 years we lost the ability to undertake large infrastructure, which you would think given the wealth, technology, etc... that it would be easier.
"I think Vietnam was the tipping point.
A huge military expenditure forced the curtailment of domestic infrastructure subsidies.
Which led to industrial stagnation, and those of us who were kids in the 70s remember it being a bit grim: strikes, inflation, gas price rises, quality problems, and so on.Then came Reagan like the white knight, and his "solution" for Morning In America was to deregulate, which let private infrastructure companies morph into Enron-like shell games.
Finance became the new "sunrise industry", alongside microcomputing and networking - the focus was on production of information rather than investment in the old crumbling infrastructure.
It was easier and cheaper to make profits by repackaging ownership and debt than doing the hard work.
Image, not substance, was what the free market rewarded, so that's what we got.If you look at early 80s science fiction, like the cyberpunks, you see a lot of sunny optimism, even mixed in with terror, of how efficient private companies were going to be at building infrastructure.
But that didn't happen except in computing, and I'm kind of surprised as to why even that occurred - I presume the Pentagon and Wall Street were the main drivers there.Clinton slowed back a bit but kept mostly on the same privatisation track, and W accelerated it again.
Now Obama's trying to reinvest in social infrastructure (healthcare) and gets called the worst of names for that.
Far from Kennedy's space race era, half of the USA now sees the mere idea of national-level investment in anything but war as inherently evil.
As an outsider, I don't understand why, but I can see the effects.Space, for instance, was really all just about the ICBM buildout.
Once the Minutemen were built, and the military got their spy and comms networks, and computers had shown that a manned space presence wasn't necessary to achieve the military objectives... there wasn't a whole lot left to do.
Just more commsats.Infrastructure is a hard problem to start with.
When there's a political movement which actively believes even having a shared infrastructure to be a bad thing and that it's a moral duty to prevent those who don't have their own capital reserves from getting access to services... it gets a lot harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246348</id>
	<title>Very disipointed in you, Slashdot</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1259343120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This story is blatant anti-nuclear propaganda that is full of misleading statements and an inflammatory title.   This is not a news story, it's someone's editorial and a bad one at that.   The fact that some plants run beyond their design output is a simple matter of more effecient equipment retrofitted to their systems.   Turbines and generators are better now than they were 30+ years ago, and that's the age of many plants.   The additional years of service are due to life-extension upgrades and the fact that there's no reason a plant can't operate safely for 60+ years.
<br> <br>
I've seen some very un newsworthy crap on Slashdot before, but this blatantly one-sided and completely overstated editorial without any further investigation or counter statement is really pushing it.  Shame on you, slashdot.
<br> <br>
Now if you want, I'd be happy to write a rebuttal to this on my site, and you're welcome to link to that, but I don't expect you will, will you?
<br> <br>
I expect that this article was read by someone at Slashdot with a background in computer science or something else that made them totally incapable of judging the merits of these claims.   For example the statement "Radiation makes metal brittle, so old pipes must be routinely switched out for new ones."  That's totally bogus.  There is a such thing as neutron brittling but that happens to the reactor vessel, not the outside plumbing, which is never exposed to neutron irradiation.
<br> <br>
Another lie in the article, which is a common political lie used by certain anti-nuclear energy interests is "The government has put up $18.5 billion in subsidies to build atomic plants."   That is simply not true.  The only thing the government put up is what are called loan guarantees, which basically is to say that the government has agreed to underwrite loans on nuclear plants, a common practice in many private public works projects.  It's a means of assuring that the plant can get financing at a reasonable interest rate.   The government is not handing out 18.5 billion dollars.
<br> <br>
There is more regulation and inspection of nuclear power plants than any other industrial facility on the fact of the earth.   Commercial aircraft, chemical production facilities, massive gas storage facilities, explosives storage locations, trains that cary tens of thousands of tons of chlorine - these are all subject to far far less regulatory and safety oversight.
<br> <br>
Shame on you again, Slashdot.   Next time you go to publish something so obviously slanted and inflammatory, consider asking an expert in the field, who actually understands this stuff.   My suggestion would be hps.org.  They have excellent media relations and very helpful people who know their stuff.
<br> <br>
I'd be happy to write a rebuttal to this, line by line, but I don't know if I have time to today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story is blatant anti-nuclear propaganda that is full of misleading statements and an inflammatory title .
This is not a news story , it 's someone 's editorial and a bad one at that .
The fact that some plants run beyond their design output is a simple matter of more effecient equipment retrofitted to their systems .
Turbines and generators are better now than they were 30 + years ago , and that 's the age of many plants .
The additional years of service are due to life-extension upgrades and the fact that there 's no reason a plant ca n't operate safely for 60 + years .
I 've seen some very un newsworthy crap on Slashdot before , but this blatantly one-sided and completely overstated editorial without any further investigation or counter statement is really pushing it .
Shame on you , slashdot .
Now if you want , I 'd be happy to write a rebuttal to this on my site , and you 're welcome to link to that , but I do n't expect you will , will you ?
I expect that this article was read by someone at Slashdot with a background in computer science or something else that made them totally incapable of judging the merits of these claims .
For example the statement " Radiation makes metal brittle , so old pipes must be routinely switched out for new ones .
" That 's totally bogus .
There is a such thing as neutron brittling but that happens to the reactor vessel , not the outside plumbing , which is never exposed to neutron irradiation .
Another lie in the article , which is a common political lie used by certain anti-nuclear energy interests is " The government has put up $ 18.5 billion in subsidies to build atomic plants .
" That is simply not true .
The only thing the government put up is what are called loan guarantees , which basically is to say that the government has agreed to underwrite loans on nuclear plants , a common practice in many private public works projects .
It 's a means of assuring that the plant can get financing at a reasonable interest rate .
The government is not handing out 18.5 billion dollars .
There is more regulation and inspection of nuclear power plants than any other industrial facility on the fact of the earth .
Commercial aircraft , chemical production facilities , massive gas storage facilities , explosives storage locations , trains that cary tens of thousands of tons of chlorine - these are all subject to far far less regulatory and safety oversight .
Shame on you again , Slashdot .
Next time you go to publish something so obviously slanted and inflammatory , consider asking an expert in the field , who actually understands this stuff .
My suggestion would be hps.org .
They have excellent media relations and very helpful people who know their stuff .
I 'd be happy to write a rebuttal to this , line by line , but I do n't know if I have time to today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story is blatant anti-nuclear propaganda that is full of misleading statements and an inflammatory title.
This is not a news story, it's someone's editorial and a bad one at that.
The fact that some plants run beyond their design output is a simple matter of more effecient equipment retrofitted to their systems.
Turbines and generators are better now than they were 30+ years ago, and that's the age of many plants.
The additional years of service are due to life-extension upgrades and the fact that there's no reason a plant can't operate safely for 60+ years.
I've seen some very un newsworthy crap on Slashdot before, but this blatantly one-sided and completely overstated editorial without any further investigation or counter statement is really pushing it.
Shame on you, slashdot.
Now if you want, I'd be happy to write a rebuttal to this on my site, and you're welcome to link to that, but I don't expect you will, will you?
I expect that this article was read by someone at Slashdot with a background in computer science or something else that made them totally incapable of judging the merits of these claims.
For example the statement "Radiation makes metal brittle, so old pipes must be routinely switched out for new ones.
"  That's totally bogus.
There is a such thing as neutron brittling but that happens to the reactor vessel, not the outside plumbing, which is never exposed to neutron irradiation.
Another lie in the article, which is a common political lie used by certain anti-nuclear energy interests is "The government has put up $18.5 billion in subsidies to build atomic plants.
"   That is simply not true.
The only thing the government put up is what are called loan guarantees, which basically is to say that the government has agreed to underwrite loans on nuclear plants, a common practice in many private public works projects.
It's a means of assuring that the plant can get financing at a reasonable interest rate.
The government is not handing out 18.5 billion dollars.
There is more regulation and inspection of nuclear power plants than any other industrial facility on the fact of the earth.
Commercial aircraft, chemical production facilities, massive gas storage facilities, explosives storage locations, trains that cary tens of thousands of tons of chlorine - these are all subject to far far less regulatory and safety oversight.
Shame on you again, Slashdot.
Next time you go to publish something so obviously slanted and inflammatory, consider asking an expert in the field, who actually understands this stuff.
My suggestion would be hps.org.
They have excellent media relations and very helpful people who know their stuff.
I'd be happy to write a rebuttal to this, line by line, but I don't know if I have time to today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248292</id>
	<title>Re:"Zombie nukes?" Puh-leaze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259312700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there are 20\% more fissions occurring. The energy released per fission isn't affected by a steam generator replacement or "working a pump a little harder." What is happening is the heat removal is increased allowing a corresponding increase in core power. There is nothing for free here as either the operating cycle has been shortened or the fuel enrichment increased to allow for the increase in core power level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there are 20 \ % more fissions occurring .
The energy released per fission is n't affected by a steam generator replacement or " working a pump a little harder .
" What is happening is the heat removal is increased allowing a corresponding increase in core power .
There is nothing for free here as either the operating cycle has been shortened or the fuel enrichment increased to allow for the increase in core power level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there are 20\% more fissions occurring.
The energy released per fission isn't affected by a steam generator replacement or "working a pump a little harder.
" What is happening is the heat removal is increased allowing a corresponding increase in core power.
There is nothing for free here as either the operating cycle has been shortened or the fuel enrichment increased to allow for the increase in core power level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247556</id>
	<title>Figures.  Another KDawson defecation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259351160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad the RSS feed doesn't let you exclude his shite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad the RSS feed does n't let you exclude his shite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad the RSS feed doesn't let you exclude his shite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248170</id>
	<title>Nuclear Power is a waste. Next Gen unproven</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1259355000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Existing proven nuclear power is fine by me; except for the BIG PROBLEM that it COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY.  The reason people don't hear sanity that often anymore is because the media focuses on opposing nutcases and leaves out reasonable less entertaining voices.</p><p>I'm happy to see some sanity posts on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. on nuclear power; democracy now is the only place where I have heard sanity and the 2 mainstream sides.</p><p>Nuclear power is unproven as far as the super-duper next generation promises that have been made for over a decade (at least) without any proven results. Alternative power and grid storage technology is proven and CAN PAY OFF long term; sure it has high starting costs-- but they PAY OFF, nuclear NEVER HAS! (and never will-- you'll have to actually prove it before I believe it can.)</p><p>As far as scare tactics-- I bet the coal industry has been ironically helping greens to bash nuclear...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Existing proven nuclear power is fine by me ; except for the BIG PROBLEM that it COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY .
The reason people do n't hear sanity that often anymore is because the media focuses on opposing nutcases and leaves out reasonable less entertaining voices.I 'm happy to see some sanity posts on / .
on nuclear power ; democracy now is the only place where I have heard sanity and the 2 mainstream sides.Nuclear power is unproven as far as the super-duper next generation promises that have been made for over a decade ( at least ) without any proven results .
Alternative power and grid storage technology is proven and CAN PAY OFF long term ; sure it has high starting costs-- but they PAY OFF , nuclear NEVER HAS !
( and never will-- you 'll have to actually prove it before I believe it can .
) As far as scare tactics-- I bet the coal industry has been ironically helping greens to bash nuclear.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Existing proven nuclear power is fine by me; except for the BIG PROBLEM that it COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY.
The reason people don't hear sanity that often anymore is because the media focuses on opposing nutcases and leaves out reasonable less entertaining voices.I'm happy to see some sanity posts on /.
on nuclear power; democracy now is the only place where I have heard sanity and the 2 mainstream sides.Nuclear power is unproven as far as the super-duper next generation promises that have been made for over a decade (at least) without any proven results.
Alternative power and grid storage technology is proven and CAN PAY OFF long term; sure it has high starting costs-- but they PAY OFF, nuclear NEVER HAS!
(and never will-- you'll have to actually prove it before I believe it can.
)As far as scare tactics-- I bet the coal industry has been ironically helping greens to bash nuclear...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247284</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>radl</author>
	<datestamp>1259349540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are living contradictions in that your lifestyle has been created and can only be sustained by the very things you attack</p></div><p>Yeah, this world thing is quite complex.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> and your other lifestyle choices (for example smoking pot) have very serious costs to the commons but they are "alright" because you like them.</p></div><p>In "my" world, smoking pot has lesser potential to harm coming generations than emissions from (nuclear-/coal-) power plants. (As a side note: In "my" world plant operators shouldn't smoke pot at work).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Move our of your mother's basement,</p></div><p>Accomplished.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> stop playing MMORPG,</p></div><p>Never did. Did you? Should I try it?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> get a job or better yet start a business,</p> </div><p>Accomplished, for the job part.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and grow the fuck up.</p></div><p>I think, being grown up, is a bad excuse for dismissing responsibility.
</p><p>Thanks for your input! Now over to you: <b>get a name, get a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. account!</b> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are living contradictions in that your lifestyle has been created and can only be sustained by the very things you attackYeah , this world thing is quite complex .
and your other lifestyle choices ( for example smoking pot ) have very serious costs to the commons but they are " alright " because you like them.In " my " world , smoking pot has lesser potential to harm coming generations than emissions from ( nuclear-/coal- ) power plants .
( As a side note : In " my " world plant operators should n't smoke pot at work ) .Move our of your mother 's basement,Accomplished .
stop playing MMORPG,Never did .
Did you ?
Should I try it ?
get a job or better yet start a business , Accomplished , for the job part.and grow the fuck up.I think , being grown up , is a bad excuse for dismissing responsibility .
Thanks for your input !
Now over to you : get a name , get a / .
account !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are living contradictions in that your lifestyle has been created and can only be sustained by the very things you attackYeah, this world thing is quite complex.
and your other lifestyle choices (for example smoking pot) have very serious costs to the commons but they are "alright" because you like them.In "my" world, smoking pot has lesser potential to harm coming generations than emissions from (nuclear-/coal-) power plants.
(As a side note: In "my" world plant operators shouldn't smoke pot at work).Move our of your mother's basement,Accomplished.
stop playing MMORPG,Never did.
Did you?
Should I try it?
get a job or better yet start a business, Accomplished, for the job part.and grow the fuck up.I think, being grown up, is a bad excuse for dismissing responsibility.
Thanks for your input!
Now over to you: get a name, get a /.
account! 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247578</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>HiddenCamper</author>
	<datestamp>1259351220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no solution exists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....'yet'.
Actually we know of ways to reprocess and transmute most of the 'waste' and make use of it.

We know of ways to take the most dangerous parts of waste and make them into something less dangerous.

We know how to do it, but we havent put the money into the technology yet.
Bottom line is we are going to need this technology developed in the future, and in the next 100 years it will be there.
We also have a waste mid-term storage option that is safe and can last for a few hundred years.
If we just bury the stuff now we lose a lot of the energy that is still available in the current fuel we have, its actually going to become a valuable resource in the future, and in my mind at least it makes sense to cask it for now until we reach the point where we can start using the waste instead of just trying to bury it and 'get it out of sight', which in my mind is much more dangerous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no solution exists ....'yet' .
Actually we know of ways to reprocess and transmute most of the 'waste ' and make use of it .
We know of ways to take the most dangerous parts of waste and make them into something less dangerous .
We know how to do it , but we havent put the money into the technology yet .
Bottom line is we are going to need this technology developed in the future , and in the next 100 years it will be there .
We also have a waste mid-term storage option that is safe and can last for a few hundred years .
If we just bury the stuff now we lose a lot of the energy that is still available in the current fuel we have , its actually going to become a valuable resource in the future , and in my mind at least it makes sense to cask it for now until we reach the point where we can start using the waste instead of just trying to bury it and 'get it out of sight ' , which in my mind is much more dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no solution exists ....'yet'.
Actually we know of ways to reprocess and transmute most of the 'waste' and make use of it.
We know of ways to take the most dangerous parts of waste and make them into something less dangerous.
We know how to do it, but we havent put the money into the technology yet.
Bottom line is we are going to need this technology developed in the future, and in the next 100 years it will be there.
We also have a waste mid-term storage option that is safe and can last for a few hundred years.
If we just bury the stuff now we lose a lot of the energy that is still available in the current fuel we have, its actually going to become a valuable resource in the future, and in my mind at least it makes sense to cask it for now until we reach the point where we can start using the waste instead of just trying to bury it and 'get it out of sight', which in my mind is much more dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245756</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't we learn anything?</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259339280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm a supporter of nuclear energy, but don't let anyone dumb too close a nuclear power plant.</p></div><p>It's good we have <a href="http://yfrog.com/04nuclearguyj" title="yfrog.com">this guy</a> [yfrog.com] in control of a nuclear power plant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a supporter of nuclear energy , but do n't let anyone dumb too close a nuclear power plant.It 's good we have this guy [ yfrog.com ] in control of a nuclear power plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a supporter of nuclear energy, but don't let anyone dumb too close a nuclear power plant.It's good we have this guy [yfrog.com] in control of a nuclear power plant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30274322</id>
	<title>Too bad we can't power the country by burning BS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259574060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Waste, what do we do with the waste? The spent rods? Keep burying it in the ground, along with our heads? Nuclear power is extremely dangerous, and so are the by-products. That's why it needs so many safety precautions. Plus, it's just another finite resource that will eventually run out.</p><p>The reason we are in this mess is NOT because "Greens" stopped production on more Nuclear plants, it is because "Browns" topedoed production and research and funding on any kind of alternative.</p><p>Started with the ill-conceived Reagan "Revolution". We are in trouble in every area of our society because of conservatives deregulating everythign in site while dismantling any safety precautions that cost their corporate overlords even a small percentage of their profit margins. Careful going over that bridge now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Waste , what do we do with the waste ?
The spent rods ?
Keep burying it in the ground , along with our heads ?
Nuclear power is extremely dangerous , and so are the by-products .
That 's why it needs so many safety precautions .
Plus , it 's just another finite resource that will eventually run out.The reason we are in this mess is NOT because " Greens " stopped production on more Nuclear plants , it is because " Browns " topedoed production and research and funding on any kind of alternative.Started with the ill-conceived Reagan " Revolution " .
We are in trouble in every area of our society because of conservatives deregulating everythign in site while dismantling any safety precautions that cost their corporate overlords even a small percentage of their profit margins .
Careful going over that bridge now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waste, what do we do with the waste?
The spent rods?
Keep burying it in the ground, along with our heads?
Nuclear power is extremely dangerous, and so are the by-products.
That's why it needs so many safety precautions.
Plus, it's just another finite resource that will eventually run out.The reason we are in this mess is NOT because "Greens" stopped production on more Nuclear plants, it is because "Browns" topedoed production and research and funding on any kind of alternative.Started with the ill-conceived Reagan "Revolution".
We are in trouble in every area of our society because of conservatives deregulating everythign in site while dismantling any safety precautions that cost their corporate overlords even a small percentage of their profit margins.
Careful going over that bridge now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246838</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259346480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have a look at our present Nuclear Power infrastructure. Now go look at Japan's, and France. Then look at ours again. You're telling me it isn't possible to build a highly efficient and safe Nuclear Power infrastructure and waste processing, and reclamation system in this country?</p><p>This entire thing revolves around money and power. Add Nuclear, and you might take away from Coal power. Add Nuclear, and your risk local land contamination. Add Nuclear, and you risk our present stockpiles. It's all bullshit. If you think its about anything like safety, carbon emissions, or green alternatives, you've bought the sales pitch hook, line, and sinker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have a look at our present Nuclear Power infrastructure .
Now go look at Japan 's , and France .
Then look at ours again .
You 're telling me it is n't possible to build a highly efficient and safe Nuclear Power infrastructure and waste processing , and reclamation system in this country ? This entire thing revolves around money and power .
Add Nuclear , and you might take away from Coal power .
Add Nuclear , and your risk local land contamination .
Add Nuclear , and you risk our present stockpiles .
It 's all bullshit .
If you think its about anything like safety , carbon emissions , or green alternatives , you 've bought the sales pitch hook , line , and sinker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have a look at our present Nuclear Power infrastructure.
Now go look at Japan's, and France.
Then look at ours again.
You're telling me it isn't possible to build a highly efficient and safe Nuclear Power infrastructure and waste processing, and reclamation system in this country?This entire thing revolves around money and power.
Add Nuclear, and you might take away from Coal power.
Add Nuclear, and your risk local land contamination.
Add Nuclear, and you risk our present stockpiles.
It's all bullshit.
If you think its about anything like safety, carbon emissions, or green alternatives, you've bought the sales pitch hook, line, and sinker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245610</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks, TripMaster Monkey. Except EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS ALL OF THAT. We've all seen those pictures that Ukrainian woman on a motorbike took. And if we wanted to read the Wikipedia article, we would have done so.</p><p>And, no, it wouldn't be like Chernobyl again. It'd probably be worse. In the USSR, only careers and lives were on the line. In modern America, corporate profits would be at risk, which are FAR more important than alerting citizens or trying to contain the mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , TripMaster Monkey .
Except EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS ALL OF THAT .
We 've all seen those pictures that Ukrainian woman on a motorbike took .
And if we wanted to read the Wikipedia article , we would have done so.And , no , it would n't be like Chernobyl again .
It 'd probably be worse .
In the USSR , only careers and lives were on the line .
In modern America , corporate profits would be at risk , which are FAR more important than alerting citizens or trying to contain the mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, TripMaster Monkey.
Except EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS ALL OF THAT.
We've all seen those pictures that Ukrainian woman on a motorbike took.
And if we wanted to read the Wikipedia article, we would have done so.And, no, it wouldn't be like Chernobyl again.
It'd probably be worse.
In the USSR, only careers and lives were on the line.
In modern America, corporate profits would be at risk, which are FAR more important than alerting citizens or trying to contain the mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246186</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1259341980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article mentions the mishap-plagued Vermont Yankee, currently near relicensing and with a 120\% uprate a couple of years ago. Entergy, the current owner, plans to spin off ownership of half its plants, including Yankee, to a new firm financed by massive debt. This way Entergy will no longer itself be financially responsible for any aspect of these plants, while pocketing most of the projected profits from their next two decades of licensed operation in advance.</p><p>So Entergy's got little reason to concern itself with whether Yankee will work as advertised after relicensing. Relicensing is merely a requirement to spin it off, and relinquish Entergy of any responsibility at all, beyond immediate, massive profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions the mishap-plagued Vermont Yankee , currently near relicensing and with a 120 \ % uprate a couple of years ago .
Entergy , the current owner , plans to spin off ownership of half its plants , including Yankee , to a new firm financed by massive debt .
This way Entergy will no longer itself be financially responsible for any aspect of these plants , while pocketing most of the projected profits from their next two decades of licensed operation in advance.So Entergy 's got little reason to concern itself with whether Yankee will work as advertised after relicensing .
Relicensing is merely a requirement to spin it off , and relinquish Entergy of any responsibility at all , beyond immediate , massive profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions the mishap-plagued Vermont Yankee, currently near relicensing and with a 120\% uprate a couple of years ago.
Entergy, the current owner, plans to spin off ownership of half its plants, including Yankee, to a new firm financed by massive debt.
This way Entergy will no longer itself be financially responsible for any aspect of these plants, while pocketing most of the projected profits from their next two decades of licensed operation in advance.So Entergy's got little reason to concern itself with whether Yankee will work as advertised after relicensing.
Relicensing is merely a requirement to spin it off, and relinquish Entergy of any responsibility at all, beyond immediate, massive profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1259338980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Methinks the lady doth protest too much.  Chernobyl happened because engineers bypassed safety devices and did stupid things in a plant without a containment vessel.  I've not read that the overrating had anything to do with the disaster.  Pure, unadulterated human stupidity did.<br> <br>
Back to the TFA.  Color me unimpressed.  Using terms such as 'zombie', "decrepit" and 'unprecidented' without a shred of evidence makes me think that the article and the author have a bit too much bias to really believe.  Sure, it could be true, but we run things past their design lives all of the time.  With careful maintenance and modification it works well.  Perhaps maintenance isn't being done correctly as the article suggests, but lets see a bit more evidence, shall we?<br> <br>
Even though the operators of nuclear plants are shielded from much of the liability of a reactor failure by the feds, no operator wants to Wilson a plant - it's just too expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Methinks the lady doth protest too much .
Chernobyl happened because engineers bypassed safety devices and did stupid things in a plant without a containment vessel .
I 've not read that the overrating had anything to do with the disaster .
Pure , unadulterated human stupidity did .
Back to the TFA .
Color me unimpressed .
Using terms such as 'zombie ' , " decrepit " and 'unprecidented ' without a shred of evidence makes me think that the article and the author have a bit too much bias to really believe .
Sure , it could be true , but we run things past their design lives all of the time .
With careful maintenance and modification it works well .
Perhaps maintenance is n't being done correctly as the article suggests , but lets see a bit more evidence , shall we ?
Even though the operators of nuclear plants are shielded from much of the liability of a reactor failure by the feds , no operator wants to Wilson a plant - it 's just too expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Chernobyl happened because engineers bypassed safety devices and did stupid things in a plant without a containment vessel.
I've not read that the overrating had anything to do with the disaster.
Pure, unadulterated human stupidity did.
Back to the TFA.
Color me unimpressed.
Using terms such as 'zombie', "decrepit" and 'unprecidented' without a shred of evidence makes me think that the article and the author have a bit too much bias to really believe.
Sure, it could be true, but we run things past their design lives all of the time.
With careful maintenance and modification it works well.
Perhaps maintenance isn't being done correctly as the article suggests, but lets see a bit more evidence, shall we?
Even though the operators of nuclear plants are shielded from much of the liability of a reactor failure by the feds, no operator wants to Wilson a plant - it's just too expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249312</id>
	<title>Re:Odd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259318460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else thinking Galactic Empire from the Foundation Series?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else thinking Galactic Empire from the Foundation Series ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else thinking Galactic Empire from the Foundation Series?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247054</id>
	<title>More great BS from people who have no clue...</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1259347980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love the crux of their argument being that the plants are operating at 120\% of their initial design... Unfortunately, the author has no clue as to why that output figure was increased. The actual generators (i.e. the turbines, wires, etc., that are turned by the steam which produce the electricity) have been updated using today's technology. Generator technology has increased dramatically over the last 40 years from when the original plants were produced. In fact, generators have been updated in the plants during most refueling cycles in their normal operation. As those generators increased in efficiency, so too has the output power gone up at the plants. That increased efficiency has allowed the same power from the nuclear reactor to create more output power.<br> <br>Tritium laced water is bad in the water supply, I agree. But as the author said, these happened at one location which the original owner thought was going to be decommissioned. It should have been made know to the new purchasers that some maintenance was not done. I mean, really, would you put a new exhaust system on a 15 year old car which has over 250,000 miles on it? No, you would patch up the one you got and get ready to buy a new car, which is what the previous owner did. They did neglect to tell the new owner of the "car" about the issue and that there was only a temporary patch in place...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the crux of their argument being that the plants are operating at 120 \ % of their initial design... Unfortunately , the author has no clue as to why that output figure was increased .
The actual generators ( i.e .
the turbines , wires , etc. , that are turned by the steam which produce the electricity ) have been updated using today 's technology .
Generator technology has increased dramatically over the last 40 years from when the original plants were produced .
In fact , generators have been updated in the plants during most refueling cycles in their normal operation .
As those generators increased in efficiency , so too has the output power gone up at the plants .
That increased efficiency has allowed the same power from the nuclear reactor to create more output power .
Tritium laced water is bad in the water supply , I agree .
But as the author said , these happened at one location which the original owner thought was going to be decommissioned .
It should have been made know to the new purchasers that some maintenance was not done .
I mean , really , would you put a new exhaust system on a 15 year old car which has over 250,000 miles on it ?
No , you would patch up the one you got and get ready to buy a new car , which is what the previous owner did .
They did neglect to tell the new owner of the " car " about the issue and that there was only a temporary patch in place.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the crux of their argument being that the plants are operating at 120\% of their initial design... Unfortunately, the author has no clue as to why that output figure was increased.
The actual generators (i.e.
the turbines, wires, etc., that are turned by the steam which produce the electricity) have been updated using today's technology.
Generator technology has increased dramatically over the last 40 years from when the original plants were produced.
In fact, generators have been updated in the plants during most refueling cycles in their normal operation.
As those generators increased in efficiency, so too has the output power gone up at the plants.
That increased efficiency has allowed the same power from the nuclear reactor to create more output power.
Tritium laced water is bad in the water supply, I agree.
But as the author said, these happened at one location which the original owner thought was going to be decommissioned.
It should have been made know to the new purchasers that some maintenance was not done.
I mean, really, would you put a new exhaust system on a 15 year old car which has over 250,000 miles on it?
No, you would patch up the one you got and get ready to buy a new car, which is what the previous owner did.
They did neglect to tell the new owner of the "car" about the issue and that there was only a temporary patch in place...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245614</id>
	<title>Didn't we learn anything?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't anyone learn anything from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl\_Disaster" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Chernobyl</a> [wikipedia.org]? It's been over 20 years and it's <i>still</i> too radioactive to go near Reactor 4. Do we really want another plant to blow up?</p><p>I'm a supporter of nuclear energy, but don't let anyone dumb too close a nuclear power plant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't anyone learn anything from Chernobyl [ wikipedia.org ] ?
It 's been over 20 years and it 's still too radioactive to go near Reactor 4 .
Do we really want another plant to blow up ? I 'm a supporter of nuclear energy , but do n't let anyone dumb too close a nuclear power plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't anyone learn anything from Chernobyl [wikipedia.org]?
It's been over 20 years and it's still too radioactive to go near Reactor 4.
Do we really want another plant to blow up?I'm a supporter of nuclear energy, but don't let anyone dumb too close a nuclear power plant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246036</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem isn't really a problem.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1259340900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually there is a solution for nuclear waste.<br>It is called fuel reprocessing.<br>With proper reprocessing the waste is much easier to handle. We are not doing it right now because it is cheaper to just let it sit and or to bury it.<br>The problem is most people have been fed a line of manure from the anti nuclear folks. Do you have any idea how much money some of them are making off of book deals, speaking fees, and "donations" that people make to keep the world and the coal companies safe from the evils of nuclear power.<br>If you want a test to see if they are using fear and ignorance as a tool there is a simple one.<br>If they mention Chernobyl when speaking about the safety of western nuclear reactors they are using fear and ignorance.<br>Chernobyl has as many simulates with a western nuclear power plant as the Hindenburg has with a 777.<br>It is impossible for a western reactor to fail like Chernobyl because no Western country would ever allow a commercial graphite moderated reactor with out a containment building to be put into service!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually there is a solution for nuclear waste.It is called fuel reprocessing.With proper reprocessing the waste is much easier to handle .
We are not doing it right now because it is cheaper to just let it sit and or to bury it.The problem is most people have been fed a line of manure from the anti nuclear folks .
Do you have any idea how much money some of them are making off of book deals , speaking fees , and " donations " that people make to keep the world and the coal companies safe from the evils of nuclear power.If you want a test to see if they are using fear and ignorance as a tool there is a simple one.If they mention Chernobyl when speaking about the safety of western nuclear reactors they are using fear and ignorance.Chernobyl has as many simulates with a western nuclear power plant as the Hindenburg has with a 777.It is impossible for a western reactor to fail like Chernobyl because no Western country would ever allow a commercial graphite moderated reactor with out a containment building to be put into service !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually there is a solution for nuclear waste.It is called fuel reprocessing.With proper reprocessing the waste is much easier to handle.
We are not doing it right now because it is cheaper to just let it sit and or to bury it.The problem is most people have been fed a line of manure from the anti nuclear folks.
Do you have any idea how much money some of them are making off of book deals, speaking fees, and "donations" that people make to keep the world and the coal companies safe from the evils of nuclear power.If you want a test to see if they are using fear and ignorance as a tool there is a simple one.If they mention Chernobyl when speaking about the safety of western nuclear reactors they are using fear and ignorance.Chernobyl has as many simulates with a western nuclear power plant as the Hindenburg has with a 777.It is impossible for a western reactor to fail like Chernobyl because no Western country would ever allow a commercial graphite moderated reactor with out a containment building to be put into service!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247020</id>
	<title>Don't forget Santa Susana Labs Meltdown coverup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259347680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without transparency and oversight of the Nuclear generation industry, we will only suffer as a captive population.</p><p>The first operating US nuclear energy plant, northwest of Los Angeles in the Chatsworth (Santa Susana Hills) Atomics International field laboratory began leaking radioactive gas on July 14, 1959. Some area residents blame the facility for their health issues and say the site remains contaminated.</p><p>In August 1959, about five weeks after the accident, the Atomic Energy Commission published a press release indicating that "a parted fuel element had been observed," a reference to damage. But it added that there was no evidence of radioactive releases or unsafe operating conditions.</p><p>Lab officials kept switching the reactor off and on until July 26, when it was shut down and dismantled. There was evidence of melting in a third of the reactor's fuel elements.</p><p>For about two weeks, the facility, which employed several thousand people, had been venting colorless and odorless radioactive gas into the environment.</p><p>Scientists at the site, originally operated by North American Rockwell, conducted nuclear research for the federal government for more than four decades before ceasing those operations in the late 1980s.</p><p>Radioactivity levels during the accident went off-scale. We thus do not know to this day how much radioactivity was released.</p><p>Details of the incident were not disclosed until 1979, when a group of UCLA students discovered documents and photographs that referred to a problem at the site involving a "melted blob."</p><p>Ever since, residents have worried about downstream health risks associated with soil contaminated by years of rocket and nuclear testing.</p><p>Radioactive emissions from the accident could have resulted in 260 to 1,800 cases of cancer within 62 miles of the site over a "period of many decades," according to a study released in 2006.</p><p>Boeing officials disputed the findings, saying the study was based on miscalculations and faulty information. They cited a Boeing-commissioned study released in 2005 that found overall cancer deaths among employees at the field lab and at Canoga Park facilities between 1949 and 1999 were lower than in the general population.</p><p>A Boeing official said the company was committed to a timely and thorough cleanup of the site in a way that protects public health.</p><p>Half a century after the accident, nuclear cleanup operations and chemical decontamination remain incomplete.</p><p>A cluster of leukemia and other cancers in neighbors and employees remains ignored 50 years later.</p><p>Using computer modeling, a CA state-funded study released in August 2009 estimated the meltdown released 300 times more radiation than the infamous accident at Three-Mile Island -- considered the worst in the nation's history -- and may have triggered at least 260 cancer cases.</p><p>Boeing Co., which now owns the lab, and the Department of Energy, which contracted for its work, dispute the study's key findings.</p><p>Yet the mystery around the accident remains, tangled by missing data and what some say has been bureaucratic foot-dragging and cover-ups. And the new studies have only reignited debate over what happened on the hill in July 1959.</p><p>The Santa Susana Field Laboratory, located on 2,900 acres in the hills between Chatsworth and Simi Valley was developed as a remote site to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear research.</p><p>The Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Energy Commission built the nation's first nuclear power plant to deliver energy to the commercial grid at the lab. Called the Sodium Reactor Experiment, the plant was featured on Edward R. Murrow's television documentary show ``See It Now'' as it delivered electricity to the then-tiny town of Moorpark.</p><p>But during a run from July 14 through July 26, 1959, workers experienced problems with the reactor overheating. On July 26, they shut it down and discovered that 13 of its 43 fuel rods had partially melted, releasing unknown levels of radiation into the reacto</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without transparency and oversight of the Nuclear generation industry , we will only suffer as a captive population.The first operating US nuclear energy plant , northwest of Los Angeles in the Chatsworth ( Santa Susana Hills ) Atomics International field laboratory began leaking radioactive gas on July 14 , 1959 .
Some area residents blame the facility for their health issues and say the site remains contaminated.In August 1959 , about five weeks after the accident , the Atomic Energy Commission published a press release indicating that " a parted fuel element had been observed , " a reference to damage .
But it added that there was no evidence of radioactive releases or unsafe operating conditions.Lab officials kept switching the reactor off and on until July 26 , when it was shut down and dismantled .
There was evidence of melting in a third of the reactor 's fuel elements.For about two weeks , the facility , which employed several thousand people , had been venting colorless and odorless radioactive gas into the environment.Scientists at the site , originally operated by North American Rockwell , conducted nuclear research for the federal government for more than four decades before ceasing those operations in the late 1980s.Radioactivity levels during the accident went off-scale .
We thus do not know to this day how much radioactivity was released.Details of the incident were not disclosed until 1979 , when a group of UCLA students discovered documents and photographs that referred to a problem at the site involving a " melted blob .
" Ever since , residents have worried about downstream health risks associated with soil contaminated by years of rocket and nuclear testing.Radioactive emissions from the accident could have resulted in 260 to 1,800 cases of cancer within 62 miles of the site over a " period of many decades , " according to a study released in 2006.Boeing officials disputed the findings , saying the study was based on miscalculations and faulty information .
They cited a Boeing-commissioned study released in 2005 that found overall cancer deaths among employees at the field lab and at Canoga Park facilities between 1949 and 1999 were lower than in the general population.A Boeing official said the company was committed to a timely and thorough cleanup of the site in a way that protects public health.Half a century after the accident , nuclear cleanup operations and chemical decontamination remain incomplete.A cluster of leukemia and other cancers in neighbors and employees remains ignored 50 years later.Using computer modeling , a CA state-funded study released in August 2009 estimated the meltdown released 300 times more radiation than the infamous accident at Three-Mile Island -- considered the worst in the nation 's history -- and may have triggered at least 260 cancer cases.Boeing Co. , which now owns the lab , and the Department of Energy , which contracted for its work , dispute the study 's key findings.Yet the mystery around the accident remains , tangled by missing data and what some say has been bureaucratic foot-dragging and cover-ups .
And the new studies have only reignited debate over what happened on the hill in July 1959.The Santa Susana Field Laboratory , located on 2,900 acres in the hills between Chatsworth and Simi Valley was developed as a remote site to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear research.The Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Energy Commission built the nation 's first nuclear power plant to deliver energy to the commercial grid at the lab .
Called the Sodium Reactor Experiment , the plant was featured on Edward R. Murrow 's television documentary show ` ` See It Now' ' as it delivered electricity to the then-tiny town of Moorpark.But during a run from July 14 through July 26 , 1959 , workers experienced problems with the reactor overheating .
On July 26 , they shut it down and discovered that 13 of its 43 fuel rods had partially melted , releasing unknown levels of radiation into the reacto</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without transparency and oversight of the Nuclear generation industry, we will only suffer as a captive population.The first operating US nuclear energy plant, northwest of Los Angeles in the Chatsworth (Santa Susana Hills) Atomics International field laboratory began leaking radioactive gas on July 14, 1959.
Some area residents blame the facility for their health issues and say the site remains contaminated.In August 1959, about five weeks after the accident, the Atomic Energy Commission published a press release indicating that "a parted fuel element had been observed," a reference to damage.
But it added that there was no evidence of radioactive releases or unsafe operating conditions.Lab officials kept switching the reactor off and on until July 26, when it was shut down and dismantled.
There was evidence of melting in a third of the reactor's fuel elements.For about two weeks, the facility, which employed several thousand people, had been venting colorless and odorless radioactive gas into the environment.Scientists at the site, originally operated by North American Rockwell, conducted nuclear research for the federal government for more than four decades before ceasing those operations in the late 1980s.Radioactivity levels during the accident went off-scale.
We thus do not know to this day how much radioactivity was released.Details of the incident were not disclosed until 1979, when a group of UCLA students discovered documents and photographs that referred to a problem at the site involving a "melted blob.
"Ever since, residents have worried about downstream health risks associated with soil contaminated by years of rocket and nuclear testing.Radioactive emissions from the accident could have resulted in 260 to 1,800 cases of cancer within 62 miles of the site over a "period of many decades," according to a study released in 2006.Boeing officials disputed the findings, saying the study was based on miscalculations and faulty information.
They cited a Boeing-commissioned study released in 2005 that found overall cancer deaths among employees at the field lab and at Canoga Park facilities between 1949 and 1999 were lower than in the general population.A Boeing official said the company was committed to a timely and thorough cleanup of the site in a way that protects public health.Half a century after the accident, nuclear cleanup operations and chemical decontamination remain incomplete.A cluster of leukemia and other cancers in neighbors and employees remains ignored 50 years later.Using computer modeling, a CA state-funded study released in August 2009 estimated the meltdown released 300 times more radiation than the infamous accident at Three-Mile Island -- considered the worst in the nation's history -- and may have triggered at least 260 cancer cases.Boeing Co., which now owns the lab, and the Department of Energy, which contracted for its work, dispute the study's key findings.Yet the mystery around the accident remains, tangled by missing data and what some say has been bureaucratic foot-dragging and cover-ups.
And the new studies have only reignited debate over what happened on the hill in July 1959.The Santa Susana Field Laboratory, located on 2,900 acres in the hills between Chatsworth and Simi Valley was developed as a remote site to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear research.The Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Energy Commission built the nation's first nuclear power plant to deliver energy to the commercial grid at the lab.
Called the Sodium Reactor Experiment, the plant was featured on Edward R. Murrow's television documentary show ``See It Now'' as it delivered electricity to the then-tiny town of Moorpark.But during a run from July 14 through July 26, 1959, workers experienced problems with the reactor overheating.
On July 26, they shut it down and discovered that 13 of its 43 fuel rods had partially melted, releasing unknown levels of radiation into the reacto</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245852</id>
	<title>High cost???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The high cost of nuclear power is mainly due to the cost of meeting regulations.  Note that a typical coal-fired plant would not meet nuclear regulations because they emit too much radiation.  How stupid is that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The high cost of nuclear power is mainly due to the cost of meeting regulations .
Note that a typical coal-fired plant would not meet nuclear regulations because they emit too much radiation .
How stupid is that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The high cost of nuclear power is mainly due to the cost of meeting regulations.
Note that a typical coal-fired plant would not meet nuclear regulations because they emit too much radiation.
How stupid is that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247914</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259353260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The prob is allways the waste and it will alway be around unless we actully use nuclear power and force mankind to deal with the means to find a salution (EX. if the human body never broke how would we learn how to fix it.) all i am saying is that is if we go nuclear givein time we will find a way to recycle the waste. but if we keep operating at min. production levels we will never become effective in finding a solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The prob is allways the waste and it will alway be around unless we actully use nuclear power and force mankind to deal with the means to find a salution ( EX .
if the human body never broke how would we learn how to fix it .
) all i am saying is that is if we go nuclear givein time we will find a way to recycle the waste .
but if we keep operating at min .
production levels we will never become effective in finding a solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The prob is allways the waste and it will alway be around unless we actully use nuclear power and force mankind to deal with the means to find a salution (EX.
if the human body never broke how would we learn how to fix it.
) all i am saying is that is if we go nuclear givein time we will find a way to recycle the waste.
but if we keep operating at min.
production levels we will never become effective in finding a solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251562</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem isn't really a problem.</title>
	<author>aspelling</author>
	<datestamp>1259331840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both Chernobyl and Hindenburg were learning points.<br>Lesson learnt we became smarter.<br>Don't also forget that Chernobyl has happened when Russia was in a steep decline economically and morally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Chernobyl and Hindenburg were learning points.Lesson learnt we became smarter.Do n't also forget that Chernobyl has happened when Russia was in a steep decline economically and morally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Chernobyl and Hindenburg were learning points.Lesson learnt we became smarter.Don't also forget that Chernobyl has happened when Russia was in a steep decline economically and morally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246556</id>
	<title>Lesson to be learned...</title>
	<author>Atticka</author>
	<datestamp>1259344620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have none of these people played Sim City? Running your power plants over capacity never ends well!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have none of these people played Sim City ?
Running your power plants over capacity never ends well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have none of these people played Sim City?
Running your power plants over capacity never ends well!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245974</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>Stupendoussteve</author>
	<datestamp>1259340480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not necessarily. While still in the research phase, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation\_IV\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org">Fourth Generation</a> [wikipedia.org] reactors look very promising, waste that remains dangerous for decades rather than thousands of years and the ability to use waste from Gen III reactors as fuel.</p><p>Even current breeder reactors can use some waste as fuel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily .
While still in the research phase , Fourth Generation [ wikipedia.org ] reactors look very promising , waste that remains dangerous for decades rather than thousands of years and the ability to use waste from Gen III reactors as fuel.Even current breeder reactors can use some waste as fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.
While still in the research phase, Fourth Generation [wikipedia.org] reactors look very promising, waste that remains dangerous for decades rather than thousands of years and the ability to use waste from Gen III reactors as fuel.Even current breeder reactors can use some waste as fuel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245656</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Chernobyl disaster happened because of a test that was being run outside of safe parameters plus some other coincidences. The plant was not being shut down permanently, it was being taken down for maintenance, nor was it anywhere near its designed life time at 3 years of operation for reactor 4.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chernobyl disaster happened because of a test that was being run outside of safe parameters plus some other coincidences .
The plant was not being shut down permanently , it was being taken down for maintenance , nor was it anywhere near its designed life time at 3 years of operation for reactor 4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chernobyl disaster happened because of a test that was being run outside of safe parameters plus some other coincidences.
The plant was not being shut down permanently, it was being taken down for maintenance, nor was it anywhere near its designed life time at 3 years of operation for reactor 4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249744</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259320620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem with lightbulbs it that you'd need a electricity grid in an entire city, there's no solution to power them from anything else. It's a failure right from the beginning.<br>The real problem with computers is they take up a room the size of a house, there's no solution to putting them into people's homes. It's a failure right from the beginning.<br>The real problem with these cars is they only go 5km/h, there's no solution to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p><p>What are you posting on slashdot on? A C64 with a 9600baud modem? Because you clearly do not believe in technical innovation. Read a science magazine sometime it may do you some good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem with lightbulbs it that you 'd need a electricity grid in an entire city , there 's no solution to power them from anything else .
It 's a failure right from the beginning.The real problem with computers is they take up a room the size of a house , there 's no solution to putting them into people 's homes .
It 's a failure right from the beginning.The real problem with these cars is they only go 5km/h , there 's no solution to .....What are you posting on slashdot on ?
A C64 with a 9600baud modem ?
Because you clearly do not believe in technical innovation .
Read a science magazine sometime it may do you some good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem with lightbulbs it that you'd need a electricity grid in an entire city, there's no solution to power them from anything else.
It's a failure right from the beginning.The real problem with computers is they take up a room the size of a house, there's no solution to putting them into people's homes.
It's a failure right from the beginning.The real problem with these cars is they only go 5km/h, there's no solution to .....What are you posting on slashdot on?
A C64 with a 9600baud modem?
Because you clearly do not believe in technical innovation.
Read a science magazine sometime it may do you some good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246696</id>
	<title>Zombies on Mars</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1259345580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Martian rovers are operating years past their 90 day expected lifetime.  Why no "zombie" smear against them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Martian rovers are operating years past their 90 day expected lifetime .
Why no " zombie " smear against them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Martian rovers are operating years past their 90 day expected lifetime.
Why no "zombie" smear against them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251666</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>aspelling</author>
	<datestamp>1259332800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't also forget that Chernobyl has happened when Russia was in a steep decline economically and morally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't also forget that Chernobyl has happened when Russia was in a steep decline economically and morally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't also forget that Chernobyl has happened when Russia was in a steep decline economically and morally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245678</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1259338920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The design capacity is irrelevant if subsequent advances in technology have increased that capacity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The design capacity is irrelevant if subsequent advances in technology have increased that capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The design capacity is irrelevant if subsequent advances in technology have increased that capacity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248302</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1259312820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So Entergy's got little reason to concern itself with whether Yankee will work as advertised after relicensing.</p></div><p>That's not really true. It's not the way the legal system works in this country, and you probably know that. Look, if there <i>is</i> an incident under the new ownership, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll do everything they can to shift liability, at least partially, back to the original owner. That's the way it works, and odds are that they'll be able to do it too, especially if they can show that they performed their own due diligence after the acquisition. It would take years, enrich more than a few trial attorneys, but Entergy would be unlikely to get away unscathed. Consequently, it would behoove the new operators to keep their noses clean.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Entergy 's got little reason to concern itself with whether Yankee will work as advertised after relicensing.That 's not really true .
It 's not the way the legal system works in this country , and you probably know that .
Look , if there is an incident under the new ownership , you can bet your bottom dollar that they 'll do everything they can to shift liability , at least partially , back to the original owner .
That 's the way it works , and odds are that they 'll be able to do it too , especially if they can show that they performed their own due diligence after the acquisition .
It would take years , enrich more than a few trial attorneys , but Entergy would be unlikely to get away unscathed .
Consequently , it would behoove the new operators to keep their noses clean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Entergy's got little reason to concern itself with whether Yankee will work as advertised after relicensing.That's not really true.
It's not the way the legal system works in this country, and you probably know that.
Look, if there is an incident under the new ownership, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll do everything they can to shift liability, at least partially, back to the original owner.
That's the way it works, and odds are that they'll be able to do it too, especially if they can show that they performed their own due diligence after the acquisition.
It would take years, enrich more than a few trial attorneys, but Entergy would be unlikely to get away unscathed.
Consequently, it would behoove the new operators to keep their noses clean.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247894</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>bkeahl</author>
	<datestamp>1259353200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fail to understand the fixation against burying the waste.  We didn' t create nuclear fuel out of thin air, we mined it from the ground!  Yes, we processed it to make it more potent and pure for our purposes, and then we consumed much of the energy from it.  It makes sense to return it to the ground, with proper precautions.

In the meantime we need to work on improving that process and discovering viable alternative sources of energy.

It amazes me that detractors are on here burning up electrons while complaining about the future production of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to understand the fixation against burying the waste .
We didn ' t create nuclear fuel out of thin air , we mined it from the ground !
Yes , we processed it to make it more potent and pure for our purposes , and then we consumed much of the energy from it .
It makes sense to return it to the ground , with proper precautions .
In the meantime we need to work on improving that process and discovering viable alternative sources of energy .
It amazes me that detractors are on here burning up electrons while complaining about the future production of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to understand the fixation against burying the waste.
We didn' t create nuclear fuel out of thin air, we mined it from the ground!
Yes, we processed it to make it more potent and pure for our purposes, and then we consumed much of the energy from it.
It makes sense to return it to the ground, with proper precautions.
In the meantime we need to work on improving that process and discovering viable alternative sources of energy.
It amazes me that detractors are on here burning up electrons while complaining about the future production of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246476</id>
	<title>If I understand it right</title>
	<author>Concern</author>
	<datestamp>1259344080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the most salient criticism raised by the "Greenes" was that we were not, as a people, disposed to live up to the "zero tolerance" policy for failure that large scale industrial use of nuclear materials really demands. We always make mistakes eventually. Even if it takes 50 or 100 years, then it means we only have 50 or 100 years until a major nuclear disaster and i.e. epic human suffering, unprecedented economic calamity, the depopulation of a major urban area, the success of a fanatical act of terrorism, etc.</p><p>This article rather underscores the point. We have become complacent that we are smart enough and organized enough to use nuclear power safely. As we become complacent, this leads to a false sense of security, laziness and corruption on the part of operators and regulators, apathy on the part of the public, and the decline of safety culture. Now I am sure you will have no problem moving your family in down the street from one of these plants, right?</p><p>Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the most salient criticism raised by the " Greenes " was that we were not , as a people , disposed to live up to the " zero tolerance " policy for failure that large scale industrial use of nuclear materials really demands .
We always make mistakes eventually .
Even if it takes 50 or 100 years , then it means we only have 50 or 100 years until a major nuclear disaster and i.e .
epic human suffering , unprecedented economic calamity , the depopulation of a major urban area , the success of a fanatical act of terrorism , etc.This article rather underscores the point .
We have become complacent that we are smart enough and organized enough to use nuclear power safely .
As we become complacent , this leads to a false sense of security , laziness and corruption on the part of operators and regulators , apathy on the part of the public , and the decline of safety culture .
Now I am sure you will have no problem moving your family in down the street from one of these plants , right ? Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the most salient criticism raised by the "Greenes" was that we were not, as a people, disposed to live up to the "zero tolerance" policy for failure that large scale industrial use of nuclear materials really demands.
We always make mistakes eventually.
Even if it takes 50 or 100 years, then it means we only have 50 or 100 years until a major nuclear disaster and i.e.
epic human suffering, unprecedented economic calamity, the depopulation of a major urban area, the success of a fanatical act of terrorism, etc.This article rather underscores the point.
We have become complacent that we are smart enough and organized enough to use nuclear power safely.
As we become complacent, this leads to a false sense of security, laziness and corruption on the part of operators and regulators, apathy on the part of the public, and the decline of safety culture.
Now I am sure you will have no problem moving your family in down the street from one of these plants, right?Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246102</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1259341320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that typical coal fired powerplant emits more radioactive waste to the biosphere in one day than typical, modern nuclear powerplant will emit in its whole lifetime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that typical coal fired powerplant emits more radioactive waste to the biosphere in one day than typical , modern nuclear powerplant will emit in its whole lifetime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that typical coal fired powerplant emits more radioactive waste to the biosphere in one day than typical, modern nuclear powerplant will emit in its whole lifetime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246724</id>
	<title>Re:"Zombie nukes?" Puh-leaze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259345700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did work in the industry a few years ago and I have friends that do work in the industry currently. Your explanation is spot on. We simply know more now that we did back when the plants were built. It turns out neutron irradiation was not as destructive to plant material as we thought. As far as the power upgrades (called uprates by the NRC), they may actually be putting more fuel in the core (higher enrichment). The NRC has a good webpage describing uprates. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/power-uprates.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did work in the industry a few years ago and I have friends that do work in the industry currently .
Your explanation is spot on .
We simply know more now that we did back when the plants were built .
It turns out neutron irradiation was not as destructive to plant material as we thought .
As far as the power upgrades ( called uprates by the NRC ) , they may actually be putting more fuel in the core ( higher enrichment ) .
The NRC has a good webpage describing uprates .
http : //www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/power-uprates.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did work in the industry a few years ago and I have friends that do work in the industry currently.
Your explanation is spot on.
We simply know more now that we did back when the plants were built.
It turns out neutron irradiation was not as destructive to plant material as we thought.
As far as the power upgrades (called uprates by the NRC), they may actually be putting more fuel in the core (higher enrichment).
The NRC has a good webpage describing uprates.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/power-uprates.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248446</id>
	<title>Re:If I understand it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the only prob that i would have moving my family down the street is that there extremly ugly but hey every city has low income housing......so they can live in areas no one else wants to .</p><p>"the last realist"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the only prob that i would have moving my family down the street is that there extremly ugly but hey every city has low income housing......so they can live in areas no one else wants to .
" the last realist "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only prob that i would have moving my family down the street is that there extremly ugly but hey every city has low income housing......so they can live in areas no one else wants to .
"the last realist"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249708</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1259320440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Total, total, total rubbish.</p><p>The Chernobyl accident happened because the reactor was actually dropped to exceptionally LOW POWER far less than it was supposed to operate, and in the attempts to pull the reactor's rate up, the control rods were removed (and later reinserted in an attempt to stop the reactor).</p><p>A nuclear weapon's uncontrolled fission reaction is *nothing* like the controlled conditions inside a nuclear reactor, and at no point did reactor 4 explode like a nuclear bomb - it was obviously running above criticality (it's a nuclear reactor) but it did not explode that way - the reactor was crippled by disabling several of the safety systems to attempt a test (trying to see if the reactor could be cooled by the water pumps if they were powered solely by the inertia of the turbines in the event of total power loss until the diesel generators could fire up) - the reactor was dropped lower and lower in power, until it reached a point where it suddenly spiked momentarily in a huge generation of heat.</p><p>This flashed all the water in the reactor to steam, which is much less dense than water, which blew the lid off the top of the reactor and broke all the water pipes. The graphite core, which is very hot, was now exposed to the air so burst into flames.</p><p>The burning, radioactive graphite is what belched tons and tons of radionuclides into the air (with the bulk of the reactor's guts and building debris being strewn around the immediate local area, heavily contaminating it).</p><p>Reactor 4 was never running at beyond design capacity - at any rate, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident.</p><p>Initiating a nuclear bomb involves compressing a lump of radioactive material into a critical mass - a nuclear reactor is nothing like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Total , total , total rubbish.The Chernobyl accident happened because the reactor was actually dropped to exceptionally LOW POWER far less than it was supposed to operate , and in the attempts to pull the reactor 's rate up , the control rods were removed ( and later reinserted in an attempt to stop the reactor ) .A nuclear weapon 's uncontrolled fission reaction is * nothing * like the controlled conditions inside a nuclear reactor , and at no point did reactor 4 explode like a nuclear bomb - it was obviously running above criticality ( it 's a nuclear reactor ) but it did not explode that way - the reactor was crippled by disabling several of the safety systems to attempt a test ( trying to see if the reactor could be cooled by the water pumps if they were powered solely by the inertia of the turbines in the event of total power loss until the diesel generators could fire up ) - the reactor was dropped lower and lower in power , until it reached a point where it suddenly spiked momentarily in a huge generation of heat.This flashed all the water in the reactor to steam , which is much less dense than water , which blew the lid off the top of the reactor and broke all the water pipes .
The graphite core , which is very hot , was now exposed to the air so burst into flames.The burning , radioactive graphite is what belched tons and tons of radionuclides into the air ( with the bulk of the reactor 's guts and building debris being strewn around the immediate local area , heavily contaminating it ) .Reactor 4 was never running at beyond design capacity - at any rate , that had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident.Initiating a nuclear bomb involves compressing a lump of radioactive material into a critical mass - a nuclear reactor is nothing like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total, total, total rubbish.The Chernobyl accident happened because the reactor was actually dropped to exceptionally LOW POWER far less than it was supposed to operate, and in the attempts to pull the reactor's rate up, the control rods were removed (and later reinserted in an attempt to stop the reactor).A nuclear weapon's uncontrolled fission reaction is *nothing* like the controlled conditions inside a nuclear reactor, and at no point did reactor 4 explode like a nuclear bomb - it was obviously running above criticality (it's a nuclear reactor) but it did not explode that way - the reactor was crippled by disabling several of the safety systems to attempt a test (trying to see if the reactor could be cooled by the water pumps if they were powered solely by the inertia of the turbines in the event of total power loss until the diesel generators could fire up) - the reactor was dropped lower and lower in power, until it reached a point where it suddenly spiked momentarily in a huge generation of heat.This flashed all the water in the reactor to steam, which is much less dense than water, which blew the lid off the top of the reactor and broke all the water pipes.
The graphite core, which is very hot, was now exposed to the air so burst into flames.The burning, radioactive graphite is what belched tons and tons of radionuclides into the air (with the bulk of the reactor's guts and building debris being strewn around the immediate local area, heavily contaminating it).Reactor 4 was never running at beyond design capacity - at any rate, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident.Initiating a nuclear bomb involves compressing a lump of radioactive material into a critical mass - a nuclear reactor is nothing like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246024</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1259340840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Secret for you:  the planet has a crapload of those exact "toxins" you speak of.  so instead we are harvesting them, and concentrating them in one place so they dont accidentally poison people with the evil "<i>TOXINS</i>"</p><p>Nuclear power is cleaning up the planet by harvesting the things that this evil planet puts all over the place to try and kill us, and getting them away from people.  now go back to getting 3 enemas a day, you still have more toxins in you that needs to be flushed out for your better health!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Secret for you : the planet has a crapload of those exact " toxins " you speak of .
so instead we are harvesting them , and concentrating them in one place so they dont accidentally poison people with the evil " TOXINS " Nuclear power is cleaning up the planet by harvesting the things that this evil planet puts all over the place to try and kill us , and getting them away from people .
now go back to getting 3 enemas a day , you still have more toxins in you that needs to be flushed out for your better health !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secret for you:  the planet has a crapload of those exact "toxins" you speak of.
so instead we are harvesting them, and concentrating them in one place so they dont accidentally poison people with the evil "TOXINS"Nuclear power is cleaning up the planet by harvesting the things that this evil planet puts all over the place to try and kill us, and getting them away from people.
now go back to getting 3 enemas a day, you still have more toxins in you that needs to be flushed out for your better health!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251516</id>
	<title>Re:If I understand it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259331480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. A major disaster will happen earlier or later despite any efforts. This is statistics.<br>People become complacent and take unnecessary risks - be that blown booster gasket or a subprime mortgage.<br>However without taking these risk there is no progress. Look at the history of aviation and other advanced technology.<br>Risk and death is what humans pay for experience, knowledge and progress<br>And yes there is a plant very close to where I live and I don't afraid of it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
A major disaster will happen earlier or later despite any efforts .
This is statistics.People become complacent and take unnecessary risks - be that blown booster gasket or a subprime mortgage.However without taking these risk there is no progress .
Look at the history of aviation and other advanced technology.Risk and death is what humans pay for experience , knowledge and progressAnd yes there is a plant very close to where I live and I do n't afraid of it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
A major disaster will happen earlier or later despite any efforts.
This is statistics.People become complacent and take unnecessary risks - be that blown booster gasket or a subprime mortgage.However without taking these risk there is no progress.
Look at the history of aviation and other advanced technology.Risk and death is what humans pay for experience, knowledge and progressAnd yes there is a plant very close to where I live and I don't afraid of it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246390</id>
	<title>Bzzzt. FAIL.</title>
	<author>Concern</author>
	<datestamp>1259343480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using terms such as 'zombie', "decrepit" and 'unprecidented' without a shred of evidence</p></div><p>Hoping to fool people who didn't read the article?</p><p>It presents copious evidence by citing numerous specific incidents at various facilities, and clearly detailing how these incidents are related to age and lax safety culture.</p><p>Hence "decrepit."</p><p>It also discusses specific regulators at NRC, their backgrounds, and their resumes (which involve jumping between the regulatory agency and cushy jobs at the companies they regulate). It cites a specific ethics violation.</p><p>"Zombie" is perfectly valid analogy considering that these plants are unquestionably operating beyond their original design "lifetime." Quite a bit less vivid than many other terms and analogies I've been subjected to by the news media lately: i.e. who "hates America," who'se part of a "Nazi regime," who'se "socialist," who "sides with terrorists," and so forth.</p><p>The events described in the article, both in terms of safety incidents and regulatory activity, are <i>prima facie</i> unprecedented.</p><p>You fail. Good day, sir.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using terms such as 'zombie ' , " decrepit " and 'unprecidented ' without a shred of evidenceHoping to fool people who did n't read the article ? It presents copious evidence by citing numerous specific incidents at various facilities , and clearly detailing how these incidents are related to age and lax safety culture.Hence " decrepit .
" It also discusses specific regulators at NRC , their backgrounds , and their resumes ( which involve jumping between the regulatory agency and cushy jobs at the companies they regulate ) .
It cites a specific ethics violation .
" Zombie " is perfectly valid analogy considering that these plants are unquestionably operating beyond their original design " lifetime .
" Quite a bit less vivid than many other terms and analogies I 've been subjected to by the news media lately : i.e .
who " hates America , " who'se part of a " Nazi regime , " who'se " socialist , " who " sides with terrorists , " and so forth.The events described in the article , both in terms of safety incidents and regulatory activity , are prima facie unprecedented.You fail .
Good day , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using terms such as 'zombie', "decrepit" and 'unprecidented' without a shred of evidenceHoping to fool people who didn't read the article?It presents copious evidence by citing numerous specific incidents at various facilities, and clearly detailing how these incidents are related to age and lax safety culture.Hence "decrepit.
"It also discusses specific regulators at NRC, their backgrounds, and their resumes (which involve jumping between the regulatory agency and cushy jobs at the companies they regulate).
It cites a specific ethics violation.
"Zombie" is perfectly valid analogy considering that these plants are unquestionably operating beyond their original design "lifetime.
" Quite a bit less vivid than many other terms and analogies I've been subjected to by the news media lately: i.e.
who "hates America," who'se part of a "Nazi regime," who'se "socialist," who "sides with terrorists," and so forth.The events described in the article, both in terms of safety incidents and regulatory activity, are prima facie unprecedented.You fail.
Good day, sir.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248494</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn....</title>
	<author>podom</author>
	<datestamp>1259314080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The toshiba micro-nuclear reactor sounds like a neat idea. Too bad it was a hoax.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba\_Micro\_Nuclear\_Reactor</p><p>http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/185/Toshiba-nuclear-reactor-hoax.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The toshiba micro-nuclear reactor sounds like a neat idea .
Too bad it was a hoax.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba \ _Micro \ _Nuclear \ _Reactorhttp : //www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/185/Toshiba-nuclear-reactor-hoax.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The toshiba micro-nuclear reactor sounds like a neat idea.
Too bad it was a hoax.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba\_Micro\_Nuclear\_Reactorhttp://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/185/Toshiba-nuclear-reactor-hoax.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248274</id>
	<title>Anarchists and hippies out to destroy civilization</title>
	<author>couch\_warrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259312580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again, we see that the core of the environmental movement in reality cares nothing about the environment. Artificially created enviro-panics like the hole in the ozone layer (which hasn't shrunk after 15 years of CFC bans), and the comical global warming hoax (now revealed to be the result of research chicanery and fraud) are in reality all just excuses. They are ruses used in an attempt to panic and frighten the world into dismantling our technological infrastructure and  returning to a hunter-gatherer civilization. All in a lunatic attempt to atone for the sin of being human to the demon-goddess gaia. When enviro-kooks develop a head of steam behind a good scare-story, the LAST thing they want is for the problem to be SOLVED through technology. The point is to make us all give up using earth-hostile amenities like cars and electricity, kill off 9/10ths of the human population through starvation and disease, and then go back to living in tee-pees and using our own dung as fertilizer for our maize. Then MAYBE gaia will forgive us for living on her surface and leave us alone. WAKE UP people! Environmentalism isn't science, it's a religion. One of the most barbaric and scary religions on the face of the earth. If they ever get control of public policy their death-toll will make the Taliban look like a kindergarten class.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , we see that the core of the environmental movement in reality cares nothing about the environment .
Artificially created enviro-panics like the hole in the ozone layer ( which has n't shrunk after 15 years of CFC bans ) , and the comical global warming hoax ( now revealed to be the result of research chicanery and fraud ) are in reality all just excuses .
They are ruses used in an attempt to panic and frighten the world into dismantling our technological infrastructure and returning to a hunter-gatherer civilization .
All in a lunatic attempt to atone for the sin of being human to the demon-goddess gaia .
When enviro-kooks develop a head of steam behind a good scare-story , the LAST thing they want is for the problem to be SOLVED through technology .
The point is to make us all give up using earth-hostile amenities like cars and electricity , kill off 9/10ths of the human population through starvation and disease , and then go back to living in tee-pees and using our own dung as fertilizer for our maize .
Then MAYBE gaia will forgive us for living on her surface and leave us alone .
WAKE UP people !
Environmentalism is n't science , it 's a religion .
One of the most barbaric and scary religions on the face of the earth .
If they ever get control of public policy their death-toll will make the Taliban look like a kindergarten class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, we see that the core of the environmental movement in reality cares nothing about the environment.
Artificially created enviro-panics like the hole in the ozone layer (which hasn't shrunk after 15 years of CFC bans), and the comical global warming hoax (now revealed to be the result of research chicanery and fraud) are in reality all just excuses.
They are ruses used in an attempt to panic and frighten the world into dismantling our technological infrastructure and  returning to a hunter-gatherer civilization.
All in a lunatic attempt to atone for the sin of being human to the demon-goddess gaia.
When enviro-kooks develop a head of steam behind a good scare-story, the LAST thing they want is for the problem to be SOLVED through technology.
The point is to make us all give up using earth-hostile amenities like cars and electricity, kill off 9/10ths of the human population through starvation and disease, and then go back to living in tee-pees and using our own dung as fertilizer for our maize.
Then MAYBE gaia will forgive us for living on her surface and leave us alone.
WAKE UP people!
Environmentalism isn't science, it's a religion.
One of the most barbaric and scary religions on the face of the earth.
If they ever get control of public policy their death-toll will make the Taliban look like a kindergarten class.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986</id>
	<title>"Zombie nukes?" Puh-leaze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259340480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a nuclear engineering/physics graduate student. Whether that makes me uniquely qualified to comment or just another industry shill is, I suppose, a question of which color Kool-Aid you drank with your Post Toasties this morning. That disclaimer out of the way:</p><p>This article is garbage. Others have noted the inflammatory language ("Zombie nukes?" really?). The author is misleading his readers on the issue of radiation-induced embrittlement and stress-corrosion cracking -- whether through ignorance or deliberately deceptive language, it's hard to say. You'll note that of the "shocking" lapses in power plant operations, ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity. ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries. The worst of the bunch, the "six inch deep hole" in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head, wasn't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud. Inspection records were faked, and the people responsible are currently serving time in federal prison. That does point out a legitimate concern: if the operator is willing to lie to the NRC, then bad things can happen. NRC could probably use a shot in the arm, but to suggest it's merely a lapdog of the industry is highly inflammatory, and evidence suggests, not especially accurate.</p><p>These reactors were licensed to operate for forty years because that is the maximum time permitted by law. Why was forty years written into the law? Because there was significant uncertainty as to how reactors would hold up in the long haul. The law was written conservatively. Designers built large safety margins into their designs to ensure compliance. Forty years of operational experience has demonstrated to everyone but the most anti-nuke environmentalists that there is sufficient safety margin to operate safely for another twenty years.</p><p>As for the 120\% operating capacity... sheesh. These plants have had steam generator upgrades. More efficient heat removal allows the turbines to produce more electricity. The nuclear side of the plant is essentially unchanged. They probably drive the primary coolant pumps a little harder, but still well within their designed capacity. So yes, we're getting 20\% more energy out of the same number of fissions. No, we're not jamming 20\% more fuel into the core. Again: deliberately misleading, or poorly informed? Hard to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a nuclear engineering/physics graduate student .
Whether that makes me uniquely qualified to comment or just another industry shill is , I suppose , a question of which color Kool-Aid you drank with your Post Toasties this morning .
That disclaimer out of the way : This article is garbage .
Others have noted the inflammatory language ( " Zombie nukes ?
" really ? ) .
The author is misleading his readers on the issue of radiation-induced embrittlement and stress-corrosion cracking -- whether through ignorance or deliberately deceptive language , it 's hard to say .
You 'll note that of the " shocking " lapses in power plant operations , ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity .
ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries .
The worst of the bunch , the " six inch deep hole " in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head , was n't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud .
Inspection records were faked , and the people responsible are currently serving time in federal prison .
That does point out a legitimate concern : if the operator is willing to lie to the NRC , then bad things can happen .
NRC could probably use a shot in the arm , but to suggest it 's merely a lapdog of the industry is highly inflammatory , and evidence suggests , not especially accurate.These reactors were licensed to operate for forty years because that is the maximum time permitted by law .
Why was forty years written into the law ?
Because there was significant uncertainty as to how reactors would hold up in the long haul .
The law was written conservatively .
Designers built large safety margins into their designs to ensure compliance .
Forty years of operational experience has demonstrated to everyone but the most anti-nuke environmentalists that there is sufficient safety margin to operate safely for another twenty years.As for the 120 \ % operating capacity... sheesh. These plants have had steam generator upgrades .
More efficient heat removal allows the turbines to produce more electricity .
The nuclear side of the plant is essentially unchanged .
They probably drive the primary coolant pumps a little harder , but still well within their designed capacity .
So yes , we 're getting 20 \ % more energy out of the same number of fissions .
No , we 're not jamming 20 \ % more fuel into the core .
Again : deliberately misleading , or poorly informed ?
Hard to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a nuclear engineering/physics graduate student.
Whether that makes me uniquely qualified to comment or just another industry shill is, I suppose, a question of which color Kool-Aid you drank with your Post Toasties this morning.
That disclaimer out of the way:This article is garbage.
Others have noted the inflammatory language ("Zombie nukes?
" really?).
The author is misleading his readers on the issue of radiation-induced embrittlement and stress-corrosion cracking -- whether through ignorance or deliberately deceptive language, it's hard to say.
You'll note that of the "shocking" lapses in power plant operations, ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity.
ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries.
The worst of the bunch, the "six inch deep hole" in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head, wasn't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud.
Inspection records were faked, and the people responsible are currently serving time in federal prison.
That does point out a legitimate concern: if the operator is willing to lie to the NRC, then bad things can happen.
NRC could probably use a shot in the arm, but to suggest it's merely a lapdog of the industry is highly inflammatory, and evidence suggests, not especially accurate.These reactors were licensed to operate for forty years because that is the maximum time permitted by law.
Why was forty years written into the law?
Because there was significant uncertainty as to how reactors would hold up in the long haul.
The law was written conservatively.
Designers built large safety margins into their designs to ensure compliance.
Forty years of operational experience has demonstrated to everyone but the most anti-nuke environmentalists that there is sufficient safety margin to operate safely for another twenty years.As for the 120\% operating capacity... sheesh. These plants have had steam generator upgrades.
More efficient heat removal allows the turbines to produce more electricity.
The nuclear side of the plant is essentially unchanged.
They probably drive the primary coolant pumps a little harder, but still well within their designed capacity.
So yes, we're getting 20\% more energy out of the same number of fissions.
No, we're not jamming 20\% more fuel into the core.
Again: deliberately misleading, or poorly informed?
Hard to say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</id>
	<title>The real problem</title>
	<author>radl</author>
	<datestamp>1259339340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem with nuclear power is and was (and will always be!), that there exists no solution for radioactive waste.
Maybe we won't have a Chernoby like desaster again - however with every single hour we have nuclear power plants running, we are producing toxins that will be lethal for centuries. So come on, using nuclear power was a failure straight from the beginning!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem with nuclear power is and was ( and will always be !
) , that there exists no solution for radioactive waste .
Maybe we wo n't have a Chernoby like desaster again - however with every single hour we have nuclear power plants running , we are producing toxins that will be lethal for centuries .
So come on , using nuclear power was a failure straight from the beginning !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem with nuclear power is and was (and will always be!
), that there exists no solution for radioactive waste.
Maybe we won't have a Chernoby like desaster again - however with every single hour we have nuclear power plants running, we are producing toxins that will be lethal for centuries.
So come on, using nuclear power was a failure straight from the beginning!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246820</id>
	<title>Odd</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1259346360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is odd in this, our age of progress and technological prowess that we can no longer afford the infrastructure of the past.</p><p>New nuke plants are now somehow out of reach, as are new oil refining facilities, rail, bridges, sewers. Somehow in the last 30 years we lost the ability to undertake large infrastructure, which you would think given the wealth, technology, etc... that it would be easier.</p><p>I wonder if this is political or simply part of a new phase. It just seems to me that everything was constructed in the 60's and 70's and now everything is crumbling and falling apart around us, and we lack the ability or will replace it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is odd in this , our age of progress and technological prowess that we can no longer afford the infrastructure of the past.New nuke plants are now somehow out of reach , as are new oil refining facilities , rail , bridges , sewers .
Somehow in the last 30 years we lost the ability to undertake large infrastructure , which you would think given the wealth , technology , etc... that it would be easier.I wonder if this is political or simply part of a new phase .
It just seems to me that everything was constructed in the 60 's and 70 's and now everything is crumbling and falling apart around us , and we lack the ability or will replace it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is odd in this, our age of progress and technological prowess that we can no longer afford the infrastructure of the past.New nuke plants are now somehow out of reach, as are new oil refining facilities, rail, bridges, sewers.
Somehow in the last 30 years we lost the ability to undertake large infrastructure, which you would think given the wealth, technology, etc... that it would be easier.I wonder if this is political or simply part of a new phase.
It just seems to me that everything was constructed in the 60's and 70's and now everything is crumbling and falling apart around us, and we lack the ability or will replace it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248728</id>
	<title>Those are not zombies...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...just refurbished stuff. It works for IT why shouldn't it work for nuclear power plants ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...just refurbished stuff .
It works for IT why should n't it work for nuclear power plants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...just refurbished stuff.
It works for IT why shouldn't it work for nuclear power plants ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246464</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>torkus</author>
	<datestamp>1259343900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do understand that a coal plants produces billions of tons of waste, and an appreciable amount of that is toxic chemicals, right?  Also a fun factoid - Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants.  Go look it up.</p><p>In addition, you're perpetuating more FUD by linking unrelated facts.  Chernobyl had *NOTHING* to do with processing nuclear waste.  It had everything to do with taking every safety system offline, then having poorly trained staff incorrectly running hugely dangerous tests on a totally unsafe reactor design and not understanding/reacting properly when things went wrong.  More homework for you.</p><p>Someone else mentioned reprocessing which is very true.  More advanced reactors also reduce the amount of waste but can produce additional "dangerous" nuclear fuel so they're looked down upon.  Never mind these same reactors actually *make* fuel while producing their energy output, essentially eliminating the possibility of running out of fuel in the next 1000+ years.</p><p>Nuclear power was anything BUT a failure.  Every other technology since though...</p><p>Solar is great, except it's 10x too expensive and producing the solar cells isn't an especially 'green' process.<br>Biofuels are a nifty idea.  Let's starve the population to produce ~5\% more fuel oil.  Never mind that political motivation has left us with horribly inefficient corn-based ethanol instead of several better options and it's driven up the price of staple food by something like 25-50\%.<br>Hydrogen was a joke because our president at the time didn't understand the difference between energy generation and energy storage/transport<br>Hydro is great except for the part where building a dam destroys the local ecology and there's simply not enough places where it's effective.<br>Wave power is cute but quirky and will fall victim to people preserving the sea life if it ever gets beyond the conceptual testing phase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do understand that a coal plants produces billions of tons of waste , and an appreciable amount of that is toxic chemicals , right ?
Also a fun factoid - Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants .
Go look it up.In addition , you 're perpetuating more FUD by linking unrelated facts .
Chernobyl had * NOTHING * to do with processing nuclear waste .
It had everything to do with taking every safety system offline , then having poorly trained staff incorrectly running hugely dangerous tests on a totally unsafe reactor design and not understanding/reacting properly when things went wrong .
More homework for you.Someone else mentioned reprocessing which is very true .
More advanced reactors also reduce the amount of waste but can produce additional " dangerous " nuclear fuel so they 're looked down upon .
Never mind these same reactors actually * make * fuel while producing their energy output , essentially eliminating the possibility of running out of fuel in the next 1000 + years.Nuclear power was anything BUT a failure .
Every other technology since though...Solar is great , except it 's 10x too expensive and producing the solar cells is n't an especially 'green ' process.Biofuels are a nifty idea .
Let 's starve the population to produce ~ 5 \ % more fuel oil .
Never mind that political motivation has left us with horribly inefficient corn-based ethanol instead of several better options and it 's driven up the price of staple food by something like 25-50 \ % .Hydrogen was a joke because our president at the time did n't understand the difference between energy generation and energy storage/transportHydro is great except for the part where building a dam destroys the local ecology and there 's simply not enough places where it 's effective.Wave power is cute but quirky and will fall victim to people preserving the sea life if it ever gets beyond the conceptual testing phase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do understand that a coal plants produces billions of tons of waste, and an appreciable amount of that is toxic chemicals, right?
Also a fun factoid - Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants.
Go look it up.In addition, you're perpetuating more FUD by linking unrelated facts.
Chernobyl had *NOTHING* to do with processing nuclear waste.
It had everything to do with taking every safety system offline, then having poorly trained staff incorrectly running hugely dangerous tests on a totally unsafe reactor design and not understanding/reacting properly when things went wrong.
More homework for you.Someone else mentioned reprocessing which is very true.
More advanced reactors also reduce the amount of waste but can produce additional "dangerous" nuclear fuel so they're looked down upon.
Never mind these same reactors actually *make* fuel while producing their energy output, essentially eliminating the possibility of running out of fuel in the next 1000+ years.Nuclear power was anything BUT a failure.
Every other technology since though...Solar is great, except it's 10x too expensive and producing the solar cells isn't an especially 'green' process.Biofuels are a nifty idea.
Let's starve the population to produce ~5\% more fuel oil.
Never mind that political motivation has left us with horribly inefficient corn-based ethanol instead of several better options and it's driven up the price of staple food by something like 25-50\%.Hydrogen was a joke because our president at the time didn't understand the difference between energy generation and energy storage/transportHydro is great except for the part where building a dam destroys the local ecology and there's simply not enough places where it's effective.Wave power is cute but quirky and will fall victim to people preserving the sea life if it ever gets beyond the conceptual testing phase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246824</id>
	<title>Re:"Zombie nukes?" Puh-leaze</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259346420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And is there some reason why that pump, now being "driven a little harder", can't be replaced when it wears out, just as you would any moving part on any sort of machinery?? I'd think that would fall under ordinary maintenance, not wild-eyed panic.</p><p>I'm sure there are spreadsheets that can tell us when maintenance is to be expected and performed under a given load level, so it's not like OMG it'll only be inspected when it's DUE to wear out under the lesser load. Something like an aircraft's airworthyness directives, yes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And is there some reason why that pump , now being " driven a little harder " , ca n't be replaced when it wears out , just as you would any moving part on any sort of machinery ? ?
I 'd think that would fall under ordinary maintenance , not wild-eyed panic.I 'm sure there are spreadsheets that can tell us when maintenance is to be expected and performed under a given load level , so it 's not like OMG it 'll only be inspected when it 's DUE to wear out under the lesser load .
Something like an aircraft 's airworthyness directives , yes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And is there some reason why that pump, now being "driven a little harder", can't be replaced when it wears out, just as you would any moving part on any sort of machinery??
I'd think that would fall under ordinary maintenance, not wild-eyed panic.I'm sure there are spreadsheets that can tell us when maintenance is to be expected and performed under a given load level, so it's not like OMG it'll only be inspected when it's DUE to wear out under the lesser load.
Something like an aircraft's airworthyness directives, yes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249602</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>DrBoumBoum</author>
	<datestamp>1259319780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Solar is great, except it's 10x too expensive and producing the solar cells isn't an especially 'green' process.</p></div><p>Please everybody here STOP with this bullshit about solar power necessitating environment unfriendly panels, or cells, or whatever. Let me repeat it one more time, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated\_Solar\_Power" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">solar power generation</a> [wikipedia.org] does not necessitate any of that shit. Total solar radiation hitting the Earth daily represents about five thousand times the total amount of energy currently consumed by humanity, considering all energy sources including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewable, etc. This energy can be very easily and cleanly collected and distributed, it's just a matter of doing it. And it <em>looks</em> expensive only because you neglect the cost associated with the environmental pollution generated by the other forms of energy generation, including nuclear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar is great , except it 's 10x too expensive and producing the solar cells is n't an especially 'green ' process.Please everybody here STOP with this bullshit about solar power necessitating environment unfriendly panels , or cells , or whatever .
Let me repeat it one more time , solar power generation [ wikipedia.org ] does not necessitate any of that shit .
Total solar radiation hitting the Earth daily represents about five thousand times the total amount of energy currently consumed by humanity , considering all energy sources including coal , oil , gas , nuclear , renewable , etc .
This energy can be very easily and cleanly collected and distributed , it 's just a matter of doing it .
And it looks expensive only because you neglect the cost associated with the environmental pollution generated by the other forms of energy generation , including nuclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar is great, except it's 10x too expensive and producing the solar cells isn't an especially 'green' process.Please everybody here STOP with this bullshit about solar power necessitating environment unfriendly panels, or cells, or whatever.
Let me repeat it one more time, solar power generation [wikipedia.org] does not necessitate any of that shit.
Total solar radiation hitting the Earth daily represents about five thousand times the total amount of energy currently consumed by humanity, considering all energy sources including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewable, etc.
This energy can be very easily and cleanly collected and distributed, it's just a matter of doing it.
And it looks expensive only because you neglect the cost associated with the environmental pollution generated by the other forms of energy generation, including nuclear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245896</id>
	<title>Maybe some truth there, but it's dubious</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1259340060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's probably some elements of truth in the article, but it's so obviously biased that it's really difficult to credit anything he says.
<p>According to him, if you're still running your car after the warantee expires, you've got a "zombie car"-- regardless of how much maintanance you put into it.  He says a lot of scary things, but doesn't really have much real information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's probably some elements of truth in the article , but it 's so obviously biased that it 's really difficult to credit anything he says .
According to him , if you 're still running your car after the warantee expires , you 've got a " zombie car " -- regardless of how much maintanance you put into it .
He says a lot of scary things , but does n't really have much real information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's probably some elements of truth in the article, but it's so obviously biased that it's really difficult to credit anything he says.
According to him, if you're still running your car after the warantee expires, you've got a "zombie car"-- regardless of how much maintanance you put into it.
He says a lot of scary things, but doesn't really have much real information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247976</id>
	<title>Considerable lack of knowledge</title>
	<author>fatbaldsubmariner</author>
	<datestamp>1259353560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work as a plant operator at a boiling water reactor.  The re-licensing of plants for an extra 20 years is based on the life span of the pressure vessel.  The author is correct about neutron embrittlement.  It does cause materials to fail by causing interstitial point defects in the grain structure.  However, the point defects reach an equilibrium over the life of the plant.  As more defects are created by collisions with neutrons, others are filled again by a collision.  This has been observed through mechanical testing of test materials that are placed in high neutron flux zones in the core.  These are removed and mechanically tested every 2 years.  Calling these old plants 'zombies' is indicative of a serious lack of knowledge about materials, engineering and nuclear power in general.  As to the horrific sounding 120\% power levels that plants are running, you can thank digital technology for this extra power generation.  When the plants were designed in the 60s, analog controls required tremendous safety margins to ensure save operation.  Coolant flows and many other variables had a large margin of uncertainty when being measured and computed to show reactor power.  With modern computers, we can get extremely precise readings on coolant flows, neutron flux, etc, which allows us to increase the power of the reactor without reducing the margin of safety we operate under.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work as a plant operator at a boiling water reactor .
The re-licensing of plants for an extra 20 years is based on the life span of the pressure vessel .
The author is correct about neutron embrittlement .
It does cause materials to fail by causing interstitial point defects in the grain structure .
However , the point defects reach an equilibrium over the life of the plant .
As more defects are created by collisions with neutrons , others are filled again by a collision .
This has been observed through mechanical testing of test materials that are placed in high neutron flux zones in the core .
These are removed and mechanically tested every 2 years .
Calling these old plants 'zombies ' is indicative of a serious lack of knowledge about materials , engineering and nuclear power in general .
As to the horrific sounding 120 \ % power levels that plants are running , you can thank digital technology for this extra power generation .
When the plants were designed in the 60s , analog controls required tremendous safety margins to ensure save operation .
Coolant flows and many other variables had a large margin of uncertainty when being measured and computed to show reactor power .
With modern computers , we can get extremely precise readings on coolant flows , neutron flux , etc , which allows us to increase the power of the reactor without reducing the margin of safety we operate under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work as a plant operator at a boiling water reactor.
The re-licensing of plants for an extra 20 years is based on the life span of the pressure vessel.
The author is correct about neutron embrittlement.
It does cause materials to fail by causing interstitial point defects in the grain structure.
However, the point defects reach an equilibrium over the life of the plant.
As more defects are created by collisions with neutrons, others are filled again by a collision.
This has been observed through mechanical testing of test materials that are placed in high neutron flux zones in the core.
These are removed and mechanically tested every 2 years.
Calling these old plants 'zombies' is indicative of a serious lack of knowledge about materials, engineering and nuclear power in general.
As to the horrific sounding 120\% power levels that plants are running, you can thank digital technology for this extra power generation.
When the plants were designed in the 60s, analog controls required tremendous safety margins to ensure save operation.
Coolant flows and many other variables had a large margin of uncertainty when being measured and computed to show reactor power.
With modern computers, we can get extremely precise readings on coolant flows, neutron flux, etc, which allows us to increase the power of the reactor without reducing the margin of safety we operate under.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251770</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1259334180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The #1 problem with biofuels is, as you mentioned, that people are growing the WRONG crops for biofuels.</p><p>Fact is, if you take pretty much ANY field currently used to grow corn for ethanol production, you can grow something else on that same plot of land that requires LESS chemical and other input than the corn and produces MORE energy output when used as a biofuel. (exactly which crop works best to replace the corn depends on the exact area)</p><p>Biofuels in the US are less about "energy independence" and more about lining the pockets of Monsanto and co (through sales of chemicals, GM seeds etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The # 1 problem with biofuels is , as you mentioned , that people are growing the WRONG crops for biofuels.Fact is , if you take pretty much ANY field currently used to grow corn for ethanol production , you can grow something else on that same plot of land that requires LESS chemical and other input than the corn and produces MORE energy output when used as a biofuel .
( exactly which crop works best to replace the corn depends on the exact area ) Biofuels in the US are less about " energy independence " and more about lining the pockets of Monsanto and co ( through sales of chemicals , GM seeds etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The #1 problem with biofuels is, as you mentioned, that people are growing the WRONG crops for biofuels.Fact is, if you take pretty much ANY field currently used to grow corn for ethanol production, you can grow something else on that same plot of land that requires LESS chemical and other input than the corn and produces MORE energy output when used as a biofuel.
(exactly which crop works best to replace the corn depends on the exact area)Biofuels in the US are less about "energy independence" and more about lining the pockets of Monsanto and co (through sales of chemicals, GM seeds etc)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245722</id>
	<title>The sky is falling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no, nuclear energy is being used, the world will end! Must stop this at all costs, or mother nature will be unhappy. Nuclear is evil because it has the word nuclear in it and somehow related to the military! Now that thats settled it's back to firing up some more coal power plants to meet the needs of society....</p><p>What do you mean the greens are the ones stopping the building of new nuclear power plants? The FUD power trip on nuclear is so much more important than letting people have clean power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , nuclear energy is being used , the world will end !
Must stop this at all costs , or mother nature will be unhappy .
Nuclear is evil because it has the word nuclear in it and somehow related to the military !
Now that thats settled it 's back to firing up some more coal power plants to meet the needs of society....What do you mean the greens are the ones stopping the building of new nuclear power plants ?
The FUD power trip on nuclear is so much more important than letting people have clean power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, nuclear energy is being used, the world will end!
Must stop this at all costs, or mother nature will be unhappy.
Nuclear is evil because it has the word nuclear in it and somehow related to the military!
Now that thats settled it's back to firing up some more coal power plants to meet the needs of society....What do you mean the greens are the ones stopping the building of new nuclear power plants?
The FUD power trip on nuclear is so much more important than letting people have clean power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246964</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259347380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, no. The disaster happened because a test was carried out less experienced night operators who did every don't in the manual trying to follow a test procedure they did not understand. The last straw was removing more control rods completely from the core than was permitted for any reason in an attempt to brute force their way past xenon poisoning rather than scrubbing the test and allowing the iodine and xenon to decay before attempting to increase output as the manual required. At that point the reactor was in an extremely unstable condition.</p><p>They then made matters worse by reducing the coolant flow to the point that voids formed in the core (the reduced flow was part of the test procedure). In that particular reactor design, voids increase the reaction rate. That taken together DID "burn off" the xenon and suddenly the reacter was way over it's design limits. Compounding the problem, the tips of the control rods were inert but displace water (effectively a void), so when they tried to scram the reactor it exploded instead.</p><p>During all of this, several safety systems that would have scramed the reactor in time were manually disabled.</p><p>Put another way, they started with an intrinsically dangerous reactor design (not permitted in the U.S.), overrode a number of safety systems, mis-handled the power level, then attempted to recover by performing an absolutely prohibited operation. Finally now that the reactor was in an incredibly precarious state they further provoked disaster by performing an experimental test procedure (whose carefully planned pre-conditions were not in any way met).</p><p>Notably, the reactor went prompt critical rather than supercritical as a nuclear weapon would. The explosive yield was about a ton of TNT (compared to 10 kilotons for a small weapon).</p><p>So, unsurprisingly it shows that it's a bad idea to have insufficiently trained operators overide safety mechanisms and then ignore every rule in the book in order to carry out an experiment on a dangerously designed nuclear reactor. Particularly in a bureaucratic culture where supervisors would be more upset by a scheduled test being scrubbed than they would be at safety procedures being ignored. A deliberate plan to cause a disaster couldn't have come up with a better procedure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , no .
The disaster happened because a test was carried out less experienced night operators who did every do n't in the manual trying to follow a test procedure they did not understand .
The last straw was removing more control rods completely from the core than was permitted for any reason in an attempt to brute force their way past xenon poisoning rather than scrubbing the test and allowing the iodine and xenon to decay before attempting to increase output as the manual required .
At that point the reactor was in an extremely unstable condition.They then made matters worse by reducing the coolant flow to the point that voids formed in the core ( the reduced flow was part of the test procedure ) .
In that particular reactor design , voids increase the reaction rate .
That taken together DID " burn off " the xenon and suddenly the reacter was way over it 's design limits .
Compounding the problem , the tips of the control rods were inert but displace water ( effectively a void ) , so when they tried to scram the reactor it exploded instead.During all of this , several safety systems that would have scramed the reactor in time were manually disabled.Put another way , they started with an intrinsically dangerous reactor design ( not permitted in the U.S. ) , overrode a number of safety systems , mis-handled the power level , then attempted to recover by performing an absolutely prohibited operation .
Finally now that the reactor was in an incredibly precarious state they further provoked disaster by performing an experimental test procedure ( whose carefully planned pre-conditions were not in any way met ) .Notably , the reactor went prompt critical rather than supercritical as a nuclear weapon would .
The explosive yield was about a ton of TNT ( compared to 10 kilotons for a small weapon ) .So , unsurprisingly it shows that it 's a bad idea to have insufficiently trained operators overide safety mechanisms and then ignore every rule in the book in order to carry out an experiment on a dangerously designed nuclear reactor .
Particularly in a bureaucratic culture where supervisors would be more upset by a scheduled test being scrubbed than they would be at safety procedures being ignored .
A deliberate plan to cause a disaster could n't have come up with a better procedure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, no.
The disaster happened because a test was carried out less experienced night operators who did every don't in the manual trying to follow a test procedure they did not understand.
The last straw was removing more control rods completely from the core than was permitted for any reason in an attempt to brute force their way past xenon poisoning rather than scrubbing the test and allowing the iodine and xenon to decay before attempting to increase output as the manual required.
At that point the reactor was in an extremely unstable condition.They then made matters worse by reducing the coolant flow to the point that voids formed in the core (the reduced flow was part of the test procedure).
In that particular reactor design, voids increase the reaction rate.
That taken together DID "burn off" the xenon and suddenly the reacter was way over it's design limits.
Compounding the problem, the tips of the control rods were inert but displace water (effectively a void), so when they tried to scram the reactor it exploded instead.During all of this, several safety systems that would have scramed the reactor in time were manually disabled.Put another way, they started with an intrinsically dangerous reactor design (not permitted in the U.S.), overrode a number of safety systems, mis-handled the power level, then attempted to recover by performing an absolutely prohibited operation.
Finally now that the reactor was in an incredibly precarious state they further provoked disaster by performing an experimental test procedure (whose carefully planned pre-conditions were not in any way met).Notably, the reactor went prompt critical rather than supercritical as a nuclear weapon would.
The explosive yield was about a ton of TNT (compared to 10 kilotons for a small weapon).So, unsurprisingly it shows that it's a bad idea to have insufficiently trained operators overide safety mechanisms and then ignore every rule in the book in order to carry out an experiment on a dangerously designed nuclear reactor.
Particularly in a bureaucratic culture where supervisors would be more upset by a scheduled test being scrubbed than they would be at safety procedures being ignored.
A deliberate plan to cause a disaster couldn't have come up with a better procedure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247550</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn....</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1259351160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the first new nuclear plants in 30 years have been licensed in the past year or two.  The NIMBY problem is turning around.  The problem is that that turnaround will take a decade to make a difference, and keeping old plants running may bring it back.</p><p>This isn't FUD.  Relicensing old 'zombie' plants is a truly terrible idea, its also just better than all the others.  When you have a plant designed to last 30 years, running it to 40 or 50 years and at 120\% of its designed power capacity, it IS going to cause safety problems.   If the engineers designed the systems that over-spec they were being irresponsible and running the costs up unnecessarily.  As in all engineering problems, you put some safety factor in the design, and that safety factor will keep most of these plants in decent shape. However, you're playing games with statistics and with 100 nuclear plants in the country, all running towards the end of their life and over-capacity, you vastly increase the chances of disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the first new nuclear plants in 30 years have been licensed in the past year or two .
The NIMBY problem is turning around .
The problem is that that turnaround will take a decade to make a difference , and keeping old plants running may bring it back.This is n't FUD .
Relicensing old 'zombie ' plants is a truly terrible idea , its also just better than all the others .
When you have a plant designed to last 30 years , running it to 40 or 50 years and at 120 \ % of its designed power capacity , it IS going to cause safety problems .
If the engineers designed the systems that over-spec they were being irresponsible and running the costs up unnecessarily .
As in all engineering problems , you put some safety factor in the design , and that safety factor will keep most of these plants in decent shape .
However , you 're playing games with statistics and with 100 nuclear plants in the country , all running towards the end of their life and over-capacity , you vastly increase the chances of disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the first new nuclear plants in 30 years have been licensed in the past year or two.
The NIMBY problem is turning around.
The problem is that that turnaround will take a decade to make a difference, and keeping old plants running may bring it back.This isn't FUD.
Relicensing old 'zombie' plants is a truly terrible idea, its also just better than all the others.
When you have a plant designed to last 30 years, running it to 40 or 50 years and at 120\% of its designed power capacity, it IS going to cause safety problems.
If the engineers designed the systems that over-spec they were being irresponsible and running the costs up unnecessarily.
As in all engineering problems, you put some safety factor in the design, and that safety factor will keep most of these plants in decent shape.
However, you're playing games with statistics and with 100 nuclear plants in the country, all running towards the end of their life and over-capacity, you vastly increase the chances of disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247366</id>
	<title>Re:It's the operators that are the greatest danger</title>
	<author>HiddenCamper</author>
	<datestamp>1259350140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to defend the operators, but only because my plant has a very strict operating code. I'm sure there are other plants out there that will push for more efficiency, and the business side of all plants pushes towards efficiency.
In the plant I'm at, it is made very clear the control room operations supervisor has the final say when it comes to putting the plant into a potentially unsafe condition, even if the plant manager says he has to do it he is legally bound (due to his operating license) to maintain a safe condition and stick to procedures at all times.
It's not perfect, but its a pretty good system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to defend the operators , but only because my plant has a very strict operating code .
I 'm sure there are other plants out there that will push for more efficiency , and the business side of all plants pushes towards efficiency .
In the plant I 'm at , it is made very clear the control room operations supervisor has the final say when it comes to putting the plant into a potentially unsafe condition , even if the plant manager says he has to do it he is legally bound ( due to his operating license ) to maintain a safe condition and stick to procedures at all times .
It 's not perfect , but its a pretty good system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to defend the operators, but only because my plant has a very strict operating code.
I'm sure there are other plants out there that will push for more efficiency, and the business side of all plants pushes towards efficiency.
In the plant I'm at, it is made very clear the control room operations supervisor has the final say when it comes to putting the plant into a potentially unsafe condition, even if the plant manager says he has to do it he is legally bound (due to his operating license) to maintain a safe condition and stick to procedures at all times.
It's not perfect, but its a pretty good system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247746</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1259352240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theres a difference between managing and mitigating risk, and avoiding anything that might be risky, and all of your examples are, to me, examples of good risk management.  Risk is a necessary part of life, but its still reasonable and responsible to avoid things that are likely to cause failure, and take the precautions necessary to reduce risk.  Its a matter of weighing the likelihood and costs of failure with the costs of avoiding that risk -- in all of these cases the danger is far more 'expensive' than what is/was necessary to reduce that risk.</p><p>For bicycle helmets, they reduce risk of injury significantly with very few problems -- you look a little dorky, but so many people use them nowadays its less of an issue.</p><p>For retirement of the shuttle, NASA knows that continuing flights without a huge investment in revamping the orbiters does not merely risk disaster, it almost assures it.  The failure at NASA isn't one of fearing failure in this case, its one of failing to follow through in developing new vehicles (for any number of reasons that is a wholly separate debate).  The cost of revamping the orbiters would be better spent developing a new vehicle, and operating in such a way that you can be sure you ARE  going to kill some astronauts is completely irresponsible.</p><p>In this case, running power plants past their design lifetime and well over their rated capacity is also dangerous and irresponsible.  Its not that doing so might lead to a failure, but rather that it is almost certain to.  All of the plants in this country are aging and overworked, and while the safety margins are enough to keep risks low at a single plant, you're playing with statistics and the more you abuse the plants the more likely it is that some kind of disaster will occur.  The correct solution, again, was to continue licensing and building new plants -- while this is turning around now, we'd be in much better shape if it had happened 10 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres a difference between managing and mitigating risk , and avoiding anything that might be risky , and all of your examples are , to me , examples of good risk management .
Risk is a necessary part of life , but its still reasonable and responsible to avoid things that are likely to cause failure , and take the precautions necessary to reduce risk .
Its a matter of weighing the likelihood and costs of failure with the costs of avoiding that risk -- in all of these cases the danger is far more 'expensive ' than what is/was necessary to reduce that risk.For bicycle helmets , they reduce risk of injury significantly with very few problems -- you look a little dorky , but so many people use them nowadays its less of an issue.For retirement of the shuttle , NASA knows that continuing flights without a huge investment in revamping the orbiters does not merely risk disaster , it almost assures it .
The failure at NASA is n't one of fearing failure in this case , its one of failing to follow through in developing new vehicles ( for any number of reasons that is a wholly separate debate ) .
The cost of revamping the orbiters would be better spent developing a new vehicle , and operating in such a way that you can be sure you ARE going to kill some astronauts is completely irresponsible.In this case , running power plants past their design lifetime and well over their rated capacity is also dangerous and irresponsible .
Its not that doing so might lead to a failure , but rather that it is almost certain to .
All of the plants in this country are aging and overworked , and while the safety margins are enough to keep risks low at a single plant , you 're playing with statistics and the more you abuse the plants the more likely it is that some kind of disaster will occur .
The correct solution , again , was to continue licensing and building new plants -- while this is turning around now , we 'd be in much better shape if it had happened 10 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres a difference between managing and mitigating risk, and avoiding anything that might be risky, and all of your examples are, to me, examples of good risk management.
Risk is a necessary part of life, but its still reasonable and responsible to avoid things that are likely to cause failure, and take the precautions necessary to reduce risk.
Its a matter of weighing the likelihood and costs of failure with the costs of avoiding that risk -- in all of these cases the danger is far more 'expensive' than what is/was necessary to reduce that risk.For bicycle helmets, they reduce risk of injury significantly with very few problems -- you look a little dorky, but so many people use them nowadays its less of an issue.For retirement of the shuttle, NASA knows that continuing flights without a huge investment in revamping the orbiters does not merely risk disaster, it almost assures it.
The failure at NASA isn't one of fearing failure in this case, its one of failing to follow through in developing new vehicles (for any number of reasons that is a wholly separate debate).
The cost of revamping the orbiters would be better spent developing a new vehicle, and operating in such a way that you can be sure you ARE  going to kill some astronauts is completely irresponsible.In this case, running power plants past their design lifetime and well over their rated capacity is also dangerous and irresponsible.
Its not that doing so might lead to a failure, but rather that it is almost certain to.
All of the plants in this country are aging and overworked, and while the safety margins are enough to keep risks low at a single plant, you're playing with statistics and the more you abuse the plants the more likely it is that some kind of disaster will occur.
The correct solution, again, was to continue licensing and building new plants -- while this is turning around now, we'd be in much better shape if it had happened 10 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245970</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1259340420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And they were using a HIDEOUSLY old technology for a reactor that would allow for a runaway reaction to happen.  It is suspected the reactor was not a normal power reactor but a breeder reactor designed to make weapons grade.</p><p>Most of the American old reactors are NOT of a horribly bad design like that.  Is there a risk? kinda. but if all we have are 3 mile island incidents that the worst was undetectable by most instruments  then I'm all for it.  Honestly the damned NIMBY and green idiots that kept us from chasing the nuke power option for the past 40 years are the ones to blame.  we would have been mostly nuclear plants now all operating profitably.  I guess that is what you get with a very undereducated populace.  They get easily scared of technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they were using a HIDEOUSLY old technology for a reactor that would allow for a runaway reaction to happen .
It is suspected the reactor was not a normal power reactor but a breeder reactor designed to make weapons grade.Most of the American old reactors are NOT of a horribly bad design like that .
Is there a risk ?
kinda. but if all we have are 3 mile island incidents that the worst was undetectable by most instruments then I 'm all for it .
Honestly the damned NIMBY and green idiots that kept us from chasing the nuke power option for the past 40 years are the ones to blame .
we would have been mostly nuclear plants now all operating profitably .
I guess that is what you get with a very undereducated populace .
They get easily scared of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they were using a HIDEOUSLY old technology for a reactor that would allow for a runaway reaction to happen.
It is suspected the reactor was not a normal power reactor but a breeder reactor designed to make weapons grade.Most of the American old reactors are NOT of a horribly bad design like that.
Is there a risk?
kinda. but if all we have are 3 mile island incidents that the worst was undetectable by most instruments  then I'm all for it.
Honestly the damned NIMBY and green idiots that kept us from chasing the nuke power option for the past 40 years are the ones to blame.
we would have been mostly nuclear plants now all operating profitably.
I guess that is what you get with a very undereducated populace.
They get easily scared of technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247564</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe some truth there, but it's dubious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259351160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>According to him, if you're still running your car after the warantee expires, you've got a "zombie car"-</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

If you've got Christine, you've got a "zombie car", or a bloodthirsty one, at least.  There, fixed it for him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to him , if you 're still running your car after the warantee expires , you 've got a " zombie car " - If you 've got Christine , you 've got a " zombie car " , or a bloodthirsty one , at least .
There , fixed it for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to him, if you're still running your car after the warantee expires, you've got a "zombie car"-


If you've got Christine, you've got a "zombie car", or a bloodthirsty one, at least.
There, fixed it for him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245750</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259339220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Didn't anyone learn anything from Chernobyl [wikipedia.org]?</i> <p>One of the lessons learned was don't let communist bureaucracies call the shots for management of nuclear reactors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't anyone learn anything from Chernobyl [ wikipedia.org ] ?
One of the lessons learned was do n't let communist bureaucracies call the shots for management of nuclear reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't anyone learn anything from Chernobyl [wikipedia.org]?
One of the lessons learned was don't let communist bureaucracies call the shots for management of nuclear reactors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245984</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>laughing\_badger</author>
	<datestamp>1259340480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Piffle!
<p>
Your statement that 'there exists no solution for radioactive waste' is incorrect as we have solutions for the disposal of the waste that we currently generate.

You confuse radiation with toxicity, showing that you know little about the actual subject.
</p><p>
We are capable of creating nuclear powerstations that produce a fraction of the waste of current powerstations and in a more manageable form.
</p><p>
Stop scare-mongering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Piffle !
Your statement that 'there exists no solution for radioactive waste ' is incorrect as we have solutions for the disposal of the waste that we currently generate .
You confuse radiation with toxicity , showing that you know little about the actual subject .
We are capable of creating nuclear powerstations that produce a fraction of the waste of current powerstations and in a more manageable form .
Stop scare-mongering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piffle!
Your statement that 'there exists no solution for radioactive waste' is incorrect as we have solutions for the disposal of the waste that we currently generate.
You confuse radiation with toxicity, showing that you know little about the actual subject.
We are capable of creating nuclear powerstations that produce a fraction of the waste of current powerstations and in a more manageable form.
Stop scare-mongering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251602</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe some truth there, but it's dubious</title>
	<author>aspelling</author>
	<datestamp>1259332260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's is off topic but I would not drive my  without warranty and 24/7 roadside assistance</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's is off topic but I would not drive my without warranty and 24/7 roadside assistance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's is off topic but I would not drive my  without warranty and 24/7 roadside assistance</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247414</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1259350440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Chernobyl reactor disaster happened because the operators decided to run a test, and turned off the automatic safety shut-down.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and because the reactor was of such a design that it could not have a proper containment vessel, and because the control rods had a major flaw in that initiating an emergency shutdown (SCRAM) would cause the reaction rate to INCREASE momentarily, and because the reactor had a positive void coefficient (will tend to increase the rate of reaction as the coolant vaporizes, without outside intervention), AND because there was insufficient instrumentation and operator training to identify the critical reactor condition until after the meltdown had started.</p><p>There was a perfect storm of design flaw and poor decision making that lead to the Chernobyl disaster.</p><p>The experiment the reactor was running was designed to test whether the pumps could circulate current through the reactor after a power loss on inertia alone (without using the backup diesel generators.)</p><p>It was surprising to find out that the direct death toll (discounting the increased cancer rates following the release of radiation) was 56 people, including the responders to the event, and workers on-site when the accident occurred.</p><p>Although the nearby town of Pripyat was abandoned after the disaster, Reactors 1-3 continued operation. Reactor number 2 was damage in a fire, and shut down in 1991. Reactor 1 was decommissioned in 1996, and reactor number 3 was shutdown in 2000.</p><p>Personally, reading heavily into the Chernobyl accident has gone a long way towards <b>improving</b> my opinion on nuclear power. To see what it took to cause the most recognizable and most cited disaster, really puts things into perspective.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chernobyl reactor disaster happened because the operators decided to run a test , and turned off the automatic safety shut-down .
...and because the reactor was of such a design that it could not have a proper containment vessel , and because the control rods had a major flaw in that initiating an emergency shutdown ( SCRAM ) would cause the reaction rate to INCREASE momentarily , and because the reactor had a positive void coefficient ( will tend to increase the rate of reaction as the coolant vaporizes , without outside intervention ) , AND because there was insufficient instrumentation and operator training to identify the critical reactor condition until after the meltdown had started.There was a perfect storm of design flaw and poor decision making that lead to the Chernobyl disaster.The experiment the reactor was running was designed to test whether the pumps could circulate current through the reactor after a power loss on inertia alone ( without using the backup diesel generators .
) It was surprising to find out that the direct death toll ( discounting the increased cancer rates following the release of radiation ) was 56 people , including the responders to the event , and workers on-site when the accident occurred.Although the nearby town of Pripyat was abandoned after the disaster , Reactors 1-3 continued operation .
Reactor number 2 was damage in a fire , and shut down in 1991 .
Reactor 1 was decommissioned in 1996 , and reactor number 3 was shutdown in 2000.Personally , reading heavily into the Chernobyl accident has gone a long way towards improving my opinion on nuclear power .
To see what it took to cause the most recognizable and most cited disaster , really puts things into perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chernobyl reactor disaster happened because the operators decided to run a test, and turned off the automatic safety shut-down.
...and because the reactor was of such a design that it could not have a proper containment vessel, and because the control rods had a major flaw in that initiating an emergency shutdown (SCRAM) would cause the reaction rate to INCREASE momentarily, and because the reactor had a positive void coefficient (will tend to increase the rate of reaction as the coolant vaporizes, without outside intervention), AND because there was insufficient instrumentation and operator training to identify the critical reactor condition until after the meltdown had started.There was a perfect storm of design flaw and poor decision making that lead to the Chernobyl disaster.The experiment the reactor was running was designed to test whether the pumps could circulate current through the reactor after a power loss on inertia alone (without using the backup diesel generators.
)It was surprising to find out that the direct death toll (discounting the increased cancer rates following the release of radiation) was 56 people, including the responders to the event, and workers on-site when the accident occurred.Although the nearby town of Pripyat was abandoned after the disaster, Reactors 1-3 continued operation.
Reactor number 2 was damage in a fire, and shut down in 1991.
Reactor 1 was decommissioned in 1996, and reactor number 3 was shutdown in 2000.Personally, reading heavily into the Chernobyl accident has gone a long way towards improving my opinion on nuclear power.
To see what it took to cause the most recognizable and most cited disaster, really puts things into perspective.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30259132</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>bhiestand</author>
	<datestamp>1259430240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most of the American old reactors are NOT of a horribly bad design like that.  Is there a risk? kinda. but if all we have are 3 mile island incidents that the worst was undetectable by most instruments  then I'm all for it.  Honestly the damned NIMBY and green idiots that kept us from chasing the nuke power option for the past 40 years are the ones to blame.  we would have been mostly nuclear plants now all operating profitably.  I guess that is what you get with a very undereducated populace.  They get easily scared of technology.</p></div><p>We've already had worse.  I submit to you:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa\_Susana\_Field\_Laboratory" title="wikipedia.org">The Santa Susana Field Laboratory</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Let's see some nice quotes from the report:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Lochbaum&rsquo;s bounding estimated release fraction of 30\% would equal approximately 13,000 curies of iodine-131 and 2600 curies of cesium-137, based on the inventories and power history asserted by Atomics International. (A curie is that amount of radioactivity that emits 37 billion disintegrations per second.) His best estimate of 15\% release would thus mean 6500 curies of iodine-131 and 1300 curies of cesium-137 were released. By contrast, the official estimate for the Three Mile Island accident is 17 curies of I-131 and no cesium released.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Approximately a million gallons of TCE, a toxic solvent, were used to wash off rocket test stands, with roughly half that amount estimated to have entered the soil and groundwater. Dozens of toxic chemicals have been found in soil, groundwater, or surface water at the site.</p></div><p>And one last one in case you haven't crapped yourself yet:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>typical clean-up procedures executed by Field Lab employees in the past. Workers would dispose of barrels filled with highly toxic waste by shooting the barrels with rifles so that they would explode and release their contents into the air.</p></div><p>How much more evidence do you need that we can't trust the government OR the industries they're in bed with to protect us from this crap?  BTW, no containment on these reactors because they were experimental.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the American old reactors are NOT of a horribly bad design like that .
Is there a risk ?
kinda. but if all we have are 3 mile island incidents that the worst was undetectable by most instruments then I 'm all for it .
Honestly the damned NIMBY and green idiots that kept us from chasing the nuke power option for the past 40 years are the ones to blame .
we would have been mostly nuclear plants now all operating profitably .
I guess that is what you get with a very undereducated populace .
They get easily scared of technology.We 've already had worse .
I submit to you : The Santa Susana Field Laboratory [ wikipedia.org ] Let 's see some nice quotes from the report : Lochbaum    s bounding estimated release fraction of 30 \ % would equal approximately 13,000 curies of iodine-131 and 2600 curies of cesium-137 , based on the inventories and power history asserted by Atomics International .
( A curie is that amount of radioactivity that emits 37 billion disintegrations per second .
) His best estimate of 15 \ % release would thus mean 6500 curies of iodine-131 and 1300 curies of cesium-137 were released .
By contrast , the official estimate for the Three Mile Island accident is 17 curies of I-131 and no cesium released.Approximately a million gallons of TCE , a toxic solvent , were used to wash off rocket test stands , with roughly half that amount estimated to have entered the soil and groundwater .
Dozens of toxic chemicals have been found in soil , groundwater , or surface water at the site.And one last one in case you have n't crapped yourself yet : typical clean-up procedures executed by Field Lab employees in the past .
Workers would dispose of barrels filled with highly toxic waste by shooting the barrels with rifles so that they would explode and release their contents into the air.How much more evidence do you need that we ca n't trust the government OR the industries they 're in bed with to protect us from this crap ?
BTW , no containment on these reactors because they were experimental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the American old reactors are NOT of a horribly bad design like that.
Is there a risk?
kinda. but if all we have are 3 mile island incidents that the worst was undetectable by most instruments  then I'm all for it.
Honestly the damned NIMBY and green idiots that kept us from chasing the nuke power option for the past 40 years are the ones to blame.
we would have been mostly nuclear plants now all operating profitably.
I guess that is what you get with a very undereducated populace.
They get easily scared of technology.We've already had worse.
I submit to you:  The Santa Susana Field Laboratory [wikipedia.org]Let's see some nice quotes from the report:Lochbaum’s bounding estimated release fraction of 30\% would equal approximately 13,000 curies of iodine-131 and 2600 curies of cesium-137, based on the inventories and power history asserted by Atomics International.
(A curie is that amount of radioactivity that emits 37 billion disintegrations per second.
) His best estimate of 15\% release would thus mean 6500 curies of iodine-131 and 1300 curies of cesium-137 were released.
By contrast, the official estimate for the Three Mile Island accident is 17 curies of I-131 and no cesium released.Approximately a million gallons of TCE, a toxic solvent, were used to wash off rocket test stands, with roughly half that amount estimated to have entered the soil and groundwater.
Dozens of toxic chemicals have been found in soil, groundwater, or surface water at the site.And one last one in case you haven't crapped yourself yet:typical clean-up procedures executed by Field Lab employees in the past.
Workers would dispose of barrels filled with highly toxic waste by shooting the barrels with rifles so that they would explode and release their contents into the air.How much more evidence do you need that we can't trust the government OR the industries they're in bed with to protect us from this crap?
BTW, no containment on these reactors because they were experimental.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246018</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259340780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound like all the other libtard eco whackjobs.  You are living contradictions in that your lifestyle has been created and can only be sustained by the very things you attack and your other lifestyle choices (for example smoking pot) have very serious costs to the commons but they are "alright" because you like them.</p><p>Move our of your mother's basement, stop playing MMORPG, get a job or better yet start a business, and grow the fuck up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like all the other libtard eco whackjobs .
You are living contradictions in that your lifestyle has been created and can only be sustained by the very things you attack and your other lifestyle choices ( for example smoking pot ) have very serious costs to the commons but they are " alright " because you like them.Move our of your mother 's basement , stop playing MMORPG , get a job or better yet start a business , and grow the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like all the other libtard eco whackjobs.
You are living contradictions in that your lifestyle has been created and can only be sustained by the very things you attack and your other lifestyle choices (for example smoking pot) have very serious costs to the commons but they are "alright" because you like them.Move our of your mother's basement, stop playing MMORPG, get a job or better yet start a business, and grow the fuck up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248216</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>CDPS</author>
	<datestamp>1259355300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...public safety even kids wearing helmets on the bicycles. If there is no risk there is no reward but it seems we kind of forgot about it.
</p></div><p>Please tell us what a child is losing by riding a bike with a helmet?  Honestly, speaking as a heavy biker, the arguments over helmets are long over!
</p><p>
I guess you are big on trite sayings, so maybe you also believe "no pain, no gain" (so you think one has to get injured biking to gain anything).
</p><p>
I will also point out to you that "no risk implies no reward" is not logically equivalent to "taking a risk implies you get a reward."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...public safety even kids wearing helmets on the bicycles .
If there is no risk there is no reward but it seems we kind of forgot about it .
Please tell us what a child is losing by riding a bike with a helmet ?
Honestly , speaking as a heavy biker , the arguments over helmets are long over !
I guess you are big on trite sayings , so maybe you also believe " no pain , no gain " ( so you think one has to get injured biking to gain anything ) .
I will also point out to you that " no risk implies no reward " is not logically equivalent to " taking a risk implies you get a reward .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...public safety even kids wearing helmets on the bicycles.
If there is no risk there is no reward but it seems we kind of forgot about it.
Please tell us what a child is losing by riding a bike with a helmet?
Honestly, speaking as a heavy biker, the arguments over helmets are long over!
I guess you are big on trite sayings, so maybe you also believe "no pain, no gain" (so you think one has to get injured biking to gain anything).
I will also point out to you that "no risk implies no reward" is not logically equivalent to "taking a risk implies you get a reward.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246054</id>
	<title>It's the operators that are the greatest danger</title>
	<author>rbanzai</author>
	<datestamp>1259341020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't feel like nuclear power itself is dangerous. I'm worried about the people who own and operate the plants. Most companies in this world focus on one thing: increasing profits at the expense of everything else. Forget safety. Forget responsibility. Whatever the industry just cut things to the absolute razor's edge to line the pockets of the owners and executives.</p><p>The repercussions of this attitude in the nuclear power industry are far greater than other energy producers. Mistakes (or outright negligence) in the handling of materials related to nuclear power production become the legacy of generations, and as usual we will only find out about these problems when it's too late.</p><p>Nuclear power can be clean. It can also be relatively safe. It's the people in the equation that make me anti-nuke. I just don't trust the owners, operators or regulators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't feel like nuclear power itself is dangerous .
I 'm worried about the people who own and operate the plants .
Most companies in this world focus on one thing : increasing profits at the expense of everything else .
Forget safety .
Forget responsibility .
Whatever the industry just cut things to the absolute razor 's edge to line the pockets of the owners and executives.The repercussions of this attitude in the nuclear power industry are far greater than other energy producers .
Mistakes ( or outright negligence ) in the handling of materials related to nuclear power production become the legacy of generations , and as usual we will only find out about these problems when it 's too late.Nuclear power can be clean .
It can also be relatively safe .
It 's the people in the equation that make me anti-nuke .
I just do n't trust the owners , operators or regulators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't feel like nuclear power itself is dangerous.
I'm worried about the people who own and operate the plants.
Most companies in this world focus on one thing: increasing profits at the expense of everything else.
Forget safety.
Forget responsibility.
Whatever the industry just cut things to the absolute razor's edge to line the pockets of the owners and executives.The repercussions of this attitude in the nuclear power industry are far greater than other energy producers.
Mistakes (or outright negligence) in the handling of materials related to nuclear power production become the legacy of generations, and as usual we will only find out about these problems when it's too late.Nuclear power can be clean.
It can also be relatively safe.
It's the people in the equation that make me anti-nuke.
I just don't trust the owners, operators or regulators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245964</id>
	<title>Nuclear Powered Zombie Plants?</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1259340360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will not end well</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will not end well</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will not end well</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30252018</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259337240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Learn to spell and people will take you more seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Learn to spell and people will take you more seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Learn to spell and people will take you more seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30253712</id>
	<title>Very short-sighted of you, P</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259411160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, I really don't mind the inflammatory lead-ins, because I know that, in general, I'll get a good couple of laughs from the comments, and some star or a dozen will pop up and inform me, often with references, of what the situation really is. I don't understand why you fucking nazis have to throw hissy fits like you do all the time. If you don't like the article, don't read it, just<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... PISS off. Slashdot doesn't belong to you personally. I get so much more real info out of an inflammatory article than out if what you seem to so zealously cherish as The Truth(TM). Next you'll be whining that there's an "incorrect" population of soviet jokes, or beowulf jokes, or overlord jokes. Or maybe, just maybe, you're new here. This is NOT a news site, it is a DISCUSSION site. Now go smoke a fat greenie and chill out, numb-nut. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I really do n't mind the inflammatory lead-ins , because I know that , in general , I 'll get a good couple of laughs from the comments , and some star or a dozen will pop up and inform me , often with references , of what the situation really is .
I do n't understand why you fucking nazis have to throw hissy fits like you do all the time .
If you do n't like the article , do n't read it , just ..... PISS off .
Slashdot does n't belong to you personally .
I get so much more real info out of an inflammatory article than out if what you seem to so zealously cherish as The Truth ( TM ) .
Next you 'll be whining that there 's an " incorrect " population of soviet jokes , or beowulf jokes , or overlord jokes .
Or maybe , just maybe , you 're new here .
This is NOT a news site , it is a DISCUSSION site .
Now go smoke a fat greenie and chill out , numb-nut .
I 've said it before , and I 'll say it again : you talk like a fag and your shit 's all retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I really don't mind the inflammatory lead-ins, because I know that, in general, I'll get a good couple of laughs from the comments, and some star or a dozen will pop up and inform me, often with references, of what the situation really is.
I don't understand why you fucking nazis have to throw hissy fits like you do all the time.
If you don't like the article, don't read it, just ..... PISS off.
Slashdot doesn't belong to you personally.
I get so much more real info out of an inflammatory article than out if what you seem to so zealously cherish as The Truth(TM).
Next you'll be whining that there's an "incorrect" population of soviet jokes, or beowulf jokes, or overlord jokes.
Or maybe, just maybe, you're new here.
This is NOT a news site, it is a DISCUSSION site.
Now go smoke a fat greenie and chill out, numb-nut.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247002</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259347560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funny thing is that nuclear is a green option. When operated well, reactors have potentially the least environmental impact of any energy tech including solar and hydro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is that nuclear is a green option .
When operated well , reactors have potentially the least environmental impact of any energy tech including solar and hydro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is that nuclear is a green option.
When operated well, reactors have potentially the least environmental impact of any energy tech including solar and hydro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246910</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259346960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could just blow it into the air like coal plants.... That or you know use up all the fuel. Only the shitty plants in the US have radioactive waste problems. France, Canada and China seem to get by fine creating little no radioactive waste. Nice FUD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could just blow it into the air like coal plants.... That or you know use up all the fuel .
Only the shitty plants in the US have radioactive waste problems .
France , Canada and China seem to get by fine creating little no radioactive waste .
Nice FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could just blow it into the air like coal plants.... That or you know use up all the fuel.
Only the shitty plants in the US have radioactive waste problems.
France, Canada and China seem to get by fine creating little no radioactive waste.
Nice FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247216</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259349060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure there is. Reprocess to extract the 95\% economically valuable fuel from the waste (there's nothing like economic value to make people careful not to lose any!)</p><p>The remainder is (decreasingly) hazardous for 2 to 5 centuries. All that junk about coming up with warning signs that can be read in 10,000 years is just a bunch of FUD. Yucca Mtn is a terrible answer to that though since in a few generations the waste will be a treasure trove of industrially useful elements.</p><p>Note that after that 2-500 years when the waste has been reclaimed for it's industrial value the slag piles from coal plants will still be there in their shallow grave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure there is .
Reprocess to extract the 95 \ % economically valuable fuel from the waste ( there 's nothing like economic value to make people careful not to lose any !
) The remainder is ( decreasingly ) hazardous for 2 to 5 centuries .
All that junk about coming up with warning signs that can be read in 10,000 years is just a bunch of FUD .
Yucca Mtn is a terrible answer to that though since in a few generations the waste will be a treasure trove of industrially useful elements.Note that after that 2-500 years when the waste has been reclaimed for it 's industrial value the slag piles from coal plants will still be there in their shallow grave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure there is.
Reprocess to extract the 95\% economically valuable fuel from the waste (there's nothing like economic value to make people careful not to lose any!
)The remainder is (decreasingly) hazardous for 2 to 5 centuries.
All that junk about coming up with warning signs that can be read in 10,000 years is just a bunch of FUD.
Yucca Mtn is a terrible answer to that though since in a few generations the waste will be a treasure trove of industrially useful elements.Note that after that 2-500 years when the waste has been reclaimed for it's industrial value the slag piles from coal plants will still be there in their shallow grave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246364</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1259343300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing Chernobyl to any American commercial reactor and talking about what could happen, without mentioning the severe differences, is just like mentioning a prior dam failure, hinting at the imminent collapse of Boulder dam, and not mentioning the little detail that the prior dam was made of packed dirt and not concrete.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Whoops, it's Slashdot, better go with a car analogy:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It's like planting explosives under one make of car, claiming that model blows up more than another brand, and not mentioning the explosives part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing Chernobyl to any American commercial reactor and talking about what could happen , without mentioning the severe differences , is just like mentioning a prior dam failure , hinting at the imminent collapse of Boulder dam , and not mentioning the little detail that the prior dam was made of packed dirt and not concrete .
        Whoops , it 's Slashdot , better go with a car analogy :         It 's like planting explosives under one make of car , claiming that model blows up more than another brand , and not mentioning the explosives part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing Chernobyl to any American commercial reactor and talking about what could happen, without mentioning the severe differences, is just like mentioning a prior dam failure, hinting at the imminent collapse of Boulder dam, and not mentioning the little detail that the prior dam was made of packed dirt and not concrete.
        Whoops, it's Slashdot, better go with a car analogy:
        It's like planting explosives under one make of car, claiming that model blows up more than another brand, and not mentioning the explosives part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248528</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>gamecrusader</author>
	<datestamp>1259314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know its a good cause to spen money of vacines, i'm not looking forward when that virus mutates, it's not a if, its a when. That is a good cause, don't think I wana end up dead from H1N1 Do you think, it'd be a waste then if it mutates, becoming a highly contagious, deady virus? Its worth the money bud, think about the time when it mutates, and there isn't enough vaccine to go around, like the current sintuation. billions on swine flue, worth it, I have a high chance of coming in contact with it every week, I don't think its a waste, when I look at the alternitive. I'd see what a bad flue epedemic would be like on the front lines, its a nightmare how fast it could spread with the current economy.<br>So many people out of jobs and in dense concentrations, looking for work, needing to get help. I can see the point obviously you don't but<br>Stop day dreaming, and look at the global picture with swine flue, rember the last flue deadly flue epedmic in the U.S. and the millions who died do your really really want to repeat it? That is a great possibility if the H1N1 strain mutates, into a very deadly virus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know its a good cause to spen money of vacines , i 'm not looking forward when that virus mutates , it 's not a if , its a when .
That is a good cause , do n't think I wana end up dead from H1N1 Do you think , it 'd be a waste then if it mutates , becoming a highly contagious , deady virus ?
Its worth the money bud , think about the time when it mutates , and there is n't enough vaccine to go around , like the current sintuation .
billions on swine flue , worth it , I have a high chance of coming in contact with it every week , I do n't think its a waste , when I look at the alternitive .
I 'd see what a bad flue epedemic would be like on the front lines , its a nightmare how fast it could spread with the current economy.So many people out of jobs and in dense concentrations , looking for work , needing to get help .
I can see the point obviously you do n't butStop day dreaming , and look at the global picture with swine flue , rember the last flue deadly flue epedmic in the U.S. and the millions who died do your really really want to repeat it ?
That is a great possibility if the H1N1 strain mutates , into a very deadly virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know its a good cause to spen money of vacines, i'm not looking forward when that virus mutates, it's not a if, its a when.
That is a good cause, don't think I wana end up dead from H1N1 Do you think, it'd be a waste then if it mutates, becoming a highly contagious, deady virus?
Its worth the money bud, think about the time when it mutates, and there isn't enough vaccine to go around, like the current sintuation.
billions on swine flue, worth it, I have a high chance of coming in contact with it every week, I don't think its a waste, when I look at the alternitive.
I'd see what a bad flue epedemic would be like on the front lines, its a nightmare how fast it could spread with the current economy.So many people out of jobs and in dense concentrations, looking for work, needing to get help.
I can see the point obviously you don't butStop day dreaming, and look at the global picture with swine flue, rember the last flue deadly flue epedmic in the U.S. and the millions who died do your really really want to repeat it?
That is a great possibility if the H1N1 strain mutates, into a very deadly virus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246072</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>tg123</author>
	<datestamp>1259341080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and <i>after</i> its designed life cycle. It was in process of shut down, but it was too late already then.......</p></div><p>This first part is incorrect.  The reactor (no.4) was almost brand new having been completed in 1983.</p><p>The Chernobyl accident occurred while  they were doing a test to see if with the reactor shut down the steam turbine had enough momentum to  produce power  to run the main cooling pumps for the 60 seconds before the  backup diesel generators kicked in.</p><p>As part of this test they switched off  the  reactors safety devices and the rest is history.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl\_disaster" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl\_disaster</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and after its designed life cycle .
It was in process of shut down , but it was too late already then.......This first part is incorrect .
The reactor ( no.4 ) was almost brand new having been completed in 1983.The Chernobyl accident occurred while they were doing a test to see if with the reactor shut down the steam turbine had enough momentum to produce power to run the main cooling pumps for the 60 seconds before the backup diesel generators kicked in.As part of this test they switched off the reactors safety devices and the rest is history.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl \ _disaster [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and after its designed life cycle.
It was in process of shut down, but it was too late already then.......This first part is incorrect.
The reactor (no.4) was almost brand new having been completed in 1983.The Chernobyl accident occurred while  they were doing a test to see if with the reactor shut down the steam turbine had enough momentum to  produce power  to run the main cooling pumps for the 60 seconds before the  backup diesel generators kicked in.As part of this test they switched off  the  reactors safety devices and the rest is history.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl\_disaster [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247350</id>
	<title>Re:"Zombie nukes?" Puh-leaze</title>
	<author>HiddenCamper</author>
	<datestamp>1259350020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually the nuclear side of the plant does change a little. There are 2 types of power uprates, one is where you find a design safety margin that you now can reclaim because you have much more accurate equipment, and the other is a change to the plant's operating domain (power/flux shaping) which will allow for more efficient burnup rates in the fuel and in some cases also increase core power. These processes go through ridiculous licensning requirements and usually take 4-6 years to happen,....after you upgrade any equipment.

tldr
Cores do run a little different, but its mainly an efficiency thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the nuclear side of the plant does change a little .
There are 2 types of power uprates , one is where you find a design safety margin that you now can reclaim because you have much more accurate equipment , and the other is a change to the plant 's operating domain ( power/flux shaping ) which will allow for more efficient burnup rates in the fuel and in some cases also increase core power .
These processes go through ridiculous licensning requirements and usually take 4-6 years to happen,....after you upgrade any equipment .
tldr Cores do run a little different , but its mainly an efficiency thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the nuclear side of the plant does change a little.
There are 2 types of power uprates, one is where you find a design safety margin that you now can reclaim because you have much more accurate equipment, and the other is a change to the plant's operating domain (power/flux shaping) which will allow for more efficient burnup rates in the fuel and in some cases also increase core power.
These processes go through ridiculous licensning requirements and usually take 4-6 years to happen,....after you upgrade any equipment.
tldr
Cores do run a little different, but its mainly an efficiency thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</id>
	<title>Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and <i>after</i> its designed life cycle. It was in process of shut down, but it was too late already then. This caused the chain reaction in one of the cores to grow out of control (the same thing that happens when you initiate a nuclear weapon). This however doesn't initiate a nuclear blast like a nuclear weapon does, it just pours the radioactive all over the air (and it can travel thousands of kilometers).</p><p>This is why the nearest city Pripyat wasn't even evacuated first and Soviet Union didn't admit anything happening. They only did after the radioactive fallout reached northern Europe. The whole city is still just like it was left there, with peoples items and toys. It's just a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pripyat01.jpg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ghost town</a> [wikipedia.org]. It will take 200 years before you can live anywhere near it again. And over half of that radioactive fallout landed over Belarus, but also over northern European countries.</p><p>Yeah, it's a great idea to run nuclear plants over their designed capacity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and after its designed life cycle .
It was in process of shut down , but it was too late already then .
This caused the chain reaction in one of the cores to grow out of control ( the same thing that happens when you initiate a nuclear weapon ) .
This however does n't initiate a nuclear blast like a nuclear weapon does , it just pours the radioactive all over the air ( and it can travel thousands of kilometers ) .This is why the nearest city Pripyat was n't even evacuated first and Soviet Union did n't admit anything happening .
They only did after the radioactive fallout reached northern Europe .
The whole city is still just like it was left there , with peoples items and toys .
It 's just a ghost town [ wikipedia.org ] .
It will take 200 years before you can live anywhere near it again .
And over half of that radioactive fallout landed over Belarus , but also over northern European countries.Yeah , it 's a great idea to run nuclear plants over their designed capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and after its designed life cycle.
It was in process of shut down, but it was too late already then.
This caused the chain reaction in one of the cores to grow out of control (the same thing that happens when you initiate a nuclear weapon).
This however doesn't initiate a nuclear blast like a nuclear weapon does, it just pours the radioactive all over the air (and it can travel thousands of kilometers).This is why the nearest city Pripyat wasn't even evacuated first and Soviet Union didn't admit anything happening.
They only did after the radioactive fallout reached northern Europe.
The whole city is still just like it was left there, with peoples items and toys.
It's just a ghost town [wikipedia.org].
It will take 200 years before you can live anywhere near it again.
And over half of that radioactive fallout landed over Belarus, but also over northern European countries.Yeah, it's a great idea to run nuclear plants over their designed capacity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248944</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn....</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1259316540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a somewhat larger Toshiba 4S that is real. You could put this in your backyard if you live on a ranch and have an aluminium smelter in your basement.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba\_4S" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba\_4S</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a somewhat larger Toshiba 4S that is real .
You could put this in your backyard if you live on a ranch and have an aluminium smelter in your basement.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba \ _4S [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a somewhat larger Toshiba 4S that is real.
You could put this in your backyard if you live on a ranch and have an aluminium smelter in your basement.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba\_4S [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248354</id>
	<title>Re:New stations NOW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year. Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?</p></div><p>5e4 people die of "flu and pneumonia."  <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm" title="cdc.gov" rel="nofollow">Easily referenced source</a> [cdc.gov] 5e4 of those people die of pneumonia.  8e2 of them die of flu.  <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57\_14.pdf" title="cdc.gov" rel="nofollow">Rather more obscure source</a> [cdc.gov] see pg 34.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Swine flu vaccinations - about 10 ^ 5 people die from the ( regular ) flu every year .
Swine flu has claimed what , 10 ^ 2 ? 5e4 people die of " flu and pneumonia .
" Easily referenced source [ cdc.gov ] 5e4 of those people die of pneumonia .
8e2 of them die of flu .
Rather more obscure source [ cdc.gov ] see pg 34 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Swine flu vaccinations - about 10^5 people die from the (regular) flu every year.
Swine flu has claimed what, 10^2?5e4 people die of "flu and pneumonia.
"  Easily referenced source [cdc.gov] 5e4 of those people die of pneumonia.
8e2 of them die of flu.
Rather more obscure source [cdc.gov] see pg 34.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245838</id>
	<title>Re:Chernobyl again?</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1259339760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and <i>after</i> its designed life cycle</p></div><p>No.
</p><p>The Chernobyl reactor disaster happened because the operators decided to run a test, and <i>turned off the automatic safety shut-down</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and after its designed life cycleNo .
The Chernobyl reactor disaster happened because the operators decided to run a test , and turned off the automatic safety shut-down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and after its designed life cycleNo.
The Chernobyl reactor disaster happened because the operators decided to run a test, and turned off the automatic safety shut-down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248578</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn....</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1259314500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions."</p><p>Yes, because of course a group that's worried about the effect of human technologies on the environment would just love to trade one hazard for another. No, it must be that those greenies are hypocritical and just want to stop us having fun.</p><p>Who are they to tell us what is or isn't healthy for ecosystem. Pssht. What's this ecosystem think it is, anyway? Some kind of big wuss? Radiation's good for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Once again , the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we ca n't do rather than some suggestions .
" Yes , because of course a group that 's worried about the effect of human technologies on the environment would just love to trade one hazard for another .
No , it must be that those greenies are hypocritical and just want to stop us having fun.Who are they to tell us what is or is n't healthy for ecosystem .
Pssht. What 's this ecosystem think it is , anyway ?
Some kind of big wuss ?
Radiation 's good for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions.
"Yes, because of course a group that's worried about the effect of human technologies on the environment would just love to trade one hazard for another.
No, it must be that those greenies are hypocritical and just want to stop us having fun.Who are they to tell us what is or isn't healthy for ecosystem.
Pssht. What's this ecosystem think it is, anyway?
Some kind of big wuss?
Radiation's good for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30252018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30259132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30252836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30255808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30250474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30253954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30253712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1330213_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30253712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30255808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30250474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246186
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30259132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30251516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248528
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30252018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30252836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30253954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30245914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246418
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248494
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30246820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30249312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30248780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1330213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1330213.30247054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
