<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_2054237</id>
	<title>Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Tritium Leak</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263214740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mdsolar writes <i>"The decrepit nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee has <a href="http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100108/NEWS04/1080335/1003/NEWS02">sprung a radioactive leak</a> similar to those at other poorly run reactors in Illinois (Braidwood, Byron and Dresden), Arizona (Palo Verde), and New York (Indian Point). Greenpeace noted 3 years ago that radioactive tritium leaks even <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/radioactive-champagne-30-06-06">threaten Champagne from France</a>. Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/23/1859204/Program-To-Detect-Smuggled-Nuclear-Bombs-Stalls">shortage of helium 3</a>. What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mdsolar writes " The decrepit nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee has sprung a radioactive leak similar to those at other poorly run reactors in Illinois ( Braidwood , Byron and Dresden ) , Arizona ( Palo Verde ) , and New York ( Indian Point ) .
Greenpeace noted 3 years ago that radioactive tritium leaks even threaten Champagne from France .
Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3 .
What , besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants , could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mdsolar writes "The decrepit nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee has sprung a radioactive leak similar to those at other poorly run reactors in Illinois (Braidwood, Byron and Dresden), Arizona (Palo Verde), and New York (Indian Point).
Greenpeace noted 3 years ago that radioactive tritium leaks even threaten Champagne from France.
Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3.
What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732640</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1263225300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Nothing. For the sake of the environment we should shut down these dirty, poluting nuclear power plants and replace them with clean eco-friendly coal burning plants at once.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants , could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment ?
Nothing. For the sake of the environment we should shut down these dirty , poluting nuclear power plants and replace them with clean eco-friendly coal burning plants at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?
Nothing. For the sake of the environment we should shut down these dirty, poluting nuclear power plants and replace them with clean eco-friendly coal burning plants at once.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733974</id>
	<title>Re:Tritium is fairly common...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263238680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we should quarantine Colorado, because obviously it's going to end up becoming a mutated Zombieland where only those highly paranoid, and well adept at using all manner of sharp, blunt, and dangerous instruments for maiming Zombies will survive.</p></div><p>I for one welcome our new Coloradoan? zombie overlords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we should quarantine Colorado , because obviously it 's going to end up becoming a mutated Zombieland where only those highly paranoid , and well adept at using all manner of sharp , blunt , and dangerous instruments for maiming Zombies will survive.I for one welcome our new Coloradoan ?
zombie overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we should quarantine Colorado, because obviously it's going to end up becoming a mutated Zombieland where only those highly paranoid, and well adept at using all manner of sharp, blunt, and dangerous instruments for maiming Zombies will survive.I for one welcome our new Coloradoan?
zombie overlords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736362</id>
	<title>Re:Tritium is fairly common...</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1263308280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1506530&amp;cid=30732824" title="slashdot.org">Medical effects of Tritium</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Medical effects of Tritium [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Medical effects of Tritium [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735706</id>
	<title>Re:A Sticky Situation,NIKE JORDAN SHOES,HANDBAGS.</title>
	<author>COBB1986</author>
	<datestamp>1263303780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16
thanks... For details, please consult <a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular , most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts , jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3 ) $ 35HANDBGAS ( COACH,L V , DG , ED HARDY ) $ 35TSHIRTS ( POLO ,ED HARDY , LACOSTE ) $ 16 thanks... For details , please consult http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16
thanks... For details, please consult http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732410</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1263223500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>So it's okay for them to pollute all of civilization as long as it's to a small enough degree?</em></p><p>Yes, as in most cases this is a matter of degree.  The punishment should fit the crime and some things are too small to be worth the transaction cost of quibbling over.  In particular, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided that this level of tritium release is below acceptable levels.  Would it be better if nuclear plants never released any tritium?  Sure.</p><p><em>Over time this could add up and I would suspect that even reaching 1\% contamination on our water from years of pollution from these many sources would reduce public water to unusable.</em></p><p>Tritium has a half-life of 12 years.  At these ultra low leakage rates it will decay fast enough that it would take an eternity to build up to, as you suggest, 1\% contamination.  That said, leaks have a way of getting worse if they aren't fixed, so it's appropriate for the plant to find and fix it.</p><p><em>However, this likely will never happen since in essence the contaminated water is being consumed and filtered by every(thing/one) on a daily basis.</em></p><p>Radioactive contaminants aren't really filtered or consumed.  They'll stick around until they decay, which is one reason why the laws and regulations for nuclear power in the US are as strict as they are.</p><p><em>I still can't help but wonder what affects these pollutants could ultimately have on all life.</em></p><p>That's a very good attitude to have and I applaud it, but a reduction in the acceptable levels of tritium release should be based on evidence not merely an hypothesis or a hunch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's okay for them to pollute all of civilization as long as it 's to a small enough degree ? Yes , as in most cases this is a matter of degree .
The punishment should fit the crime and some things are too small to be worth the transaction cost of quibbling over .
In particular , the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided that this level of tritium release is below acceptable levels .
Would it be better if nuclear plants never released any tritium ?
Sure.Over time this could add up and I would suspect that even reaching 1 \ % contamination on our water from years of pollution from these many sources would reduce public water to unusable.Tritium has a half-life of 12 years .
At these ultra low leakage rates it will decay fast enough that it would take an eternity to build up to , as you suggest , 1 \ % contamination .
That said , leaks have a way of getting worse if they are n't fixed , so it 's appropriate for the plant to find and fix it.However , this likely will never happen since in essence the contaminated water is being consumed and filtered by every ( thing/one ) on a daily basis.Radioactive contaminants are n't really filtered or consumed .
They 'll stick around until they decay , which is one reason why the laws and regulations for nuclear power in the US are as strict as they are.I still ca n't help but wonder what affects these pollutants could ultimately have on all life.That 's a very good attitude to have and I applaud it , but a reduction in the acceptable levels of tritium release should be based on evidence not merely an hypothesis or a hunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's okay for them to pollute all of civilization as long as it's to a small enough degree?Yes, as in most cases this is a matter of degree.
The punishment should fit the crime and some things are too small to be worth the transaction cost of quibbling over.
In particular, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided that this level of tritium release is below acceptable levels.
Would it be better if nuclear plants never released any tritium?
Sure.Over time this could add up and I would suspect that even reaching 1\% contamination on our water from years of pollution from these many sources would reduce public water to unusable.Tritium has a half-life of 12 years.
At these ultra low leakage rates it will decay fast enough that it would take an eternity to build up to, as you suggest, 1\% contamination.
That said, leaks have a way of getting worse if they aren't fixed, so it's appropriate for the plant to find and fix it.However, this likely will never happen since in essence the contaminated water is being consumed and filtered by every(thing/one) on a daily basis.Radioactive contaminants aren't really filtered or consumed.
They'll stick around until they decay, which is one reason why the laws and regulations for nuclear power in the US are as strict as they are.I still can't help but wonder what affects these pollutants could ultimately have on all life.That's a very good attitude to have and I applaud it, but a reduction in the acceptable levels of tritium release should be based on evidence not merely an hypothesis or a hunch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736728</id>
	<title>Give Tritium to all democrats, socialists, &amp;ot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263310320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give Tritium to all democrats, socialists, communists, radical islamists, anarchists, man made global warming supporters, gays, lesbians, etc.</p><p>That solves MANY problems!</p><p>No, it's not hate.  It is a practical solution!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give Tritium to all democrats , socialists , communists , radical islamists , anarchists , man made global warming supporters , gays , lesbians , etc.That solves MANY problems ! No , it 's not hate .
It is a practical solution !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give Tritium to all democrats, socialists, communists, radical islamists, anarchists, man made global warming supporters, gays, lesbians, etc.That solves MANY problems!No, it's not hate.
It is a practical solution!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736190</id>
	<title>Re:VT Voters - Contact your Legislator!</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1263307140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a load of bull. A nuclear reactor has an availability factor of like 90\%, at 100\% of the specified generation rate. You need to stop them basically to replace the fuel bundles. Some nuclear reactors in the US, like the one in the news item, even run over spec at 120\% generation capacity. France gets like 77\% of its electricity generation from nuclear power. Yearly. Tell me of one country which can do the same using wind power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of bull .
A nuclear reactor has an availability factor of like 90 \ % , at 100 \ % of the specified generation rate .
You need to stop them basically to replace the fuel bundles .
Some nuclear reactors in the US , like the one in the news item , even run over spec at 120 \ % generation capacity .
France gets like 77 \ % of its electricity generation from nuclear power .
Yearly. Tell me of one country which can do the same using wind power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of bull.
A nuclear reactor has an availability factor of like 90\%, at 100\% of the specified generation rate.
You need to stop them basically to replace the fuel bundles.
Some nuclear reactors in the US, like the one in the news item, even run over spec at 120\% generation capacity.
France gets like 77\% of its electricity generation from nuclear power.
Yearly. Tell me of one country which can do the same using wind power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735112</id>
	<title>At least it's not mercury</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1263297480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I once worked in a plant that used tritium that went into a similar application, and worked with a radiological protection supervisor and a specialist from HSE. Even in a plant that uses the stuff, your risk of any significant exposure is negligible on the scale of health risks, way below mercury, radon, soot particles, potassium (which is radioactive), and medical X-rays. Since we stopped dumping the stuff into the North Sea in megacuries, it has become a non-issue.<p>Now, where does most of the release of mercury, radon, and soot come from? Ah. The mining and burning of fossil fuels (plus faulted granite in places like Cornwall and Scotland.)</p><p>Yup. Working with tritium made me very safety conscious. It made me a strong supporter of nuclear power as a replacement for all those nasty polluting technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once worked in a plant that used tritium that went into a similar application , and worked with a radiological protection supervisor and a specialist from HSE .
Even in a plant that uses the stuff , your risk of any significant exposure is negligible on the scale of health risks , way below mercury , radon , soot particles , potassium ( which is radioactive ) , and medical X-rays .
Since we stopped dumping the stuff into the North Sea in megacuries , it has become a non-issue.Now , where does most of the release of mercury , radon , and soot come from ?
Ah. The mining and burning of fossil fuels ( plus faulted granite in places like Cornwall and Scotland. ) Yup .
Working with tritium made me very safety conscious .
It made me a strong supporter of nuclear power as a replacement for all those nasty polluting technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once worked in a plant that used tritium that went into a similar application, and worked with a radiological protection supervisor and a specialist from HSE.
Even in a plant that uses the stuff, your risk of any significant exposure is negligible on the scale of health risks, way below mercury, radon, soot particles, potassium (which is radioactive), and medical X-rays.
Since we stopped dumping the stuff into the North Sea in megacuries, it has become a non-issue.Now, where does most of the release of mercury, radon, and soot come from?
Ah. The mining and burning of fossil fuels (plus faulted granite in places like Cornwall and Scotland.)Yup.
Working with tritium made me very safety conscious.
It made me a strong supporter of nuclear power as a replacement for all those nasty polluting technologies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732458</id>
	<title>Slashdot's shameful bias Grows</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1263223800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Leak"  Oh come on.  Sure, we know some editors at Slashdot are idiots with no idea how nuclear nuclear energy works, but this is ridiculous.

Let me point out a few things:

<br> <br>
1.  I have more tritium on my keychain than in this "leak"<br>
2.  There's no proof that there is a leak, just one test that shows slightly elevated levels **might** be from a leak, but then again, they may just be natural variations<br>
3.  It's less than half what is considered levels where you even have to report it <br>


<br> <br> <br>

So here's the non-story:  A trivial, but ever so slightly greater than normal amount of tritium was detected during routine testing and this amount, which does not pose a threat to anyone may be from a leak, then again it may not be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Leak " Oh come on .
Sure , we know some editors at Slashdot are idiots with no idea how nuclear nuclear energy works , but this is ridiculous .
Let me point out a few things : 1 .
I have more tritium on my keychain than in this " leak " 2 .
There 's no proof that there is a leak , just one test that shows slightly elevated levels * * might * * be from a leak , but then again , they may just be natural variations 3 .
It 's less than half what is considered levels where you even have to report it So here 's the non-story : A trivial , but ever so slightly greater than normal amount of tritium was detected during routine testing and this amount , which does not pose a threat to anyone may be from a leak , then again it may not be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Leak"  Oh come on.
Sure, we know some editors at Slashdot are idiots with no idea how nuclear nuclear energy works, but this is ridiculous.
Let me point out a few things:

 
1.
I have more tritium on my keychain than in this "leak"
2.
There's no proof that there is a leak, just one test that shows slightly elevated levels **might** be from a leak, but then again, they may just be natural variations
3.
It's less than half what is considered levels where you even have to report it 


  

So here's the non-story:  A trivial, but ever so slightly greater than normal amount of tritium was detected during routine testing and this amount, which does not pose a threat to anyone may be from a leak, then again it may not be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734542</id>
	<title>what can be done</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1263289620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is obvious. Stop being religious about nuclear technology.</p><p>Yes, it has its dangers. But unless you are totally insane, you have to agree that a modern reactor is a lot better than the decade old ones we're running on right now. The absolute <b>worst case</b> scenario - and it <b>is happening</b> in many first-world countries right now, is that there's a ban on the construction of new reactors, while the permissions to run the old ones are extended again and again, well beyond their lifetimes.</p><p>Allow the building of new reactors again. Make it a condition that for each new one built, an old one has to be dismantled. In other words: Give the whole lot a refreshment. That doesn't make things worse, and even if you'd like to see them all shut down you'll have to agree that 10 new and modern ones are a whole lot better than 10 old and leaky ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is obvious .
Stop being religious about nuclear technology.Yes , it has its dangers .
But unless you are totally insane , you have to agree that a modern reactor is a lot better than the decade old ones we 're running on right now .
The absolute worst case scenario - and it is happening in many first-world countries right now , is that there 's a ban on the construction of new reactors , while the permissions to run the old ones are extended again and again , well beyond their lifetimes.Allow the building of new reactors again .
Make it a condition that for each new one built , an old one has to be dismantled .
In other words : Give the whole lot a refreshment .
That does n't make things worse , and even if you 'd like to see them all shut down you 'll have to agree that 10 new and modern ones are a whole lot better than 10 old and leaky ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is obvious.
Stop being religious about nuclear technology.Yes, it has its dangers.
But unless you are totally insane, you have to agree that a modern reactor is a lot better than the decade old ones we're running on right now.
The absolute worst case scenario - and it is happening in many first-world countries right now, is that there's a ban on the construction of new reactors, while the permissions to run the old ones are extended again and again, well beyond their lifetimes.Allow the building of new reactors again.
Make it a condition that for each new one built, an old one has to be dismantled.
In other words: Give the whole lot a refreshment.
That doesn't make things worse, and even if you'd like to see them all shut down you'll have to agree that 10 new and modern ones are a whole lot better than 10 old and leaky ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732108</id>
	<title>worse then stupid</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1263221040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as grond noted, the actual amount is trivial beyond belief.<br>However, there is another problem to this; the atual amount of radioactive material stored at plants, in total, is quite large; in the even of, say, a terrorist inspired meltdown, we would be looking at a lot of long lived alphas getting into the environment.<br>the other issue is the relation between civilian nukes an atomic weapons. To build an atomic bomb, one needs a fairly serious and complex industrial infrastructure; take, say just monitoring workers - you have to have a reason for buying test equipment and so forth. If you have civilian nukes, you have a justification for building up tht infrastructure, eg, the specilized skills and equipment needed to transport highly radioactive material (fuel or weapons grade U)<br>Thus this article is bad for two reasons, (a) hysteria about a trivial leak, and (b) it defocuses us from the real problems</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as grond noted , the actual amount is trivial beyond belief.However , there is another problem to this ; the atual amount of radioactive material stored at plants , in total , is quite large ; in the even of , say , a terrorist inspired meltdown , we would be looking at a lot of long lived alphas getting into the environment.the other issue is the relation between civilian nukes an atomic weapons .
To build an atomic bomb , one needs a fairly serious and complex industrial infrastructure ; take , say just monitoring workers - you have to have a reason for buying test equipment and so forth .
If you have civilian nukes , you have a justification for building up tht infrastructure , eg , the specilized skills and equipment needed to transport highly radioactive material ( fuel or weapons grade U ) Thus this article is bad for two reasons , ( a ) hysteria about a trivial leak , and ( b ) it defocuses us from the real problems</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as grond noted, the actual amount is trivial beyond belief.However, there is another problem to this; the atual amount of radioactive material stored at plants, in total, is quite large; in the even of, say, a terrorist inspired meltdown, we would be looking at a lot of long lived alphas getting into the environment.the other issue is the relation between civilian nukes an atomic weapons.
To build an atomic bomb, one needs a fairly serious and complex industrial infrastructure; take, say just monitoring workers - you have to have a reason for buying test equipment and so forth.
If you have civilian nukes, you have a justification for building up tht infrastructure, eg, the specilized skills and equipment needed to transport highly radioactive material (fuel or weapons grade U)Thus this article is bad for two reasons, (a) hysteria about a trivial leak, and (b) it defocuses us from the real problems</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733382</id>
	<title>Re:VT Voters - Contact your Legislator!</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1263231540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummm, do you even know what you are talking about? All I have seen in your post is a rant by someone who doesn't want to live near a nuclear plant, when in fact the plant was there before you may have even been born and you are pissed that they have they temerity to want to extend the operation of a plant that will continue to produce some of the cleanest base-load power that humans currently know how to generate. <br> <br>Please note, almost ALL other low and non-pollution energy generation does not generate base-load power, the only other ones that do that are hydro, and thermal, which are both entirely dependent on location, and thus, can not be always utilized. Wind and solar are at the mercy of the weather and/or day/night. They can not currently be used as the basis of a power grid because they can not be relied upon to constantly generate a minimum amount of energy needed to keep the grid from failing due to brown-outs. This leaves us with gas, coal, and nuclear for base-load power generation. Both gas and coal produce tons of pollution and greenhouse gasses each year of operation, whereas nuclear produces only a few hundred pounds, and of that, much can be reused for other purposes if the time was taken to recycle (and some of it already is, such as tritium). Other newer reactor designs could also be used to do things such as produce certain radio-active isotopes as well as generate power. In fact, there are very few sources for many different types of radio-active isotopes used in many medical applications (there is a reactor in Canada which is the sole source in the WORLD for many of these things).<br> <br>So feel free to rant about a perfectly fine nuclear plant that you want shutdown only to have smog and acid rain producing coal or gas plant put in its place (or two or three even). You still need to have something that will generate base-load power to take it's place. While it might be nice to see a new nuclear plant built instead of coal or gas, that will take 10-20 years given the lack of engineering firms in the USA who have experience with designing or building a plant, as well as approval process time to get the site and design certified and validated, let alone all the other people who will play the not in my backyard card, because it takes more than a grade school level education in math, physics, and engineering in order to understand how a nuclear plant works, how the design is safe and realize you are exposed to more radiation flying a plane then you would have been had you lived right next to the worst radiation leak in US history (Three Mile Island).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm , do you even know what you are talking about ?
All I have seen in your post is a rant by someone who does n't want to live near a nuclear plant , when in fact the plant was there before you may have even been born and you are pissed that they have they temerity to want to extend the operation of a plant that will continue to produce some of the cleanest base-load power that humans currently know how to generate .
Please note , almost ALL other low and non-pollution energy generation does not generate base-load power , the only other ones that do that are hydro , and thermal , which are both entirely dependent on location , and thus , can not be always utilized .
Wind and solar are at the mercy of the weather and/or day/night .
They can not currently be used as the basis of a power grid because they can not be relied upon to constantly generate a minimum amount of energy needed to keep the grid from failing due to brown-outs .
This leaves us with gas , coal , and nuclear for base-load power generation .
Both gas and coal produce tons of pollution and greenhouse gasses each year of operation , whereas nuclear produces only a few hundred pounds , and of that , much can be reused for other purposes if the time was taken to recycle ( and some of it already is , such as tritium ) .
Other newer reactor designs could also be used to do things such as produce certain radio-active isotopes as well as generate power .
In fact , there are very few sources for many different types of radio-active isotopes used in many medical applications ( there is a reactor in Canada which is the sole source in the WORLD for many of these things ) .
So feel free to rant about a perfectly fine nuclear plant that you want shutdown only to have smog and acid rain producing coal or gas plant put in its place ( or two or three even ) .
You still need to have something that will generate base-load power to take it 's place .
While it might be nice to see a new nuclear plant built instead of coal or gas , that will take 10-20 years given the lack of engineering firms in the USA who have experience with designing or building a plant , as well as approval process time to get the site and design certified and validated , let alone all the other people who will play the not in my backyard card , because it takes more than a grade school level education in math , physics , and engineering in order to understand how a nuclear plant works , how the design is safe and realize you are exposed to more radiation flying a plane then you would have been had you lived right next to the worst radiation leak in US history ( Three Mile Island ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm, do you even know what you are talking about?
All I have seen in your post is a rant by someone who doesn't want to live near a nuclear plant, when in fact the plant was there before you may have even been born and you are pissed that they have they temerity to want to extend the operation of a plant that will continue to produce some of the cleanest base-load power that humans currently know how to generate.
Please note, almost ALL other low and non-pollution energy generation does not generate base-load power, the only other ones that do that are hydro, and thermal, which are both entirely dependent on location, and thus, can not be always utilized.
Wind and solar are at the mercy of the weather and/or day/night.
They can not currently be used as the basis of a power grid because they can not be relied upon to constantly generate a minimum amount of energy needed to keep the grid from failing due to brown-outs.
This leaves us with gas, coal, and nuclear for base-load power generation.
Both gas and coal produce tons of pollution and greenhouse gasses each year of operation, whereas nuclear produces only a few hundred pounds, and of that, much can be reused for other purposes if the time was taken to recycle (and some of it already is, such as tritium).
Other newer reactor designs could also be used to do things such as produce certain radio-active isotopes as well as generate power.
In fact, there are very few sources for many different types of radio-active isotopes used in many medical applications (there is a reactor in Canada which is the sole source in the WORLD for many of these things).
So feel free to rant about a perfectly fine nuclear plant that you want shutdown only to have smog and acid rain producing coal or gas plant put in its place (or two or three even).
You still need to have something that will generate base-load power to take it's place.
While it might be nice to see a new nuclear plant built instead of coal or gas, that will take 10-20 years given the lack of engineering firms in the USA who have experience with designing or building a plant, as well as approval process time to get the site and design certified and validated, let alone all the other people who will play the not in my backyard card, because it takes more than a grade school level education in math, physics, and engineering in order to understand how a nuclear plant works, how the design is safe and realize you are exposed to more radiation flying a plane then you would have been had you lived right next to the worst radiation leak in US history (Three Mile Island).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924</id>
	<title>Self-inflicted</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1263219840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"</i></p><p>Well maybe if somebody, HINT HINT, would let us build new, safer, and more efficient ones, instead of having to rely on the older ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants , could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment ?
" Well maybe if somebody , HINT HINT , would let us build new , safer , and more efficient ones , instead of having to rely on the older ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?
"Well maybe if somebody, HINT HINT, would let us build new, safer, and more efficient ones, instead of having to rely on the older ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734460</id>
	<title>Re:Self-inflicted</title>
	<author>B3ryllium</author>
	<datestamp>1263288900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the plans called for baby seals? Huh? What then, Monsieur Smartypants?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the plans called for baby seals ?
Huh ? What then , Monsieur Smartypants ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the plans called for baby seals?
Huh? What then, Monsieur Smartypants?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733854</id>
	<title>Re:Self-inflicted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263236520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the oil and gas industry, which is just as regulated and nuclear energy, it doesn't matter what design you submit, government engineers still have to come out and personally inspect your oil rigs and refineries before you're allowed to operate.  Submitting designs that didn't match the physical facilities would cause them to do an immediate about face, head home and shut you down, costing you millions of dollars.</p><p>It may have been different when these reactors were constructed, but I have a hard time imagining reactors getting away with stuff that the oil industry can't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the oil and gas industry , which is just as regulated and nuclear energy , it does n't matter what design you submit , government engineers still have to come out and personally inspect your oil rigs and refineries before you 're allowed to operate .
Submitting designs that did n't match the physical facilities would cause them to do an immediate about face , head home and shut you down , costing you millions of dollars.It may have been different when these reactors were constructed , but I have a hard time imagining reactors getting away with stuff that the oil industry ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the oil and gas industry, which is just as regulated and nuclear energy, it doesn't matter what design you submit, government engineers still have to come out and personally inspect your oil rigs and refineries before you're allowed to operate.
Submitting designs that didn't match the physical facilities would cause them to do an immediate about face, head home and shut you down, costing you millions of dollars.It may have been different when these reactors were constructed, but I have a hard time imagining reactors getting away with stuff that the oil industry can't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740</id>
	<title>WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263218640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Is this the fucking Greenpeace sight?
</p><p>
Can't we keep the Luddites from being<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the fucking Greenpeace sight ?
Ca n't we keep the Luddites from being / .
editors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Is this the fucking Greenpeace sight?
Can't we keep the Luddites from being /.
editors?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733402</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, to anti-nuclear ideologues, one <i>atom</i> of a radioactive substance is too much. If so much as an irradiated paper clip leaves the clean room, that's a <b>NUCLEAR MELTDOWN</b> and proof that "big nuclear" is dangerous and not be trusted (<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495612&amp;cid=30623580" title="slashdot.org">as if "big" were synonymous with "evil").</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>No, thanks. I'll take the cheap, clean, endless supply of nuclear power over promises of wind and solar that will fail and leave us choking on coal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , to anti-nuclear ideologues , one atom of a radioactive substance is too much .
If so much as an irradiated paper clip leaves the clean room , that 's a NUCLEAR MELTDOWN and proof that " big nuclear " is dangerous and not be trusted ( as if " big " were synonymous with " evil " ) .
[ slashdot.org ] No , thanks .
I 'll take the cheap , clean , endless supply of nuclear power over promises of wind and solar that will fail and leave us choking on coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, to anti-nuclear ideologues, one atom of a radioactive substance is too much.
If so much as an irradiated paper clip leaves the clean room, that's a NUCLEAR MELTDOWN and proof that "big nuclear" is dangerous and not be trusted (as if "big" were synonymous with "evil").
[slashdot.org]No, thanks.
I'll take the cheap, clean, endless supply of nuclear power over promises of wind and solar that will fail and leave us choking on coal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736422</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>sskinnider</author>
	<datestamp>1263308700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The word is nucular.  Get it right!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word is nucular .
Get it right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word is nucular.
Get it right!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856</id>
	<title>Perspective</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1263219420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked article says that the tritium levels are only half what must be reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  And let's think about what 17,000 parts per liter is.  A liter of water contains 3.34192092 * 1025 molecules.  So those 17,000 atoms mean that, assuming one tritum atom per molecule, 0.00000000000000000005\% of the water is contaminated with tritium.  At 3.3ppb <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium\_mining#Recovery\_from\_seawater" title="wikipedia.org">the concentration of uranium in seawater is several orders of magnitude higher</a> [wikipedia.org].  This is not to say that the leak shouldn't be found and fixed, but the notion that this demonstrates that our nuclear power plants are unsafe is absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked article says that the tritium levels are only half what must be reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
And let 's think about what 17,000 parts per liter is .
A liter of water contains 3.34192092 * 1025 molecules .
So those 17,000 atoms mean that , assuming one tritum atom per molecule , 0.00000000000000000005 \ % of the water is contaminated with tritium .
At 3.3ppb the concentration of uranium in seawater is several orders of magnitude higher [ wikipedia.org ] .
This is not to say that the leak should n't be found and fixed , but the notion that this demonstrates that our nuclear power plants are unsafe is absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked article says that the tritium levels are only half what must be reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
And let's think about what 17,000 parts per liter is.
A liter of water contains 3.34192092 * 1025 molecules.
So those 17,000 atoms mean that, assuming one tritum atom per molecule, 0.00000000000000000005\% of the water is contaminated with tritium.
At 3.3ppb the concentration of uranium in seawater is several orders of magnitude higher [wikipedia.org].
This is not to say that the leak shouldn't be found and fixed, but the notion that this demonstrates that our nuclear power plants are unsafe is absurd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731842</id>
	<title>Helium</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1263219300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We may be a bit short of helium, but I don't think the bit that's produced from tritium decay is going to do much to fix anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We may be a bit short of helium , but I do n't think the bit that 's produced from tritium decay is going to do much to fix anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We may be a bit short of helium, but I don't think the bit that's produced from tritium decay is going to do much to fix anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732300</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>jstults</author>
	<datestamp>1263222600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plus even if you do get a sizeable exposure (it needs to be ingested to have any effect), you just need to <a href="http://radlab.nl/radsafe/archives/9904/msg00565.html" title="radlab.nl" rel="nofollow">drink a sixer of cheap watered down beer</a> [radlab.nl].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus even if you do get a sizeable exposure ( it needs to be ingested to have any effect ) , you just need to drink a sixer of cheap watered down beer [ radlab.nl ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus even if you do get a sizeable exposure (it needs to be ingested to have any effect), you just need to drink a sixer of cheap watered down beer [radlab.nl].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734040</id>
	<title>I oppose nuclear energy</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1263239580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I oppose nuclear energy.<br>Why?<br>Because nuclear energy is pretty much completely safe when properly used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I oppose nuclear energy.Why ? Because nuclear energy is pretty much completely safe when properly used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I oppose nuclear energy.Why?Because nuclear energy is pretty much completely safe when properly used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732324</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Any nuclear fission reactor generates neutrons. If water is used in the reactor (e.g. for cooling), some of the hydrogen in the water will absorb neutrons and become deuterium or tritium. If the reactor uses heavy water (e.g. CANDU reactor, which is not the case here) tritium production is maximized, since you need to absorb less neutrons to produce the same amount of tritium. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium" title="wikipedia.org">Tritium</a> [wikipedia.org] is a weak beta emitter, so it is only dangerous if you ingest it in sufficient amounts. It decays into stable Helium-3. Even natural water has some trace amounts of tritium in it. FWIW the maximum permissible level of Tritium in Canada is way, way larger than in the USA. Guess where the 'C' in CANDU comes from...
</p><p>
FWIW Tritium is not the thing I am most concerned about in terms of nuclear waste. Iodine-131 or Strontium-90, now those are nasty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any nuclear fission reactor generates neutrons .
If water is used in the reactor ( e.g .
for cooling ) , some of the hydrogen in the water will absorb neutrons and become deuterium or tritium .
If the reactor uses heavy water ( e.g .
CANDU reactor , which is not the case here ) tritium production is maximized , since you need to absorb less neutrons to produce the same amount of tritium .
Tritium [ wikipedia.org ] is a weak beta emitter , so it is only dangerous if you ingest it in sufficient amounts .
It decays into stable Helium-3 .
Even natural water has some trace amounts of tritium in it .
FWIW the maximum permissible level of Tritium in Canada is way , way larger than in the USA .
Guess where the 'C ' in CANDU comes from.. . FWIW Tritium is not the thing I am most concerned about in terms of nuclear waste .
Iodine-131 or Strontium-90 , now those are nasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Any nuclear fission reactor generates neutrons.
If water is used in the reactor (e.g.
for cooling), some of the hydrogen in the water will absorb neutrons and become deuterium or tritium.
If the reactor uses heavy water (e.g.
CANDU reactor, which is not the case here) tritium production is maximized, since you need to absorb less neutrons to produce the same amount of tritium.
Tritium [wikipedia.org] is a weak beta emitter, so it is only dangerous if you ingest it in sufficient amounts.
It decays into stable Helium-3.
Even natural water has some trace amounts of tritium in it.
FWIW the maximum permissible level of Tritium in Canada is way, way larger than in the USA.
Guess where the 'C' in CANDU comes from...

FWIW Tritium is not the thing I am most concerned about in terms of nuclear waste.
Iodine-131 or Strontium-90, now those are nasty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734668</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>emilper</author>
	<datestamp>1263291900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cernobyl did not melt down: the boiler burst<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cernobyl did not melt down : the boiler burst .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cernobyl did not melt down: the boiler burst ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735846</id>
	<title>In the environment?</title>
	<author>Xacid</author>
	<datestamp>1263304860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?""</p><p>You don't. You run a long-ass hose to the closest Tokamak or equivalent fusion project you can find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What , besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants , could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment ?
" " You do n't .
You run a long-ass hose to the closest Tokamak or equivalent fusion project you can find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?
""You don't.
You run a long-ass hose to the closest Tokamak or equivalent fusion project you can find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734500</id>
	<title>Re:VT Voters - Contact your Legislator!</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1263289260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fairness to the Poster, the operator at Vermont Yankee -- Entergy -- is not an outfit that inspires a lot of confidence.  You'd want to count fingers, check jewelry, and maybe wash your hands after being introduced to them.  (Google "Entergy bad faith" or "Entergy dishonest")</p><p>OTOH, As far as I can see, there is simply no way that Vermont -- a region with poor solar potential, a rigorous climate, no fossil hydrocarbons, and only limited hydro potential runs a modern industrial society without nuclear power of some sort.  Regretably perhaps, Vermont Yankee seems to be necessary.  Vermont almost certainly needs more nuclear plants, not fewer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fairness to the Poster , the operator at Vermont Yankee -- Entergy -- is not an outfit that inspires a lot of confidence .
You 'd want to count fingers , check jewelry , and maybe wash your hands after being introduced to them .
( Google " Entergy bad faith " or " Entergy dishonest " ) OTOH , As far as I can see , there is simply no way that Vermont -- a region with poor solar potential , a rigorous climate , no fossil hydrocarbons , and only limited hydro potential runs a modern industrial society without nuclear power of some sort .
Regretably perhaps , Vermont Yankee seems to be necessary .
Vermont almost certainly needs more nuclear plants , not fewer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fairness to the Poster, the operator at Vermont Yankee -- Entergy -- is not an outfit that inspires a lot of confidence.
You'd want to count fingers, check jewelry, and maybe wash your hands after being introduced to them.
(Google "Entergy bad faith" or "Entergy dishonest")OTOH, As far as I can see, there is simply no way that Vermont -- a region with poor solar potential, a rigorous climate, no fossil hydrocarbons, and only limited hydro potential runs a modern industrial society without nuclear power of some sort.
Regretably perhaps, Vermont Yankee seems to be necessary.
Vermont almost certainly needs more nuclear plants, not fewer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733828</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>Tycho</author>
	<datestamp>1263236160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"</p></div><p>I'd say that one thing that could be done would be to prohibit above ground nuclear tests, of course that has been done already.  Aerial nuclear tests produced and spread far more Tritium than any tiny amounts of Tritium released by nuclear reactors that end up diluted over a large area.  Any radioactivity from these cases ends up being far below background levels when spread out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants , could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment ?
" I 'd say that one thing that could be done would be to prohibit above ground nuclear tests , of course that has been done already .
Aerial nuclear tests produced and spread far more Tritium than any tiny amounts of Tritium released by nuclear reactors that end up diluted over a large area .
Any radioactivity from these cases ends up being far below background levels when spread out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?
"I'd say that one thing that could be done would be to prohibit above ground nuclear tests, of course that has been done already.
Aerial nuclear tests produced and spread far more Tritium than any tiny amounts of Tritium released by nuclear reactors that end up diluted over a large area.
Any radioactivity from these cases ends up being far below background levels when spread out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732824</id>
	<title>Mutagenic effects of Tritium</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1263226800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings the following information may help. Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects, so I'll just quote from those works;</p><p>
<i>
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
</i></p><p><i>
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
</i></p><p><i>
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
</i>
For those who think "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones"</p><p>
<i>
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
</i></p><p><i>
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
</i></p><p><i>
<strong>References;</strong> </i></p><blockquote><div><p><i> <tt>Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water. Health Physics. 58. 5:625-629. 1990.<br> <br>Dobson, RL. The Toxicity of Tritium. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203. 1979.<br> <br>Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium. Mutation Research. 50: 101-110. 1978.<br> <br>Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness. Health Physics. 65 (6)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:657-672; 1993. [This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]<br> <br>Laskey, JW, et al. Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation. Radiation Research.56:171-179. 1973.<br> <br>Rytomaa, T, et al. Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339. 1979.</tt></i></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water 's effect on living beings the following information may help .
Tritium is biologically mutagenic * because * it 's a low energy emitter .
This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells .
The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects , so I 'll just quote from those works ; Tritium can be inhaled , ingested , or absorbed through skin .
Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water .
Consequently , an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium .
( Komatsu ) Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death ( Dobson , 1976 ) , mutations ( Ito ) and chromosome damage ( Hori ) per dose than higher tritium doses .
Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays .
( Straume ) ( Dobson , 1976 ) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure ; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts .
( Dobson , 1974 ) Organically bound tritium ( tritium bound in animal or plant tissue ) can stay in the body for 10 years or more .
For those who think " of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones " Tritium can cause mutations , tumors and cell death .
( Rytomaa ) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice ( Torok ) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations .
( Dobson , 1979 ) ( Laskey ) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA , the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms .
DNA is especially sensitive to radiation .
( Hori ) A cell 's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water .
( Straume ) ( Carr ) First , as an isotope of hydrogen ( the cell 's most ubiquitous element ) , tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery ; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure .
R. Lowry Dobson , MD , PhD .
( 1979 ) References ; Komatsu , K and Okumura , Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water .
Health Physics .
58. 5 : 625-629 .
1990. Dobson , RL .
The Toxicity of Tritium .
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium , Vienna : Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1 : 203 .
1979. Hori , TA and Nakai , S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium .
Mutation Research .
50 : 101-110 .
1978. Straume , T and Carsten , AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness .
Health Physics .
65 ( 6 ) : 657-672 ; 1993 .
[ This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium ] Laskey , JW , et al .
Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation .
Radiation Research.56 : 171-179 .
1973. Rytomaa , T , et al .
Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules .
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna : Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1 : 339 .
1979 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings the following information may help.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter.
This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells.
The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects, so I'll just quote from those works;

Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin.
Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water.
Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium.
(Komatsu)

Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses.
Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts.
(Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
For those who think "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones"

Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death.
(Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations.
(Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms.
DNA is especially sensitive to radiation.
(Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water.
(Straume)(Carr)

First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure.
R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD.
(1979)

References;  Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water.
Health Physics.
58. 5:625-629.
1990. Dobson, RL.
The Toxicity of Tritium.
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203.
1979. Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium.
Mutation Research.
50: 101-110.
1978. Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness.
Health Physics.
65 (6) :657-672; 1993.
[This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium] Laskey, JW, et al.
Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation.
Radiation Research.56:171-179.
1973. Rytomaa, T, et al.
Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules.
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339.
1979. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30747628</id>
	<title>Valuable??</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1263322860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Grab a bucket - i'll meet you over there...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Grab a bucket - i 'll meet you over there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grab a bucket - i'll meet you over there...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732136</id>
	<title>Rose-colored perspective</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1263221280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not to say that the leak shouldn't be found and fixed, but the notion that this demonstrates that our nuclear power plants are unsafe is absurd.</p></div><p>If it's safe, why should the leak be found and fixed?</p><p>Let's be honest here. To the advocates of nuclear power, <i>Chernobyl</i> isn't a demonstration of the danger of nuclear power, so why should any lesser event be considered such?</p><p>In any case, the comparison you give is, at best, misleading, and at worst, deliberately so. For the comparison to be meaningful, we'd need to know the mix of uranium isotopes in order to compare their decay modes, energies, and products. Just waving your hands and disingenuously equating radioactive elements is bullshit. Either you haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about, and therefore wouldn't be able to tell that it would be <i>much</i> better to have a kilogram of Uranium-238 sitting on your lap than a kilogram of Cobalt-60, or you're an energy industry shill who knows good and goddamn well what he's talking about and you're doing what energy industry shills do whenever they're conscious: spreading dangerous half-truths and hoping that the lamentable state of physics education in this country lets you get away with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not to say that the leak should n't be found and fixed , but the notion that this demonstrates that our nuclear power plants are unsafe is absurd.If it 's safe , why should the leak be found and fixed ? Let 's be honest here .
To the advocates of nuclear power , Chernobyl is n't a demonstration of the danger of nuclear power , so why should any lesser event be considered such ? In any case , the comparison you give is , at best , misleading , and at worst , deliberately so .
For the comparison to be meaningful , we 'd need to know the mix of uranium isotopes in order to compare their decay modes , energies , and products .
Just waving your hands and disingenuously equating radioactive elements is bullshit .
Either you have n't the foggiest notion what you 're talking about , and therefore would n't be able to tell that it would be much better to have a kilogram of Uranium-238 sitting on your lap than a kilogram of Cobalt-60 , or you 're an energy industry shill who knows good and goddamn well what he 's talking about and you 're doing what energy industry shills do whenever they 're conscious : spreading dangerous half-truths and hoping that the lamentable state of physics education in this country lets you get away with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not to say that the leak shouldn't be found and fixed, but the notion that this demonstrates that our nuclear power plants are unsafe is absurd.If it's safe, why should the leak be found and fixed?Let's be honest here.
To the advocates of nuclear power, Chernobyl isn't a demonstration of the danger of nuclear power, so why should any lesser event be considered such?In any case, the comparison you give is, at best, misleading, and at worst, deliberately so.
For the comparison to be meaningful, we'd need to know the mix of uranium isotopes in order to compare their decay modes, energies, and products.
Just waving your hands and disingenuously equating radioactive elements is bullshit.
Either you haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about, and therefore wouldn't be able to tell that it would be much better to have a kilogram of Uranium-238 sitting on your lap than a kilogram of Cobalt-60, or you're an energy industry shill who knows good and goddamn well what he's talking about and you're doing what energy industry shills do whenever they're conscious: spreading dangerous half-truths and hoping that the lamentable state of physics education in this country lets you get away with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol.. So it's okay for them to pollute all of civilization as long as it's to a small enough degree?</p><p>These small amounts of contaminants are still present and going somewhere which I would assume is into the population or anything using water.</p><p>Over time this could add up and I would suspect that even reaching 1\% contamination on our water from years of pollution from these many sources would reduce public water to unusable.</p><p>However, this likely will never happen since in essence the contaminated water is being consumed and filtered by every(thing/one) on a daily basis.</p><p>I still can't help but wonder what affects these pollutants could ultimately have on all life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol.. So it 's okay for them to pollute all of civilization as long as it 's to a small enough degree ? These small amounts of contaminants are still present and going somewhere which I would assume is into the population or anything using water.Over time this could add up and I would suspect that even reaching 1 \ % contamination on our water from years of pollution from these many sources would reduce public water to unusable.However , this likely will never happen since in essence the contaminated water is being consumed and filtered by every ( thing/one ) on a daily basis.I still ca n't help but wonder what affects these pollutants could ultimately have on all life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol.. So it's okay for them to pollute all of civilization as long as it's to a small enough degree?These small amounts of contaminants are still present and going somewhere which I would assume is into the population or anything using water.Over time this could add up and I would suspect that even reaching 1\% contamination on our water from years of pollution from these many sources would reduce public water to unusable.However, this likely will never happen since in essence the contaminated water is being consumed and filtered by every(thing/one) on a daily basis.I still can't help but wonder what affects these pollutants could ultimately have on all life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733670</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1263234540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The fact that your spin-detector can't sense anything from the summary is indicative of greater problems.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't want to take away for a second from your extremely detailed parsing of the summary, but...</p><p>Let's take it is a given that the summary is spin-laden. Let's further assume (safely, I think) that the author has a real problem with nuclear technology in general, or at least with the way it's currently implemented.</p><p>In fact, let's assume that slashdot readers, being the clever types that they are, have spotted this spin coming from about 5 blocks away. I still have one question:</p><p> <em>Are the <strong>assertions</strong> of the summary true or not?</em>:</p><p>The answer, for what it's worth, is no. FTFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>"The public shouldn't be concerned about any kind of health consequences," Irwin said, "because the amounts that have been measured are very, very low." Williams said the 17,000 parts per liter level was about half the reportable level established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is 30,000 parts per liter.\%</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that your spin-detector ca n't sense anything from the summary is indicative of greater problems.I do n't want to take away for a second from your extremely detailed parsing of the summary , but...Let 's take it is a given that the summary is spin-laden .
Let 's further assume ( safely , I think ) that the author has a real problem with nuclear technology in general , or at least with the way it 's currently implemented.In fact , let 's assume that slashdot readers , being the clever types that they are , have spotted this spin coming from about 5 blocks away .
I still have one question : Are the assertions of the summary true or not ?
: The answer , for what it 's worth , is no .
FTFA : " The public should n't be concerned about any kind of health consequences , " Irwin said , " because the amounts that have been measured are very , very low .
" Williams said the 17,000 parts per liter level was about half the reportable level established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission , which is 30,000 parts per liter. \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that your spin-detector can't sense anything from the summary is indicative of greater problems.I don't want to take away for a second from your extremely detailed parsing of the summary, but...Let's take it is a given that the summary is spin-laden.
Let's further assume (safely, I think) that the author has a real problem with nuclear technology in general, or at least with the way it's currently implemented.In fact, let's assume that slashdot readers, being the clever types that they are, have spotted this spin coming from about 5 blocks away.
I still have one question: Are the assertions of the summary true or not?
:The answer, for what it's worth, is no.
FTFA:"The public shouldn't be concerned about any kind of health consequences," Irwin said, "because the amounts that have been measured are very, very low.
" Williams said the 17,000 parts per liter level was about half the reportable level established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is 30,000 parts per liter.\%
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731976</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>amirulbahr</author>
	<datestamp>1263220140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you mean 3.34192092 * 10^25?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you mean 3.34192092 * 10 ^ 25 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you mean 3.34192092 * 10^25?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30740174</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>Mr. Flibble</author>
	<datestamp>1263322920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then <b>swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down</b>.</p></div><p>Wow... that sounds a lot like what would happen if your water supply was contaminated by tritium.</p></div><p>Yes, except for the amount of tritium I have it would be a few orders of magnitude in terms of parts per million beyond the current leak. And yet, it would still not be all that harmful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to do myself some damage with it , I would have to remove it from the plastic casing , crush the glass vial in my teeth , while carefully keeping my mouth closed ( as tritium gas is lighter than air ) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down.Wow... that sounds a lot like what would happen if your water supply was contaminated by tritium.Yes , except for the amount of tritium I have it would be a few orders of magnitude in terms of parts per million beyond the current leak .
And yet , it would still not be all that harmful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down.Wow... that sounds a lot like what would happen if your water supply was contaminated by tritium.Yes, except for the amount of tritium I have it would be a few orders of magnitude in terms of parts per million beyond the current leak.
And yet, it would still not be all that harmful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734778</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1263293160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Byron Station has consistently been one of the best-run and best-performing nuclear power plants in the world from the day it went into service (well before that, actually), so any article that starts out by claiming the opposite is a bit, um, suspect as to the rest.</p></div><p>Oh dear.  If that's true, we're a lot more screwed than the article makes it sound.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Byron Station has consistently been one of the best-run and best-performing nuclear power plants in the world from the day it went into service ( well before that , actually ) , so any article that starts out by claiming the opposite is a bit , um , suspect as to the rest.Oh dear .
If that 's true , we 're a lot more screwed than the article makes it sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Byron Station has consistently been one of the best-run and best-performing nuclear power plants in the world from the day it went into service (well before that, actually), so any article that starts out by claiming the opposite is a bit, um, suspect as to the rest.Oh dear.
If that's true, we're a lot more screwed than the article makes it sound.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735616</id>
	<title>Re:Lies! Lies! All LIES!</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1263302820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is clean.  You get more radiation damage from the sun then you would from the amount of tritium released from a reactor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is clean .
You get more radiation damage from the sun then you would from the amount of tritium released from a reactor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is clean.
You get more radiation damage from the sun then you would from the amount of tritium released from a reactor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734698</id>
	<title>Re:Forget about champagne</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1263292200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In theory, light water fission plants could be built and operated safely. But in a cost-cutting, capitalist economy the actual practice is not going to be that way.</i></p><p>And of course, there has never been an explosion, hundreds of deaths, and thousands of sqaure miles contaminated for a hundred years in a non-capitalist economy.</p><p>People ignore the massive environmental disaster that was the USSR.  Leaking oil, natural gas (a GHG), poisonous chemicals, rotting hulks of nuclear submarines...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , light water fission plants could be built and operated safely .
But in a cost-cutting , capitalist economy the actual practice is not going to be that way.And of course , there has never been an explosion , hundreds of deaths , and thousands of sqaure miles contaminated for a hundred years in a non-capitalist economy.People ignore the massive environmental disaster that was the USSR .
Leaking oil , natural gas ( a GHG ) , poisonous chemicals , rotting hulks of nuclear submarines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, light water fission plants could be built and operated safely.
But in a cost-cutting, capitalist economy the actual practice is not going to be that way.And of course, there has never been an explosion, hundreds of deaths, and thousands of sqaure miles contaminated for a hundred years in a non-capitalist economy.People ignore the massive environmental disaster that was the USSR.
Leaking oil, natural gas (a GHG), poisonous chemicals, rotting hulks of nuclear submarines...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732582</id>
	<title>shutting down leaky old nuclear plants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263224760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"</p><p>Two solutions:<br>1. Blame George Bush, shut down all nukes and dump trillions into "sustainable", "green" jobs like ACORN voter registration<br>2. Rebuild/replace with Thorium reactors</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; What , besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants , could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment ?
" Two solutions : 1 .
Blame George Bush , shut down all nukes and dump trillions into " sustainable " , " green " jobs like ACORN voter registration2 .
Rebuild/replace with Thorium reactors</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?
"Two solutions:1.
Blame George Bush, shut down all nukes and dump trillions into "sustainable", "green" jobs like ACORN voter registration2.
Rebuild/replace with Thorium reactors</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741900</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263329880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting note about NIMBY, I live a few miles away from a nuclear reactor which is actually built right next to a fault line in California (this would be the Diablo Canyon Reactor). To this date, there have been no meltdowns or scares or unholy terrors related to Diablo Canyon. The two beaches closes to the power plant (Pismo and Avila) are actually two of the nicest beaches in California. Pismo is one of the most visited. The hills around the plant (within a certain allowed range) are one of the favored hiking places around these parts. The quality of life is actually pretty high in the surrounding towns and cities. So far as I can tell, most folk seem to like it around these parts that live here. I am not saying the power plant causes any of these things, I just find it funny that so many people worry about a nuclear plant ruining the quality of life in their respective areas. The one place I have lived that has a nuclear plant also, coincidentally, has one of the happiest most thriving communities I have ever been a part of.
<br> <br>
So there is a personal anecdote regarding the irony of the NIMBY mindset. All the crazies can run in terror from nuclear plants. I, for one, will embrace one being built in any community I am part of. =)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting note about NIMBY , I live a few miles away from a nuclear reactor which is actually built right next to a fault line in California ( this would be the Diablo Canyon Reactor ) .
To this date , there have been no meltdowns or scares or unholy terrors related to Diablo Canyon .
The two beaches closes to the power plant ( Pismo and Avila ) are actually two of the nicest beaches in California .
Pismo is one of the most visited .
The hills around the plant ( within a certain allowed range ) are one of the favored hiking places around these parts .
The quality of life is actually pretty high in the surrounding towns and cities .
So far as I can tell , most folk seem to like it around these parts that live here .
I am not saying the power plant causes any of these things , I just find it funny that so many people worry about a nuclear plant ruining the quality of life in their respective areas .
The one place I have lived that has a nuclear plant also , coincidentally , has one of the happiest most thriving communities I have ever been a part of .
So there is a personal anecdote regarding the irony of the NIMBY mindset .
All the crazies can run in terror from nuclear plants .
I , for one , will embrace one being built in any community I am part of .
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting note about NIMBY, I live a few miles away from a nuclear reactor which is actually built right next to a fault line in California (this would be the Diablo Canyon Reactor).
To this date, there have been no meltdowns or scares or unholy terrors related to Diablo Canyon.
The two beaches closes to the power plant (Pismo and Avila) are actually two of the nicest beaches in California.
Pismo is one of the most visited.
The hills around the plant (within a certain allowed range) are one of the favored hiking places around these parts.
The quality of life is actually pretty high in the surrounding towns and cities.
So far as I can tell, most folk seem to like it around these parts that live here.
I am not saying the power plant causes any of these things, I just find it funny that so many people worry about a nuclear plant ruining the quality of life in their respective areas.
The one place I have lived that has a nuclear plant also, coincidentally, has one of the happiest most thriving communities I have ever been a part of.
So there is a personal anecdote regarding the irony of the NIMBY mindset.
All the crazies can run in terror from nuclear plants.
I, for one, will embrace one being built in any community I am part of.
=)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732142</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>sphealey</author>
	<datestamp>1263221340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all,<br>&gt; what do you find wrong with the summary?<br>&gt;<br>&gt; I'm genuinely curious. I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin (no<br>&gt; pun intended) there, but couldn't find any.</p><p>Byron Station has consistently been one of the best-run and best-performing nuclear power plants in the world from the day it went into service (well before that, actually), so any article that starts out by claiming the opposite is a bit, um, suspect as to the rest.</p><p>sPh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all , &gt; what do you find wrong with the summary ? &gt; &gt; I 'm genuinely curious .
I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin ( no &gt; pun intended ) there , but could n't find any.Byron Station has consistently been one of the best-run and best-performing nuclear power plants in the world from the day it went into service ( well before that , actually ) , so any article that starts out by claiming the opposite is a bit , um , suspect as to the rest.sPh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all,&gt; what do you find wrong with the summary?&gt;&gt; I'm genuinely curious.
I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin (no&gt; pun intended) there, but couldn't find any.Byron Station has consistently been one of the best-run and best-performing nuclear power plants in the world from the day it went into service (well before that, actually), so any article that starts out by claiming the opposite is a bit, um, suspect as to the rest.sPh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732050</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1263220560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, apart from the already mentioned fact that tritium is a natural by-product of fission, most modern reactors (pressurized water reactors or boiling water reactors, yes, not even pebble bed) <i>are</i> "melt down proof." Chernobyl is a superb example of why even old American designs are very, very safe and the old Russian designs are very, very insane.</p><p>It is extremely disheartening to see someone so clearly misinformed about such a very easily researched topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , apart from the already mentioned fact that tritium is a natural by-product of fission , most modern reactors ( pressurized water reactors or boiling water reactors , yes , not even pebble bed ) are " melt down proof .
" Chernobyl is a superb example of why even old American designs are very , very safe and the old Russian designs are very , very insane.It is extremely disheartening to see someone so clearly misinformed about such a very easily researched topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, apart from the already mentioned fact that tritium is a natural by-product of fission, most modern reactors (pressurized water reactors or boiling water reactors, yes, not even pebble bed) are "melt down proof.
" Chernobyl is a superb example of why even old American designs are very, very safe and the old Russian designs are very, very insane.It is extremely disheartening to see someone so clearly misinformed about such a very easily researched topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30742124</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>MrNiceguy\_KS</author>
	<datestamp>1263287700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest building nuclear power plants on the site of decommissioned coal power plants.  Aside from the pollution advantages, the power line infrastructure is already in place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest building nuclear power plants on the site of decommissioned coal power plants .
Aside from the pollution advantages , the power line infrastructure is already in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest building nuclear power plants on the site of decommissioned coal power plants.
Aside from the pollution advantages, the power line infrastructure is already in place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30746810</id>
	<title>Re:A Sticky Situation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263315120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he he he...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he he he.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he he he...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732298</id>
	<title>Re:Lame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the idiots at greenpeace and/or Algore wants is for everyone else (not themselves of course) to live like the Old-Order Amish, but without the horses, cows, sheep and chickens. Then they'll finally shut up... Maybe... (I doubt it.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the idiots at greenpeace and/or Algore wants is for everyone else ( not themselves of course ) to live like the Old-Order Amish , but without the horses , cows , sheep and chickens .
Then they 'll finally shut up... Maybe... ( I doubt it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the idiots at greenpeace and/or Algore wants is for everyone else (not themselves of course) to live like the Old-Order Amish, but without the horses, cows, sheep and chickens.
Then they'll finally shut up... Maybe... (I doubt it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734940</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1263295260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if it's actually less costly than coal, but it's certainly much more environmentally friendly.  If certainly doing massive amounts of environmental damage to the planet every day is preferable in your eyes to possibly irradiating comparatively small areas of the planet, maybe, if only there's an accident on a scale that's not really possible in most designs, then yes, you most certainly don't have your priorities straight.</p><p>Your fears are not so much irrational as simply ignorant of the facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if it 's actually less costly than coal , but it 's certainly much more environmentally friendly .
If certainly doing massive amounts of environmental damage to the planet every day is preferable in your eyes to possibly irradiating comparatively small areas of the planet , maybe , if only there 's an accident on a scale that 's not really possible in most designs , then yes , you most certainly do n't have your priorities straight.Your fears are not so much irrational as simply ignorant of the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if it's actually less costly than coal, but it's certainly much more environmentally friendly.
If certainly doing massive amounts of environmental damage to the planet every day is preferable in your eyes to possibly irradiating comparatively small areas of the planet, maybe, if only there's an accident on a scale that's not really possible in most designs, then yes, you most certainly don't have your priorities straight.Your fears are not so much irrational as simply ignorant of the facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>PsychoSlashDot</author>
	<datestamp>1263220200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from cost, public opinion is the real factor holding back exactly what you describe.  It's a total case of NIMBY.  Not in my back yard.  "Nobody" wants a nuclear <i>anything</i> anywhere near them.  Nuclear bad.  Radiation bad.  Eeeeevil.</p><p>So.  All you need to do is convince everyone you meet to stop being afraid of nuclear energy.  While you're at it, please do the same for fears of the boogeyman, terrorists, cloning, cancer, and people with different coloured skin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from cost , public opinion is the real factor holding back exactly what you describe .
It 's a total case of NIMBY .
Not in my back yard .
" Nobody " wants a nuclear anything anywhere near them .
Nuclear bad .
Radiation bad .
Eeeeevil.So. All you need to do is convince everyone you meet to stop being afraid of nuclear energy .
While you 're at it , please do the same for fears of the boogeyman , terrorists , cloning , cancer , and people with different coloured skin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from cost, public opinion is the real factor holding back exactly what you describe.
It's a total case of NIMBY.
Not in my back yard.
"Nobody" wants a nuclear anything anywhere near them.
Nuclear bad.
Radiation bad.
Eeeeevil.So.  All you need to do is convince everyone you meet to stop being afraid of nuclear energy.
While you're at it, please do the same for fears of the boogeyman, terrorists, cloning, cancer, and people with different coloured skin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732174</id>
	<title>TV solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Convince people it's a baldness cure, old Hogan's Heroes episode. Then just start lining coffins with lead. Problem solved and you get a fresh new cash flow for the nuclear industry selling a fake baldness cure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Convince people it 's a baldness cure , old Hogan 's Heroes episode .
Then just start lining coffins with lead .
Problem solved and you get a fresh new cash flow for the nuclear industry selling a fake baldness cure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Convince people it's a baldness cure, old Hogan's Heroes episode.
Then just start lining coffins with lead.
Problem solved and you get a fresh new cash flow for the nuclear industry selling a fake baldness cure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731948</id>
	<title>Here's one solution...</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1263219960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"</p></div><p>Maintain the plants and keep them in operation. Really, they won't hurt you; and the electricity they produce is cheap and clean.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What , besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants , could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment ?
" Maintain the plants and keep them in operation .
Really , they wo n't hurt you ; and the electricity they produce is cheap and clean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?
"Maintain the plants and keep them in operation.
Really, they won't hurt you; and the electricity they produce is cheap and clean.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737548</id>
	<title>Discussion Summary</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1263313560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There don't seem to be other proposed solutions aside from shutting down old plants.  Those who want to build new plants would just be creating future old plants that will leak in turn.  Nuclear waste just does not seem to have any solutions except to stop making it even for stuff that is as short lived as tritium.  One would think that the financial incentive would keep tritium bottled up but in the UK they just vent it, probably in contravention of the London Dumping Convention.  The ground water leaks in the US probably face this issue as well if the ground water mixes with surface water.  This will probably happen in Vermont.  The links on effects of tritium poisoning are interesting.  Those who discuss its safety and use outside the body are ignoring that the tritium in entering ground water which will be ingested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There do n't seem to be other proposed solutions aside from shutting down old plants .
Those who want to build new plants would just be creating future old plants that will leak in turn .
Nuclear waste just does not seem to have any solutions except to stop making it even for stuff that is as short lived as tritium .
One would think that the financial incentive would keep tritium bottled up but in the UK they just vent it , probably in contravention of the London Dumping Convention .
The ground water leaks in the US probably face this issue as well if the ground water mixes with surface water .
This will probably happen in Vermont .
The links on effects of tritium poisoning are interesting .
Those who discuss its safety and use outside the body are ignoring that the tritium in entering ground water which will be ingested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There don't seem to be other proposed solutions aside from shutting down old plants.
Those who want to build new plants would just be creating future old plants that will leak in turn.
Nuclear waste just does not seem to have any solutions except to stop making it even for stuff that is as short lived as tritium.
One would think that the financial incentive would keep tritium bottled up but in the UK they just vent it, probably in contravention of the London Dumping Convention.
The ground water leaks in the US probably face this issue as well if the ground water mixes with surface water.
This will probably happen in Vermont.
The links on effects of tritium poisoning are interesting.
Those who discuss its safety and use outside the body are ignoring that the tritium in entering ground water which will be ingested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735554</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>CharlieG</author>
	<datestamp>1263302040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the mid 1980s, I lived fairly close to Shoreham Long Island - Iwas one of the folks saying "Please start the reactor".  I knew enough people who had checked and tested the safety systems (and watched a few of the test myself while I was testing MY stuff at the testing lab) that I knew it was the most tested reactor plant in history (due to all the controversy)</p><p>Sigh.  I blame this all on Jane Fonda (et al) wanting to make money for their stupid movie</p><p>BTW - TMI?  About as bad as it can get with a US designed reactor.  They did just about everything wrong, managed to melt the core to rubble, and for all intents, nothing got out of the containment structure</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the mid 1980s , I lived fairly close to Shoreham Long Island - Iwas one of the folks saying " Please start the reactor " .
I knew enough people who had checked and tested the safety systems ( and watched a few of the test myself while I was testing MY stuff at the testing lab ) that I knew it was the most tested reactor plant in history ( due to all the controversy ) Sigh .
I blame this all on Jane Fonda ( et al ) wanting to make money for their stupid movieBTW - TMI ?
About as bad as it can get with a US designed reactor .
They did just about everything wrong , managed to melt the core to rubble , and for all intents , nothing got out of the containment structure</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the mid 1980s, I lived fairly close to Shoreham Long Island - Iwas one of the folks saying "Please start the reactor".
I knew enough people who had checked and tested the safety systems (and watched a few of the test myself while I was testing MY stuff at the testing lab) that I knew it was the most tested reactor plant in history (due to all the controversy)Sigh.
I blame this all on Jane Fonda (et al) wanting to make money for their stupid movieBTW - TMI?
About as bad as it can get with a US designed reactor.
They did just about everything wrong, managed to melt the core to rubble, and for all intents, nothing got out of the containment structure</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732226</id>
	<title>Lies! Lies! All LIES!</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1263222000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No! It's clean, I tell you! Clean! It's the cleanest one of all! Clean! Clean! Clean!<br>

Aaaaaaaaargh.....<br>
[fades out into oblivion]</htmltext>
<tokenext>No !
It 's clean , I tell you !
Clean ! It 's the cleanest one of all !
Clean ! Clean !
Clean ! Aaaaaaaaargh.... . [ fades out into oblivion ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No!
It's clean, I tell you!
Clean! It's the cleanest one of all!
Clean! Clean!
Clean!

Aaaaaaaaargh.....
[fades out into oblivion]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735294</id>
	<title>Indian Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263299580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pass by Indian Point everyday in my commute, which I have been doing for almost 15 years. My neighbor actually works there. Old? yes. Poorly run? many, many years ago, yes, but well run for over two decades. Decrepit? no. If you ever try to bring your boat anywhere near Indian Point (it's on the Hudson river), you will be greeted by a security boat and escorted away. Hardly indicative of poorly run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pass by Indian Point everyday in my commute , which I have been doing for almost 15 years .
My neighbor actually works there .
Old ? yes .
Poorly run ?
many , many years ago , yes , but well run for over two decades .
Decrepit ? no .
If you ever try to bring your boat anywhere near Indian Point ( it 's on the Hudson river ) , you will be greeted by a security boat and escorted away .
Hardly indicative of poorly run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pass by Indian Point everyday in my commute, which I have been doing for almost 15 years.
My neighbor actually works there.
Old? yes.
Poorly run?
many, many years ago, yes, but well run for over two decades.
Decrepit? no.
If you ever try to bring your boat anywhere near Indian Point (it's on the Hudson river), you will be greeted by a security boat and escorted away.
Hardly indicative of poorly run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733172</id>
	<title>Shorting Exelon anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will their stock dip on this news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will their stock dip on this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will their stock dip on this news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735280</id>
	<title>VY constantly in news</title>
	<author>revxul</author>
	<datestamp>1263299460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vermont Yankee has been riddled with problems for the last several years. Entergy is horrible and this reactor is being run and maintained terribly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vermont Yankee has been riddled with problems for the last several years .
Entergy is horrible and this reactor is being run and maintained terribly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vermont Yankee has been riddled with problems for the last several years.
Entergy is horrible and this reactor is being run and maintained terribly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732780</id>
	<title>Re:Tritium is fairly common...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263226380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you never have been to Denver, well that could explain something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you never have been to Denver , well that could explain something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you never have been to Denver, well that could explain something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735210</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263298680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"clean eco-friendly coal burning plants at once."</p><p>Beats hearing the "slap, slap, slap" of bats being splattered by wind turbines, or earthquakes caused by frac'ing for geothermal.</p><p>I want my consequence-free power and I want it now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" clean eco-friendly coal burning plants at once .
" Beats hearing the " slap , slap , slap " of bats being splattered by wind turbines , or earthquakes caused by frac'ing for geothermal.I want my consequence-free power and I want it now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"clean eco-friendly coal burning plants at once.
"Beats hearing the "slap, slap, slap" of bats being splattered by wind turbines, or earthquakes caused by frac'ing for geothermal.I want my consequence-free power and I want it now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734894</id>
	<title>What the fuck is "parts per litre?"</title>
	<author>Eunuchswear</author>
	<datestamp>1263294660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263288420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because the summary is loaded doesn't mean nuclear power is not dangerous.  However well run a nuclear power plant is, and however low the probability, a Chernobyl style accident that causes contamination of a large area for thousands of years cannot happen with other kinds of power plants.

</p><p>Why are we running these plants?  Maybe it's less costly than burning coal, but if that's the only reason, we should shut them down when we finish switching to wind, water, and solar.  There are other reasons to run a nuclear plant, such as educational and research purposes, making bombs, and producing radioactive isotopes used for all sorts of purposes, medical and otherwise.  It can be argued that we don't have our priorities right.  The extreme consequences of an accident suggest we should only fool with radioactive material for important things that cannot be done any other way, and there are lots of other ways to generate power.  Plenty of things can kill thousands of people, but the only one I know that can make land uninhabitable for millenia is radioactivity.  Makes salting the earth look tame.

</p><p>There seems to be a view that the public is irrationally afraid of nuclear power, that there are nuances the public doesn't appreciate and there are many kinds of nuclear plants that are much safer than Chernobyl, and that cannot produce the really bad radioactive isotopes.  I'm not so sure the fears are irrational.  Rather, I think nuclear power boosters are too quick to minimize and dismiss the dangers and problems.  What if a plant were to be bombed or raided by terrorists?  What are we going to do with all the waste?  Come up with ways to clean up every kind of radiation spill quickly, and demonstrate them by restoring the area around Chernobyl, and only then am I willing to change my mind about the unique dangers of nuclear power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the summary is loaded does n't mean nuclear power is not dangerous .
However well run a nuclear power plant is , and however low the probability , a Chernobyl style accident that causes contamination of a large area for thousands of years can not happen with other kinds of power plants .
Why are we running these plants ?
Maybe it 's less costly than burning coal , but if that 's the only reason , we should shut them down when we finish switching to wind , water , and solar .
There are other reasons to run a nuclear plant , such as educational and research purposes , making bombs , and producing radioactive isotopes used for all sorts of purposes , medical and otherwise .
It can be argued that we do n't have our priorities right .
The extreme consequences of an accident suggest we should only fool with radioactive material for important things that can not be done any other way , and there are lots of other ways to generate power .
Plenty of things can kill thousands of people , but the only one I know that can make land uninhabitable for millenia is radioactivity .
Makes salting the earth look tame .
There seems to be a view that the public is irrationally afraid of nuclear power , that there are nuances the public does n't appreciate and there are many kinds of nuclear plants that are much safer than Chernobyl , and that can not produce the really bad radioactive isotopes .
I 'm not so sure the fears are irrational .
Rather , I think nuclear power boosters are too quick to minimize and dismiss the dangers and problems .
What if a plant were to be bombed or raided by terrorists ?
What are we going to do with all the waste ?
Come up with ways to clean up every kind of radiation spill quickly , and demonstrate them by restoring the area around Chernobyl , and only then am I willing to change my mind about the unique dangers of nuclear power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the summary is loaded doesn't mean nuclear power is not dangerous.
However well run a nuclear power plant is, and however low the probability, a Chernobyl style accident that causes contamination of a large area for thousands of years cannot happen with other kinds of power plants.
Why are we running these plants?
Maybe it's less costly than burning coal, but if that's the only reason, we should shut them down when we finish switching to wind, water, and solar.
There are other reasons to run a nuclear plant, such as educational and research purposes, making bombs, and producing radioactive isotopes used for all sorts of purposes, medical and otherwise.
It can be argued that we don't have our priorities right.
The extreme consequences of an accident suggest we should only fool with radioactive material for important things that cannot be done any other way, and there are lots of other ways to generate power.
Plenty of things can kill thousands of people, but the only one I know that can make land uninhabitable for millenia is radioactivity.
Makes salting the earth look tame.
There seems to be a view that the public is irrationally afraid of nuclear power, that there are nuances the public doesn't appreciate and there are many kinds of nuclear plants that are much safer than Chernobyl, and that cannot produce the really bad radioactive isotopes.
I'm not so sure the fears are irrational.
Rather, I think nuclear power boosters are too quick to minimize and dismiss the dangers and problems.
What if a plant were to be bombed or raided by terrorists?
What are we going to do with all the waste?
Come up with ways to clean up every kind of radiation spill quickly, and demonstrate them by restoring the area around Chernobyl, and only then am I willing to change my mind about the unique dangers of nuclear power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735258</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263299160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Chernobyl style accident that causes contamination of a large area for thousands of years cannot happen with other kinds of power plant"</p><p>Don't build "Chernobyl style" nuclear plants.</p><p>Oh, wait, we don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Chernobyl style accident that causes contamination of a large area for thousands of years can not happen with other kinds of power plant " Do n't build " Chernobyl style " nuclear plants.Oh , wait , we do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Chernobyl style accident that causes contamination of a large area for thousands of years cannot happen with other kinds of power plant"Don't build "Chernobyl style" nuclear plants.Oh, wait, we don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>Mr. Flibble</author>
	<datestamp>1263222780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're talking about *tritium* here, not plutonium. It's just not all that dangerous as far as radioactive materials go. You might well be *WEARING* some right now if you have a watch that glows in the dark. Unless they're releasing hundreds of pounds of it at a time here (they aren't, there's  ~165lbs of the stuff in the US right now) , any farm even a kilometer away is not a real health hazard.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium</a> [wikipedia.org]</p> </div><p>Absolutely correct! I am in fact wearing some right now! I have a necklace that has a "beta light" or as it is called in the UK a  "Tritium Kit Marker". I carry this as it is part of my survival kit (I spend a good deal of time out doors) and having it in a necklace as a pendant always keeps it with me for emergencies.</p><p>Why do I carry it? Because it will stay glowing for roughly 15 years. The half-life of this gas is 12.3 years, and that is round about enough to keep the pendant glowing for 15 years or so. I can read by it in complete darkness, and almost hike by it in total darkness (as in a cave).</p><p>Now, before people freak out - Tritium is a beta emitter. Barely any electrons make it through the boro-silicate glass or plastic secondary container. Those that do are unlikely to penetrate my first layer of skin.</p><p>In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down. Even then, after I pee it out in about 1-2 weeks time, I will have received a dosage roughly equivalent to a chest X-Ray.</p><p>For those of you who are still skeptical, I had the vial tested by some Physicists from Alamogordo at the Trinity Test Site this year, and in Los Alamos with Geiger counters. It registers as radioactive... but then again, so does a banana. I forget how many rems it gives off, but it was not much higher than normal background radiation, and far lower than may other common things such as a smoke detector.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about * tritium * here , not plutonium .
It 's just not all that dangerous as far as radioactive materials go .
You might well be * WEARING * some right now if you have a watch that glows in the dark .
Unless they 're releasing hundreds of pounds of it at a time here ( they are n't , there 's ~ 165lbs of the stuff in the US right now ) , any farm even a kilometer away is not a real health hazard.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium [ wikipedia.org ] Absolutely correct !
I am in fact wearing some right now !
I have a necklace that has a " beta light " or as it is called in the UK a " Tritium Kit Marker " .
I carry this as it is part of my survival kit ( I spend a good deal of time out doors ) and having it in a necklace as a pendant always keeps it with me for emergencies.Why do I carry it ?
Because it will stay glowing for roughly 15 years .
The half-life of this gas is 12.3 years , and that is round about enough to keep the pendant glowing for 15 years or so .
I can read by it in complete darkness , and almost hike by it in total darkness ( as in a cave ) .Now , before people freak out - Tritium is a beta emitter .
Barely any electrons make it through the boro-silicate glass or plastic secondary container .
Those that do are unlikely to penetrate my first layer of skin.In order to do myself some damage with it , I would have to remove it from the plastic casing , crush the glass vial in my teeth , while carefully keeping my mouth closed ( as tritium gas is lighter than air ) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down .
Even then , after I pee it out in about 1-2 weeks time , I will have received a dosage roughly equivalent to a chest X-Ray.For those of you who are still skeptical , I had the vial tested by some Physicists from Alamogordo at the Trinity Test Site this year , and in Los Alamos with Geiger counters .
It registers as radioactive... but then again , so does a banana .
I forget how many rems it gives off , but it was not much higher than normal background radiation , and far lower than may other common things such as a smoke detector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about *tritium* here, not plutonium.
It's just not all that dangerous as far as radioactive materials go.
You might well be *WEARING* some right now if you have a watch that glows in the dark.
Unless they're releasing hundreds of pounds of it at a time here (they aren't, there's  ~165lbs of the stuff in the US right now) , any farm even a kilometer away is not a real health hazard.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium [wikipedia.org] Absolutely correct!
I am in fact wearing some right now!
I have a necklace that has a "beta light" or as it is called in the UK a  "Tritium Kit Marker".
I carry this as it is part of my survival kit (I spend a good deal of time out doors) and having it in a necklace as a pendant always keeps it with me for emergencies.Why do I carry it?
Because it will stay glowing for roughly 15 years.
The half-life of this gas is 12.3 years, and that is round about enough to keep the pendant glowing for 15 years or so.
I can read by it in complete darkness, and almost hike by it in total darkness (as in a cave).Now, before people freak out - Tritium is a beta emitter.
Barely any electrons make it through the boro-silicate glass or plastic secondary container.
Those that do are unlikely to penetrate my first layer of skin.In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down.
Even then, after I pee it out in about 1-2 weeks time, I will have received a dosage roughly equivalent to a chest X-Ray.For those of you who are still skeptical, I had the vial tested by some Physicists from Alamogordo at the Trinity Test Site this year, and in Los Alamos with Geiger counters.
It registers as radioactive... but then again, so does a banana.
I forget how many rems it gives off, but it was not much higher than normal background radiation, and far lower than may other common things such as a smoke detector.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732480</id>
	<title>As a Vermont resident...</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1263224040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't an isolated incident.  Vermont Yankee has been plagued by problems like this, though generally less critical.  There's been a photo circulating around of an incident a few years back, where one of the cooling structures fell apart.  (Really... fell apart - the photo looks pretty sick, and you wonder what neglect gets it to that point.)  I seem to remember that a few years back that lost some spent fuel rods, too.  I don't remember how that turned out - I think it was a bookkeeping problem, and they were in the cooling pond all along.</p><p>Entergy took the plant over a few years ago, and people here weren't too happy about control going to some out of our region (Texas) firm.  Plus I'm under the impression that there was supposed to be some sort of decommissioning fund being built up during operating years, so they could properly take care of the plant at end-of-life.  Now there's something about no money to take care of shutdown costs, etc.  (Sounds to me like raiding a pension fund, but that's probably unfair.)</p><p>Now with a rather checkered safety and maintenance record, they're trying to get an operating license extension.  In addition, they're putting in for a rather hefty rate increase at the same time.  People here aren't too happy.</p><p>Others have suggested building *safe* plants.  Personally I blame the US Navy.  I once heard that basically we have landlubbing ship/submarine reactors for our domestic electric power plants for the sake of the US Navy.  The type of reactors we use in the US are great for power density, not so great for safety by-design, not so great for cleanup, etc.  But the Navy gets the benefit of a "nuclear industry" that practices their kind of reactors.  Nuclear training in the US is essentially all for Navy reactors.  Unfortunately, this contributed to the death of the nuclear industry in the US.  Had we gone with one of the inherently safe, inherently cleaner designs, or had we taken the French standardization-based approach instead of a whole pile of similar one-offs, we might still have a nuclear industry, cleaner air, cheaper power, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't an isolated incident .
Vermont Yankee has been plagued by problems like this , though generally less critical .
There 's been a photo circulating around of an incident a few years back , where one of the cooling structures fell apart .
( Really... fell apart - the photo looks pretty sick , and you wonder what neglect gets it to that point .
) I seem to remember that a few years back that lost some spent fuel rods , too .
I do n't remember how that turned out - I think it was a bookkeeping problem , and they were in the cooling pond all along.Entergy took the plant over a few years ago , and people here were n't too happy about control going to some out of our region ( Texas ) firm .
Plus I 'm under the impression that there was supposed to be some sort of decommissioning fund being built up during operating years , so they could properly take care of the plant at end-of-life .
Now there 's something about no money to take care of shutdown costs , etc .
( Sounds to me like raiding a pension fund , but that 's probably unfair .
) Now with a rather checkered safety and maintenance record , they 're trying to get an operating license extension .
In addition , they 're putting in for a rather hefty rate increase at the same time .
People here are n't too happy.Others have suggested building * safe * plants .
Personally I blame the US Navy .
I once heard that basically we have landlubbing ship/submarine reactors for our domestic electric power plants for the sake of the US Navy .
The type of reactors we use in the US are great for power density , not so great for safety by-design , not so great for cleanup , etc .
But the Navy gets the benefit of a " nuclear industry " that practices their kind of reactors .
Nuclear training in the US is essentially all for Navy reactors .
Unfortunately , this contributed to the death of the nuclear industry in the US .
Had we gone with one of the inherently safe , inherently cleaner designs , or had we taken the French standardization-based approach instead of a whole pile of similar one-offs , we might still have a nuclear industry , cleaner air , cheaper power , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't an isolated incident.
Vermont Yankee has been plagued by problems like this, though generally less critical.
There's been a photo circulating around of an incident a few years back, where one of the cooling structures fell apart.
(Really... fell apart - the photo looks pretty sick, and you wonder what neglect gets it to that point.
)  I seem to remember that a few years back that lost some spent fuel rods, too.
I don't remember how that turned out - I think it was a bookkeeping problem, and they were in the cooling pond all along.Entergy took the plant over a few years ago, and people here weren't too happy about control going to some out of our region (Texas) firm.
Plus I'm under the impression that there was supposed to be some sort of decommissioning fund being built up during operating years, so they could properly take care of the plant at end-of-life.
Now there's something about no money to take care of shutdown costs, etc.
(Sounds to me like raiding a pension fund, but that's probably unfair.
)Now with a rather checkered safety and maintenance record, they're trying to get an operating license extension.
In addition, they're putting in for a rather hefty rate increase at the same time.
People here aren't too happy.Others have suggested building *safe* plants.
Personally I blame the US Navy.
I once heard that basically we have landlubbing ship/submarine reactors for our domestic electric power plants for the sake of the US Navy.
The type of reactors we use in the US are great for power density, not so great for safety by-design, not so great for cleanup, etc.
But the Navy gets the benefit of a "nuclear industry" that practices their kind of reactors.
Nuclear training in the US is essentially all for Navy reactors.
Unfortunately, this contributed to the death of the nuclear industry in the US.
Had we gone with one of the inherently safe, inherently cleaner designs, or had we taken the French standardization-based approach instead of a whole pile of similar one-offs, we might still have a nuclear industry, cleaner air, cheaper power, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732346</id>
	<title>Re:Rose-colored perspective</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1263222900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>If it's safe, why should the leak be found and fixed?</em></p><p>I didn't say it was safe, just that it did not demonstrate that the plants are unsafe.  If one car randomly explodes, does that prove that all cars are inherently unsafe?  Neither did I say the leak was safe forever: obviously if the plant is leaking then something is going wrong.  It may be safe now but problems left unattended tend to get worse over time.</p><p><em>Let's be honest here. To the advocates of nuclear power, Chernobyl isn't a demonstration of the danger of nuclear power, so why should any lesser event be considered such?</em></p><p>Well, no Chernobyl-style plants are operated in the US, so why should it demonstrate anything about powerplants in the US?</p><p><em>In any case, the comparison you give is, at best, misleading, and at worst, deliberately so. For the comparison to be meaningful, we'd need to know the mix of uranium isotopes in order to compare their decay modes, energies, and products.</em></p><p>Well, the mix of uranium isotopes in sea water is known, so why don't you pull it up and prove that the comparison wasn't meaningful instead of just assuming that it isn't.  I'd say it actually goes in my favor: uranium is toxic whereas tritium isn't, uranium decays into toxic lead (via various radioactive and toxic intermediaries), whereas tritium decays into helium, which isn't toxic or radioactive, and uranium has a decay energy orders of magnitude greater than tritium.  Tritium also has a short biological half-life and is readily removed from the body.  Uranium, on the other hand, though not readily absorbed by the body tends to bioaccumulate and can stay in the body for years.</p><p><em>Either you haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about...or you're an energy industry shill</em></p><p>That's a false dichotomy.  I both have some idea what I'm talking about and have no connection to the energy industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's safe , why should the leak be found and fixed ? I did n't say it was safe , just that it did not demonstrate that the plants are unsafe .
If one car randomly explodes , does that prove that all cars are inherently unsafe ?
Neither did I say the leak was safe forever : obviously if the plant is leaking then something is going wrong .
It may be safe now but problems left unattended tend to get worse over time.Let 's be honest here .
To the advocates of nuclear power , Chernobyl is n't a demonstration of the danger of nuclear power , so why should any lesser event be considered such ? Well , no Chernobyl-style plants are operated in the US , so why should it demonstrate anything about powerplants in the US ? In any case , the comparison you give is , at best , misleading , and at worst , deliberately so .
For the comparison to be meaningful , we 'd need to know the mix of uranium isotopes in order to compare their decay modes , energies , and products.Well , the mix of uranium isotopes in sea water is known , so why do n't you pull it up and prove that the comparison was n't meaningful instead of just assuming that it is n't .
I 'd say it actually goes in my favor : uranium is toxic whereas tritium is n't , uranium decays into toxic lead ( via various radioactive and toxic intermediaries ) , whereas tritium decays into helium , which is n't toxic or radioactive , and uranium has a decay energy orders of magnitude greater than tritium .
Tritium also has a short biological half-life and is readily removed from the body .
Uranium , on the other hand , though not readily absorbed by the body tends to bioaccumulate and can stay in the body for years.Either you have n't the foggiest notion what you 're talking about...or you 're an energy industry shillThat 's a false dichotomy .
I both have some idea what I 'm talking about and have no connection to the energy industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's safe, why should the leak be found and fixed?I didn't say it was safe, just that it did not demonstrate that the plants are unsafe.
If one car randomly explodes, does that prove that all cars are inherently unsafe?
Neither did I say the leak was safe forever: obviously if the plant is leaking then something is going wrong.
It may be safe now but problems left unattended tend to get worse over time.Let's be honest here.
To the advocates of nuclear power, Chernobyl isn't a demonstration of the danger of nuclear power, so why should any lesser event be considered such?Well, no Chernobyl-style plants are operated in the US, so why should it demonstrate anything about powerplants in the US?In any case, the comparison you give is, at best, misleading, and at worst, deliberately so.
For the comparison to be meaningful, we'd need to know the mix of uranium isotopes in order to compare their decay modes, energies, and products.Well, the mix of uranium isotopes in sea water is known, so why don't you pull it up and prove that the comparison wasn't meaningful instead of just assuming that it isn't.
I'd say it actually goes in my favor: uranium is toxic whereas tritium isn't, uranium decays into toxic lead (via various radioactive and toxic intermediaries), whereas tritium decays into helium, which isn't toxic or radioactive, and uranium has a decay energy orders of magnitude greater than tritium.
Tritium also has a short biological half-life and is readily removed from the body.
Uranium, on the other hand, though not readily absorbed by the body tends to bioaccumulate and can stay in the body for years.Either you haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about...or you're an energy industry shillThat's a false dichotomy.
I both have some idea what I'm talking about and have no connection to the energy industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733352</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1263231120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sums up many industries in general and goes in cycles.  When Three Mile Island was designed great care was taken and the containment building was designed to withstand the impact of a fully fueled large aircraft from the nearby airport.  By the time of the accident complacency had set in and the control systems were inferior to just about every industrial plant in the USA - it took many days to get a clue as to what was going on.  The care taken early on turned it into the best type of accident, nobody died and preventative work was done to avoid accidents in places without the benefit of such good containment.  After that things improved dramaticly.<br>By the time things got slack again Chenobyl reminded everyone to stop taking stupid shortcuts.  Now we've got to a point where it's just written off as dumb Russians and the superior people in the USA can never make mistakes even if they are taking stupid shortcuts - you'll see that attitude very strongly exhibited every time Chenobyl here.  Patriotic fervour is not going to save anyone doing stupid stuff from the consequences of their actions - Russian stupidity, American stupidity -   it's all stuipid.  It's a matter of putting things under competant adult supervision instead of the usual horse judges or waiting for something that will scare the horse judges into action and hope it's a TMI and not a Chenobyl.  That is what regulatory agencies are for but if someone is stupid enough to hide things from them for commericial advantage everyone loses.<br>New designs small enough that they can never fail as dramaticly as either accident are an option but the old US nuclear lobby is pushing 1970s crap with a coat of green paint.  New stuff requires R&amp;D which is something the nuclear lobby hasn't really done in thirty years.  South Africa and Australia are way ahead in some areas on tiny as distinct from zero budgets.  If the nuclear lobby had actually tried to do more than collect welfare then civilian nuclear power may have actually become a commercial proposition by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sums up many industries in general and goes in cycles .
When Three Mile Island was designed great care was taken and the containment building was designed to withstand the impact of a fully fueled large aircraft from the nearby airport .
By the time of the accident complacency had set in and the control systems were inferior to just about every industrial plant in the USA - it took many days to get a clue as to what was going on .
The care taken early on turned it into the best type of accident , nobody died and preventative work was done to avoid accidents in places without the benefit of such good containment .
After that things improved dramaticly.By the time things got slack again Chenobyl reminded everyone to stop taking stupid shortcuts .
Now we 've got to a point where it 's just written off as dumb Russians and the superior people in the USA can never make mistakes even if they are taking stupid shortcuts - you 'll see that attitude very strongly exhibited every time Chenobyl here .
Patriotic fervour is not going to save anyone doing stupid stuff from the consequences of their actions - Russian stupidity , American stupidity - it 's all stuipid .
It 's a matter of putting things under competant adult supervision instead of the usual horse judges or waiting for something that will scare the horse judges into action and hope it 's a TMI and not a Chenobyl .
That is what regulatory agencies are for but if someone is stupid enough to hide things from them for commericial advantage everyone loses.New designs small enough that they can never fail as dramaticly as either accident are an option but the old US nuclear lobby is pushing 1970s crap with a coat of green paint .
New stuff requires R&amp;D which is something the nuclear lobby has n't really done in thirty years .
South Africa and Australia are way ahead in some areas on tiny as distinct from zero budgets .
If the nuclear lobby had actually tried to do more than collect welfare then civilian nuclear power may have actually become a commercial proposition by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sums up many industries in general and goes in cycles.
When Three Mile Island was designed great care was taken and the containment building was designed to withstand the impact of a fully fueled large aircraft from the nearby airport.
By the time of the accident complacency had set in and the control systems were inferior to just about every industrial plant in the USA - it took many days to get a clue as to what was going on.
The care taken early on turned it into the best type of accident, nobody died and preventative work was done to avoid accidents in places without the benefit of such good containment.
After that things improved dramaticly.By the time things got slack again Chenobyl reminded everyone to stop taking stupid shortcuts.
Now we've got to a point where it's just written off as dumb Russians and the superior people in the USA can never make mistakes even if they are taking stupid shortcuts - you'll see that attitude very strongly exhibited every time Chenobyl here.
Patriotic fervour is not going to save anyone doing stupid stuff from the consequences of their actions - Russian stupidity, American stupidity -   it's all stuipid.
It's a matter of putting things under competant adult supervision instead of the usual horse judges or waiting for something that will scare the horse judges into action and hope it's a TMI and not a Chenobyl.
That is what regulatory agencies are for but if someone is stupid enough to hide things from them for commericial advantage everyone loses.New designs small enough that they can never fail as dramaticly as either accident are an option but the old US nuclear lobby is pushing 1970s crap with a coat of green paint.
New stuff requires R&amp;D which is something the nuclear lobby hasn't really done in thirty years.
South Africa and Australia are way ahead in some areas on tiny as distinct from zero budgets.
If the nuclear lobby had actually tried to do more than collect welfare then civilian nuclear power may have actually become a commercial proposition by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732412</id>
	<title>Standard Refrain</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1263223500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I blame (INSERT YOUR LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT) !</p><p>Since (INSERT YOUR LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT) has\had the power to fix this; since the President of course runs everything and it to blame for everything and is responsible to fix everything. During (INSERT LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT) term(s) he's did nothing to fix this!</p><p>IMPEACH (INSERT LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT)!!!</p><p>3 things kill a discussion quicker then:</p><p>A: Comparing anything to Nazis. They are over used and there were plenty of other groups in centuries past that made them look tame. More importantly, unlike some groups in history... they lost so comparing anything to them implies eventual failure so the argument falls apart all the quicker.<br>B: Blaming a President for problems that take decades to fester and manifest. Same for giving credit.<br>C: Blaming every other congressman\woman\it but your own.</p><p>Now that we have that out of the way....</p><p>We know that nuclear power has been suppressed for the last 30 years for better or worse. Does this really come as a surprise?</p><p>We know that funding towards the expansion of the nuclear energy program has been frozen, cut, and reduced at varying degrees for over 30 years. No new plants to handle existing demand means no ability to decommission older ones.</p><p>There is some irony at a group that hated nuclear energy complains after decades of condemning nuclear energy find time to complain that it isn't getting enough support and maintenance... I won't even get into the green debate that has driven Greenpeace into a morass of identity crisis.</p><p>Lastly the reality and fantasy of nuclear energy are so disparate that the media tends to run with fantasy and science tends to side on over confidence leaving the public conflicted. Nuclear isn't free energy. You still have to mine, enrich, store, process, protect, and manage the fuel. How much energy does it take measured at the end of a fuel's life-cycle from start to finish is the real efficiency. It's like those crappy CFLs. Same carbon footprint as a conventional bulb once you factor in shipping from overseas for most of them, the mining and processing for Mercury and the manufacturing of the ballasts, etc.</p><p>Special interest groups on both sides are so intent on propaganda that reason, compromise, and sanity are not allowed. Digital Mind Think in an Analog world...</p><p>We need to develop nuclear energy solutions that are safe. Beaming energy down from space is not an option as it is too vulnerable to attack and we already have so much shit up there it's nearing the point that would make the Rift's scenario likely (the orbit was intentionally filled with micro-debris to shred everything coming in and going out...)</p><p>We need a comprehensive solution that stitches ALL the sources together allowing basic economics to dictate the most cost effective solutions over time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame ( INSERT YOUR LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT ) ! Since ( INSERT YOUR LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT ) has \ had the power to fix this ; since the President of course runs everything and it to blame for everything and is responsible to fix everything .
During ( INSERT LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT ) term ( s ) he 's did nothing to fix this ! IMPEACH ( INSERT LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT ) ! !
! 3 things kill a discussion quicker then : A : Comparing anything to Nazis .
They are over used and there were plenty of other groups in centuries past that made them look tame .
More importantly , unlike some groups in history... they lost so comparing anything to them implies eventual failure so the argument falls apart all the quicker.B : Blaming a President for problems that take decades to fester and manifest .
Same for giving credit.C : Blaming every other congressman \ woman \ it but your own.Now that we have that out of the way....We know that nuclear power has been suppressed for the last 30 years for better or worse .
Does this really come as a surprise ? We know that funding towards the expansion of the nuclear energy program has been frozen , cut , and reduced at varying degrees for over 30 years .
No new plants to handle existing demand means no ability to decommission older ones.There is some irony at a group that hated nuclear energy complains after decades of condemning nuclear energy find time to complain that it is n't getting enough support and maintenance... I wo n't even get into the green debate that has driven Greenpeace into a morass of identity crisis.Lastly the reality and fantasy of nuclear energy are so disparate that the media tends to run with fantasy and science tends to side on over confidence leaving the public conflicted .
Nuclear is n't free energy .
You still have to mine , enrich , store , process , protect , and manage the fuel .
How much energy does it take measured at the end of a fuel 's life-cycle from start to finish is the real efficiency .
It 's like those crappy CFLs .
Same carbon footprint as a conventional bulb once you factor in shipping from overseas for most of them , the mining and processing for Mercury and the manufacturing of the ballasts , etc.Special interest groups on both sides are so intent on propaganda that reason , compromise , and sanity are not allowed .
Digital Mind Think in an Analog world...We need to develop nuclear energy solutions that are safe .
Beaming energy down from space is not an option as it is too vulnerable to attack and we already have so much shit up there it 's nearing the point that would make the Rift 's scenario likely ( the orbit was intentionally filled with micro-debris to shred everything coming in and going out... ) We need a comprehensive solution that stitches ALL the sources together allowing basic economics to dictate the most cost effective solutions over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame (INSERT YOUR LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT) !Since (INSERT YOUR LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT) has\had the power to fix this; since the President of course runs everything and it to blame for everything and is responsible to fix everything.
During (INSERT LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT) term(s) he's did nothing to fix this!IMPEACH (INSERT LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT)!!
!3 things kill a discussion quicker then:A: Comparing anything to Nazis.
They are over used and there were plenty of other groups in centuries past that made them look tame.
More importantly, unlike some groups in history... they lost so comparing anything to them implies eventual failure so the argument falls apart all the quicker.B: Blaming a President for problems that take decades to fester and manifest.
Same for giving credit.C: Blaming every other congressman\woman\it but your own.Now that we have that out of the way....We know that nuclear power has been suppressed for the last 30 years for better or worse.
Does this really come as a surprise?We know that funding towards the expansion of the nuclear energy program has been frozen, cut, and reduced at varying degrees for over 30 years.
No new plants to handle existing demand means no ability to decommission older ones.There is some irony at a group that hated nuclear energy complains after decades of condemning nuclear energy find time to complain that it isn't getting enough support and maintenance... I won't even get into the green debate that has driven Greenpeace into a morass of identity crisis.Lastly the reality and fantasy of nuclear energy are so disparate that the media tends to run with fantasy and science tends to side on over confidence leaving the public conflicted.
Nuclear isn't free energy.
You still have to mine, enrich, store, process, protect, and manage the fuel.
How much energy does it take measured at the end of a fuel's life-cycle from start to finish is the real efficiency.
It's like those crappy CFLs.
Same carbon footprint as a conventional bulb once you factor in shipping from overseas for most of them, the mining and processing for Mercury and the manufacturing of the ballasts, etc.Special interest groups on both sides are so intent on propaganda that reason, compromise, and sanity are not allowed.
Digital Mind Think in an Analog world...We need to develop nuclear energy solutions that are safe.
Beaming energy down from space is not an option as it is too vulnerable to attack and we already have so much shit up there it's nearing the point that would make the Rift's scenario likely (the orbit was intentionally filled with micro-debris to shred everything coming in and going out...)We need a comprehensive solution that stitches ALL the sources together allowing basic economics to dictate the most cost effective solutions over time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30744806</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263301080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a, somewhat, excellent energy source? Uncool green peace, uncool."</p><p>Because Big Government and Bible Thumpers are far from being the only people without an agenda for social control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a , somewhat , excellent energy source ?
Uncool green peace , uncool .
" Because Big Government and Bible Thumpers are far from being the only people without an agenda for social control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a, somewhat, excellent energy source?
Uncool green peace, uncool.
"Because Big Government and Bible Thumpers are far from being the only people without an agenda for social control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734276</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263329340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree that most leaks of tritium are over-mediatized in a "OMG nuke leaks !"-fashion, I would just like to point out that comparing exposition from an ingestion of beta sources and exposition to X-ray for a scan has little meaning from a medical point of view. The dangers and the areas hit are not the same, the way an amount of radioactive material builds up in the body is not the same. There is ongoing debate about the way to measure the dangers of exposition to various sources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that most leaks of tritium are over-mediatized in a " OMG nuke leaks !
" -fashion , I would just like to point out that comparing exposition from an ingestion of beta sources and exposition to X-ray for a scan has little meaning from a medical point of view .
The dangers and the areas hit are not the same , the way an amount of radioactive material builds up in the body is not the same .
There is ongoing debate about the way to measure the dangers of exposition to various sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that most leaks of tritium are over-mediatized in a "OMG nuke leaks !
"-fashion, I would just like to point out that comparing exposition from an ingestion of beta sources and exposition to X-ray for a scan has little meaning from a medical point of view.
The dangers and the areas hit are not the same, the way an amount of radioactive material builds up in the body is not the same.
There is ongoing debate about the way to measure the dangers of exposition to various sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737290</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263312480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analysis is spot-on except for one thing.</p><p>Check out how the ownership of nuclear plants has been changing since those big bad greenies have been stopping all progress with their horrible luddite mind control.  Now go to some cocktail parties with the stockholders and listen to them bloviate about "what America needs right now".</p><p>The intention is for the nuclear plants to fail.  The intention is massive environmental degradation.  The intention, eventually, is a government bailout and the construction of more nuclear plants at public expense for private profit, with those plants again being designed to eventually fail and produce massive environmental degradation.  Pollution is actually the goal with these people.  They <i>want</i> more pollution, and they will say so if you feed them enough martinis.  They <i>love</i> pollution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analysis is spot-on except for one thing.Check out how the ownership of nuclear plants has been changing since those big bad greenies have been stopping all progress with their horrible luddite mind control .
Now go to some cocktail parties with the stockholders and listen to them bloviate about " what America needs right now " .The intention is for the nuclear plants to fail .
The intention is massive environmental degradation .
The intention , eventually , is a government bailout and the construction of more nuclear plants at public expense for private profit , with those plants again being designed to eventually fail and produce massive environmental degradation .
Pollution is actually the goal with these people .
They want more pollution , and they will say so if you feed them enough martinis .
They love pollution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analysis is spot-on except for one thing.Check out how the ownership of nuclear plants has been changing since those big bad greenies have been stopping all progress with their horrible luddite mind control.
Now go to some cocktail parties with the stockholders and listen to them bloviate about "what America needs right now".The intention is for the nuclear plants to fail.
The intention is massive environmental degradation.
The intention, eventually, is a government bailout and the construction of more nuclear plants at public expense for private profit, with those plants again being designed to eventually fail and produce massive environmental degradation.
Pollution is actually the goal with these people.
They want more pollution, and they will say so if you feed them enough martinis.
They love pollution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731886</id>
	<title>Trust Greenpeace?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263219540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those eco-terrorists?</p><p>http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/gr-ac-pr.htm</p><p>The same who are extorting companies like Apple for a "green" reading?</p><p>Posted via Tor and AC for obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those eco-terrorists ? http : //www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/gr-ac-pr.htmThe same who are extorting companies like Apple for a " green " reading ? Posted via Tor and AC for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those eco-terrorists?http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/gr-ac-pr.htmThe same who are extorting companies like Apple for a "green" reading?Posted via Tor and AC for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735492</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It registers as radioactive... but then again, so does a banana.</p></div><p>Holy shit!! I've been eating those things for years!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It registers as radioactive... but then again , so does a banana.Holy shit ! !
I 've been eating those things for years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It registers as radioactive... but then again, so does a banana.Holy shit!!
I've been eating those things for years!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733144</id>
	<title>Once again the problems with...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Civilian Nuclear Power is observed "in the wild".</p><p>This is exactly why nuclear plants in the hands of <b>profit</b> motivated companies is utterly stupid.</p><p>I have said it before and I will say it again, when nuclear reactors to generate power are built to U.S. Naval Warship standards, manned and maintained to US Naval Warship standards they can build one in my backyard, literally, until then fuck off!</p><p>Yes the china syndrome was a movie, but the main "bad act" was the falsification of weld radiography to shave money off the construction costs.  Running Vermont Yankee for the last 38 years, cutting corners on maintenance, cooling tower partial collapse do to lack of maintenance and inspection , all those problems are why a profit motivated civilian nuclear program is just completely insane.</p><p>You want nuclear power, I am all for it but it MUST be run by a not for profit entity and hang the costs, the power goes out subsidized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Civilian Nuclear Power is observed " in the wild " .This is exactly why nuclear plants in the hands of profit motivated companies is utterly stupid.I have said it before and I will say it again , when nuclear reactors to generate power are built to U.S. Naval Warship standards , manned and maintained to US Naval Warship standards they can build one in my backyard , literally , until then fuck off ! Yes the china syndrome was a movie , but the main " bad act " was the falsification of weld radiography to shave money off the construction costs .
Running Vermont Yankee for the last 38 years , cutting corners on maintenance , cooling tower partial collapse do to lack of maintenance and inspection , all those problems are why a profit motivated civilian nuclear program is just completely insane.You want nuclear power , I am all for it but it MUST be run by a not for profit entity and hang the costs , the power goes out subsidized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Civilian Nuclear Power is observed "in the wild".This is exactly why nuclear plants in the hands of profit motivated companies is utterly stupid.I have said it before and I will say it again, when nuclear reactors to generate power are built to U.S. Naval Warship standards, manned and maintained to US Naval Warship standards they can build one in my backyard, literally, until then fuck off!Yes the china syndrome was a movie, but the main "bad act" was the falsification of weld radiography to shave money off the construction costs.
Running Vermont Yankee for the last 38 years, cutting corners on maintenance, cooling tower partial collapse do to lack of maintenance and inspection , all those problems are why a profit motivated civilian nuclear program is just completely insane.You want nuclear power, I am all for it but it MUST be run by a not for profit entity and hang the costs, the power goes out subsidized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734214</id>
	<title>cheap and clean?</title>
	<author>fadir</author>
	<datestamp>1263328740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, cheap it is if you don't calculate the follow up costs which probably account for the vast majority of the total costs.<br>Where do you leave the garbage for the next few thousand years? Who pays for that?</p><p>You Americans are funny. On the one hand you turn al pale if someone just mentions the word "socialism" but on the other hand stuff like that has to be handled by the society. Or do you seriously expect ANY company to be able to guarantee the safe disposal of nuclear waste for thousands of years? No company will even exist long enough.<br>Try to find any insurance company that is willing to insure a nuclear power plant! They can calculate and know that this would be a risk that could run anyone out of business in an instant. So they don't insure nuclear power plant accidents. But the government does, it has to. So whenever something blows up it's the tax payer that has to cough up the money to fix whatever is left to be fixed.</p><p>Already forgotten Chernobyl? Yes, I know it was a faulty russian power plant and personell made mistakes. Gladly the American nuclear power plants run flawlessly and Americans never make mistakes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... You guys were just lucky so far!</p><p>Clean? What happens if one of those things blows up? It's not exactly unlikely that a terrorist snatches an air plane and this time maybe decides that "landing" on a reactor near New York might be a good idea. What then? suddenly it's not all that clean anymore but the most dirty way to produce energy. Yes, I know, nuclear power plants are shielded against air plane crashes. Ever tested that? What happens of one of the huge Airbus 380 crash into it? Is the shielding prepared for that too? Forgotten 9/11 as well? I doubt that anyone expected those towers to collapse either - still it happened.</p><p>It could be funny if it wouldn't be so sad. On the one hand especially the U.S. is turning crazy on the airport security and running all kind of possible and more or less useful checks but in other sectors a blind eye is all that watches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , cheap it is if you do n't calculate the follow up costs which probably account for the vast majority of the total costs.Where do you leave the garbage for the next few thousand years ?
Who pays for that ? You Americans are funny .
On the one hand you turn al pale if someone just mentions the word " socialism " but on the other hand stuff like that has to be handled by the society .
Or do you seriously expect ANY company to be able to guarantee the safe disposal of nuclear waste for thousands of years ?
No company will even exist long enough.Try to find any insurance company that is willing to insure a nuclear power plant !
They can calculate and know that this would be a risk that could run anyone out of business in an instant .
So they do n't insure nuclear power plant accidents .
But the government does , it has to .
So whenever something blows up it 's the tax payer that has to cough up the money to fix whatever is left to be fixed.Already forgotten Chernobyl ?
Yes , I know it was a faulty russian power plant and personell made mistakes .
Gladly the American nuclear power plants run flawlessly and Americans never make mistakes ... You guys were just lucky so far ! Clean ?
What happens if one of those things blows up ?
It 's not exactly unlikely that a terrorist snatches an air plane and this time maybe decides that " landing " on a reactor near New York might be a good idea .
What then ?
suddenly it 's not all that clean anymore but the most dirty way to produce energy .
Yes , I know , nuclear power plants are shielded against air plane crashes .
Ever tested that ?
What happens of one of the huge Airbus 380 crash into it ?
Is the shielding prepared for that too ?
Forgotten 9/11 as well ?
I doubt that anyone expected those towers to collapse either - still it happened.It could be funny if it would n't be so sad .
On the one hand especially the U.S. is turning crazy on the airport security and running all kind of possible and more or less useful checks but in other sectors a blind eye is all that watches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, cheap it is if you don't calculate the follow up costs which probably account for the vast majority of the total costs.Where do you leave the garbage for the next few thousand years?
Who pays for that?You Americans are funny.
On the one hand you turn al pale if someone just mentions the word "socialism" but on the other hand stuff like that has to be handled by the society.
Or do you seriously expect ANY company to be able to guarantee the safe disposal of nuclear waste for thousands of years?
No company will even exist long enough.Try to find any insurance company that is willing to insure a nuclear power plant!
They can calculate and know that this would be a risk that could run anyone out of business in an instant.
So they don't insure nuclear power plant accidents.
But the government does, it has to.
So whenever something blows up it's the tax payer that has to cough up the money to fix whatever is left to be fixed.Already forgotten Chernobyl?
Yes, I know it was a faulty russian power plant and personell made mistakes.
Gladly the American nuclear power plants run flawlessly and Americans never make mistakes ... You guys were just lucky so far!Clean?
What happens if one of those things blows up?
It's not exactly unlikely that a terrorist snatches an air plane and this time maybe decides that "landing" on a reactor near New York might be a good idea.
What then?
suddenly it's not all that clean anymore but the most dirty way to produce energy.
Yes, I know, nuclear power plants are shielded against air plane crashes.
Ever tested that?
What happens of one of the huge Airbus 380 crash into it?
Is the shielding prepared for that too?
Forgotten 9/11 as well?
I doubt that anyone expected those towers to collapse either - still it happened.It could be funny if it wouldn't be so sad.
On the one hand especially the U.S. is turning crazy on the airport security and running all kind of possible and more or less useful checks but in other sectors a blind eye is all that watches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732152</id>
	<title>who is closest?</title>
	<author>mikerubin</author>
	<datestamp>1263221400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have about 30 miles</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have about 30 miles</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have about 30 miles</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732218</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1263221880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are welcome to wonder all you want, the impact will still be negligible when you finish up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are welcome to wonder all you want , the impact will still be negligible when you finish up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are welcome to wonder all you want, the impact will still be negligible when you finish up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741396</id>
	<title>NRC section chief at VY now</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1263327600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NRC has sent the projects section chief to Vermont Yankee in response to the toxic radioactive spill:  <a href="http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100112/NEWS04/1120359/1003/NEWS02" title="rutlandherald.com">http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100112/NEWS04/1120359/1003/NEWS02</a> [rutlandherald.com]
Also, the plant spokesman is clueless about former violations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NRC has sent the projects section chief to Vermont Yankee in response to the toxic radioactive spill : http : //www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100112/NEWS04/1120359/1003/NEWS02 [ rutlandherald.com ] Also , the plant spokesman is clueless about former violations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NRC has sent the projects section chief to Vermont Yankee in response to the toxic radioactive spill:  http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100112/NEWS04/1120359/1003/NEWS02 [rutlandherald.com]
Also, the plant spokesman is clueless about former violations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732624</id>
	<title>Re:VT Voters - Contact your Legislator!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263225060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>in an facility that can cause mass destruction and death if failure occurs...</i><br>and I thought the summary was filled with exaggerations and hyperbole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in an facility that can cause mass destruction and death if failure occurs...and I thought the summary was filled with exaggerations and hyperbole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in an facility that can cause mass destruction and death if failure occurs...and I thought the summary was filled with exaggerations and hyperbole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735286</id>
	<title>You mean cheap for the operators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263299520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean cheap for the operators. Not cheap to the taxpayers because they have to pay for the clean up and the insurance. Nuke power plants have been refused to be built unless the taxpayer (Government) underwrite the expenses and guarantee a profit, even if the power stations, when they come on line, no longer break even.</p><p>If nuclear power were cheap, they wouldn't ask for $7Bn a year in handouts, would they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean cheap for the operators .
Not cheap to the taxpayers because they have to pay for the clean up and the insurance .
Nuke power plants have been refused to be built unless the taxpayer ( Government ) underwrite the expenses and guarantee a profit , even if the power stations , when they come on line , no longer break even.If nuclear power were cheap , they would n't ask for $ 7Bn a year in handouts , would they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean cheap for the operators.
Not cheap to the taxpayers because they have to pay for the clean up and the insurance.
Nuke power plants have been refused to be built unless the taxpayer (Government) underwrite the expenses and guarantee a profit, even if the power stations, when they come on line, no longer break even.If nuclear power were cheap, they wouldn't ask for $7Bn a year in handouts, would they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732270</id>
	<title>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731834</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263219240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to switch to thorium! *Seriously*, time to switch to thorium..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to switch to thorium !
* Seriously * , time to switch to thorium. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to switch to thorium!
*Seriously*, time to switch to thorium..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732702</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263225840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up!<br>Who let such an amazingly slanted report make it to the front page?...Seriously?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up ! Who let such an amazingly slanted report make it to the front page ? ...Seriously ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!Who let such an amazingly slanted report make it to the front page?...Seriously?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30818116</id>
	<title>Re:VT Voters - Contact your Legislator!</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1263907860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting - thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting - thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting - thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733006</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>paeanblack</author>
	<datestamp>1263228420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all, what do you find wrong with the summary?</i></p><p>The fact that tritium is one of the worlds most expensive manufactured materials and sells for somewhere on the order of $50,000 / gram</p><p>The fact that tritium is relatively harmless; it is used for glow-in-the-dark effects on watch dials, exit signs, etc, cost permitting.</p><p>Are we to believe that a for-profit company that is <i>already</i> in the business of selling tritium runs a reactor that "sprung" a tritium "leak", and they have no incentive to do anything about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all , what do you find wrong with the summary ? The fact that tritium is one of the worlds most expensive manufactured materials and sells for somewhere on the order of $ 50,000 / gramThe fact that tritium is relatively harmless ; it is used for glow-in-the-dark effects on watch dials , exit signs , etc , cost permitting.Are we to believe that a for-profit company that is already in the business of selling tritium runs a reactor that " sprung " a tritium " leak " , and they have no incentive to do anything about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all, what do you find wrong with the summary?The fact that tritium is one of the worlds most expensive manufactured materials and sells for somewhere on the order of $50,000 / gramThe fact that tritium is relatively harmless; it is used for glow-in-the-dark effects on watch dials, exit signs, etc, cost permitting.Are we to believe that a for-profit company that is already in the business of selling tritium runs a reactor that "sprung" a tritium "leak", and they have no incentive to do anything about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732070</id>
	<title>Fuck you!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My entire family died from tritium poisoning during the Australian-American war, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My entire family died from tritium poisoning during the Australian-American war , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My entire family died from tritium poisoning during the Australian-American war, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732888</id>
	<title>Well, I have a crazy idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263227160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"</p><p>Educate the public about radiation, and, to offset the potential exposure from this minuscule amount of tritium, ask them to eat one less banana per year?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What , besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants , could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment ?
" Educate the public about radiation , and , to offset the potential exposure from this minuscule amount of tritium , ask them to eat one less banana per year ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?
"Educate the public about radiation, and, to offset the potential exposure from this minuscule amount of tritium, ask them to eat one less banana per year?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736174</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1263307020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Decrepit", "sprung" and "poorly run" are all loaded words. They make unsupported judgments about the reactor in question.  <br> <br>
RTFA and the related stories and you'll find these words to be very well supported.  This is news.  Got to use the words that fit the situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Decrepit " , " sprung " and " poorly run " are all loaded words .
They make unsupported judgments about the reactor in question .
RTFA and the related stories and you 'll find these words to be very well supported .
This is news .
Got to use the words that fit the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Decrepit", "sprung" and "poorly run" are all loaded words.
They make unsupported judgments about the reactor in question.
RTFA and the related stories and you'll find these words to be very well supported.
This is news.
Got to use the words that fit the situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732394</id>
	<title>Pollution levels</title>
	<author>dg41</author>
	<datestamp>1263223380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>He said the pollution could increase, decrease or even disappear.</i>
<p>
Wow, awesome deduction there, Sherlock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He said the pollution could increase , decrease or even disappear .
Wow , awesome deduction there , Sherlock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said the pollution could increase, decrease or even disappear.
Wow, awesome deduction there, Sherlock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736004</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, hey, hey, this is Greenpeace were talking about here. Just thinking about radioactivity is the next thing to a meltdown, and likely to turn you into somekind of wierd, deformed, whale and seal-eating mutant, according to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , hey , hey , this is Greenpeace were talking about here .
Just thinking about radioactivity is the next thing to a meltdown , and likely to turn you into somekind of wierd , deformed , whale and seal-eating mutant , according to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, hey, hey, this is Greenpeace were talking about here.
Just thinking about radioactivity is the next thing to a meltdown, and likely to turn you into somekind of wierd, deformed, whale and seal-eating mutant, according to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30738016</id>
	<title>Re:Superpowers</title>
	<author>cant\_get\_a\_good\_nick</author>
	<datestamp>1263315420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Develop a series of arms with artificial intelligence, then have the inhibitor chip fail, then go crazy and rob banks to acquire precious tritium.</p><p>Jokes aside, i hated the movie for asking for tritium and show it as some solid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Develop a series of arms with artificial intelligence , then have the inhibitor chip fail , then go crazy and rob banks to acquire precious tritium.Jokes aside , i hated the movie for asking for tritium and show it as some solid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Develop a series of arms with artificial intelligence, then have the inhibitor chip fail, then go crazy and rob banks to acquire precious tritium.Jokes aside, i hated the movie for asking for tritium and show it as some solid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732418</id>
	<title>Re:Tritium is hydrogen</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1263223500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they say "tritium" they are talking about tritium in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritiated\_water" title="wikipedia.org">tritiated water</a> [wikipedia.org] really.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they say " tritium " they are talking about tritium in tritiated water [ wikipedia.org ] really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they say "tritium" they are talking about tritium in tritiated water [wikipedia.org] really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>ductonius</author>
	<datestamp>1263222720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin (no pun intended) there, but couldn't find any.</p></div><p>The fact that your spin-detector can't sense anything from the summary is indicative of greater problems.</p><p>But I digress. Let's begin with the title.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Tritium Leak</p></div><p>Of the seven words in that title, three are designed to create a perception of the situation that is far worse than reality.</p><p>"Another": indicating more than one, or the latest in a series, or a connection to a greater ongoing situation. This is a spin word because it gives the impression that tritium leaks are special events that deserve special attention. This is not true. Reactors have been known for a very long time to create tritium and leak it, sometimes deliberately. CANDU reactors release tritium into the surrounding environment as a consequence of their design. They are allowed to do this because such leaks are not dangerous.</p><p>"Crumbling": indicating an advanced state of disrepair and decrepitude, a state of 'going to pieces', extreme unsoundness in structure or the inability to support it's own weight. This is a spin word because only a technical, literal definition of "crumbling" can apply to the reactor in question, the same definition that can be applied to anything, because everything not being created is in a state of entropic decay.</p><p>"Springs": indicating a sudden or forceful event. This is a spin word because it gives a false picture of what is plausibly taking place. Many reactors leak tritium as it diffuses through concrete and steel or in their cooling water. Any sudden or forceful leak of tritium would most likely be accompanied by a sudden and forceful leak of super-heated steam, which obviously hasn't happened.</p><p>Onto the summary.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"The decrepit nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee has sprung a radioactive leak similar to those at other poorly run reactors in Illinois (Braidwood, Byron and Dresden), Arizona (Palo Verde), and New York (Indian Point).</p></div><p>"Decrepit", "sprung" and "poorly run" are all loaded words. They make unsupported judgments about the reactor in question. The supposed problem is then also attributed to a number of other reactors the reader may or may not know about. This sentence assumes a problem and is constructed to make it appear to be widespread.</p><p>The use of the words "radioactive leak" is also spin, since anything radioactive escaping from anywhere can be counted. Dropping an ionizing smoke detector on the ground could be described as a "radioactive leak".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Greenpeace noted 3 years ago that radioactive tritium leaks even threaten Champagne from France.</p></div><p>This is spin, but it relies on the reader taking Greenpeace to be in a position of authority to make such judgments.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3.</p></div><p>This is the only non-spin sentence in the summary. It may or may not be factually correct, I don't know, but it's stated as a fact and does not contain any loaded language I can see.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"</p></div><p>The spin here is the loaded question which implies that the current release of tritium into the environment is a problem worthy of attention and further control.</p><p>So, yeah, there's the anti-nuclear spin. Lots of loaded words, ill-defined terms, misleading wording and an appeal to authority thrown in to boot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin ( no pun intended ) there , but could n't find any.The fact that your spin-detector ca n't sense anything from the summary is indicative of greater problems.But I digress .
Let 's begin with the title.Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Tritium LeakOf the seven words in that title , three are designed to create a perception of the situation that is far worse than reality .
" Another " : indicating more than one , or the latest in a series , or a connection to a greater ongoing situation .
This is a spin word because it gives the impression that tritium leaks are special events that deserve special attention .
This is not true .
Reactors have been known for a very long time to create tritium and leak it , sometimes deliberately .
CANDU reactors release tritium into the surrounding environment as a consequence of their design .
They are allowed to do this because such leaks are not dangerous .
" Crumbling " : indicating an advanced state of disrepair and decrepitude , a state of 'going to pieces ' , extreme unsoundness in structure or the inability to support it 's own weight .
This is a spin word because only a technical , literal definition of " crumbling " can apply to the reactor in question , the same definition that can be applied to anything , because everything not being created is in a state of entropic decay .
" Springs " : indicating a sudden or forceful event .
This is a spin word because it gives a false picture of what is plausibly taking place .
Many reactors leak tritium as it diffuses through concrete and steel or in their cooling water .
Any sudden or forceful leak of tritium would most likely be accompanied by a sudden and forceful leak of super-heated steam , which obviously has n't happened.Onto the summary .
" The decrepit nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee has sprung a radioactive leak similar to those at other poorly run reactors in Illinois ( Braidwood , Byron and Dresden ) , Arizona ( Palo Verde ) , and New York ( Indian Point ) .
" Decrepit " , " sprung " and " poorly run " are all loaded words .
They make unsupported judgments about the reactor in question .
The supposed problem is then also attributed to a number of other reactors the reader may or may not know about .
This sentence assumes a problem and is constructed to make it appear to be widespread.The use of the words " radioactive leak " is also spin , since anything radioactive escaping from anywhere can be counted .
Dropping an ionizing smoke detector on the ground could be described as a " radioactive leak " .Greenpeace noted 3 years ago that radioactive tritium leaks even threaten Champagne from France.This is spin , but it relies on the reader taking Greenpeace to be in a position of authority to make such judgments.Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3.This is the only non-spin sentence in the summary .
It may or may not be factually correct , I do n't know , but it 's stated as a fact and does not contain any loaded language I can see.What , besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants , could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment ?
" The spin here is the loaded question which implies that the current release of tritium into the environment is a problem worthy of attention and further control.So , yeah , there 's the anti-nuclear spin .
Lots of loaded words , ill-defined terms , misleading wording and an appeal to authority thrown in to boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin (no pun intended) there, but couldn't find any.The fact that your spin-detector can't sense anything from the summary is indicative of greater problems.But I digress.
Let's begin with the title.Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Tritium LeakOf the seven words in that title, three are designed to create a perception of the situation that is far worse than reality.
"Another": indicating more than one, or the latest in a series, or a connection to a greater ongoing situation.
This is a spin word because it gives the impression that tritium leaks are special events that deserve special attention.
This is not true.
Reactors have been known for a very long time to create tritium and leak it, sometimes deliberately.
CANDU reactors release tritium into the surrounding environment as a consequence of their design.
They are allowed to do this because such leaks are not dangerous.
"Crumbling": indicating an advanced state of disrepair and decrepitude, a state of 'going to pieces', extreme unsoundness in structure or the inability to support it's own weight.
This is a spin word because only a technical, literal definition of "crumbling" can apply to the reactor in question, the same definition that can be applied to anything, because everything not being created is in a state of entropic decay.
"Springs": indicating a sudden or forceful event.
This is a spin word because it gives a false picture of what is plausibly taking place.
Many reactors leak tritium as it diffuses through concrete and steel or in their cooling water.
Any sudden or forceful leak of tritium would most likely be accompanied by a sudden and forceful leak of super-heated steam, which obviously hasn't happened.Onto the summary.
"The decrepit nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee has sprung a radioactive leak similar to those at other poorly run reactors in Illinois (Braidwood, Byron and Dresden), Arizona (Palo Verde), and New York (Indian Point).
"Decrepit", "sprung" and "poorly run" are all loaded words.
They make unsupported judgments about the reactor in question.
The supposed problem is then also attributed to a number of other reactors the reader may or may not know about.
This sentence assumes a problem and is constructed to make it appear to be widespread.The use of the words "radioactive leak" is also spin, since anything radioactive escaping from anywhere can be counted.
Dropping an ionizing smoke detector on the ground could be described as a "radioactive leak".Greenpeace noted 3 years ago that radioactive tritium leaks even threaten Champagne from France.This is spin, but it relies on the reader taking Greenpeace to be in a position of authority to make such judgments.Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3.This is the only non-spin sentence in the summary.
It may or may not be factually correct, I don't know, but it's stated as a fact and does not contain any loaded language I can see.What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?
"The spin here is the loaded question which implies that the current release of tritium into the environment is a problem worthy of attention and further control.So, yeah, there's the anti-nuclear spin.
Lots of loaded words, ill-defined terms, misleading wording and an appeal to authority thrown in to boot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733652</id>
	<title>Re:Self-inflicted</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1263234120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That does not work out that well since the new high burn-up reactors have a problem with iodine-129 <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/new-nuclear-reactor-s-waste-is" title="greenpeace.org">http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/new-nuclear-reactor-s-waste-is</a> [greenpeace.org] and the electricity from new nuclear plants costs over $0.14/kWh <a href="http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01\_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly" title="rmi.org">http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01\_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly</a> [rmi.org] So, new nuclear does not look so good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That does not work out that well since the new high burn-up reactors have a problem with iodine-129 http : //www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/new-nuclear-reactor-s-waste-is [ greenpeace.org ] and the electricity from new nuclear plants costs over $ 0.14/kWh http : //www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01 \ _NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly [ rmi.org ] So , new nuclear does not look so good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That does not work out that well since the new high burn-up reactors have a problem with iodine-129 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/new-nuclear-reactor-s-waste-is [greenpeace.org] and the electricity from new nuclear plants costs over $0.14/kWh http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01\_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly [rmi.org] So, new nuclear does not look so good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737190</id>
	<title>get your priorities right.</title>
	<author>nietsch</author>
	<datestamp>1263312060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cars cause orders of magnitude more death than Nuclear power plants. Coal fed power plants need coal that is mined. Coal mining kills dozens of miners each year, many more than uranium mines (you need much more coal then uranium ore). Thus coal power plants kill many more people than nuclear power plants. Next factor in modern reactor designs that use reprocessed fuel, breeder reactors or Thorium based reactors, and that count goes down even further. As for waste: as widely cited, coal releases more radioactive waste, on top of the global warming agent CO2. You could capture these ashes and gasses, but most plants don't yet. Just as the waste problem for nuclear power plants has not been solved yet. An increase in nuclear waste requires just some land area, the CO2 problem from coal power warms up the whole world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars cause orders of magnitude more death than Nuclear power plants .
Coal fed power plants need coal that is mined .
Coal mining kills dozens of miners each year , many more than uranium mines ( you need much more coal then uranium ore ) .
Thus coal power plants kill many more people than nuclear power plants .
Next factor in modern reactor designs that use reprocessed fuel , breeder reactors or Thorium based reactors , and that count goes down even further .
As for waste : as widely cited , coal releases more radioactive waste , on top of the global warming agent CO2 .
You could capture these ashes and gasses , but most plants do n't yet .
Just as the waste problem for nuclear power plants has not been solved yet .
An increase in nuclear waste requires just some land area , the CO2 problem from coal power warms up the whole world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars cause orders of magnitude more death than Nuclear power plants.
Coal fed power plants need coal that is mined.
Coal mining kills dozens of miners each year, many more than uranium mines (you need much more coal then uranium ore).
Thus coal power plants kill many more people than nuclear power plants.
Next factor in modern reactor designs that use reprocessed fuel, breeder reactors or Thorium based reactors, and that count goes down even further.
As for waste: as widely cited, coal releases more radioactive waste, on top of the global warming agent CO2.
You could capture these ashes and gasses, but most plants don't yet.
Just as the waste problem for nuclear power plants has not been solved yet.
An increase in nuclear waste requires just some land area, the CO2 problem from coal power warms up the whole world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732496</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>norpy</author>
	<datestamp>1263224220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Over time this could add up and I would suspect that even reaching 1\% contamination on our water from years of pollution from these many sources would reduce public water to unusable.</p></div><p>Please educate yourself about what this article is talking about. Tritium has a halflife of about 12.5 years - this means that effectively all of the tritium produced before you were born DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE (I am assuming you are at least in your 20's). Additionally the decay products are helium-3 which is lighter than air and can escape our atmosphere.
<br> <br>Explain to me how this will "build up" in our water supply? Considering the largest portion of this element is not just released into the water supply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over time this could add up and I would suspect that even reaching 1 \ % contamination on our water from years of pollution from these many sources would reduce public water to unusable.Please educate yourself about what this article is talking about .
Tritium has a halflife of about 12.5 years - this means that effectively all of the tritium produced before you were born DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE ( I am assuming you are at least in your 20 's ) .
Additionally the decay products are helium-3 which is lighter than air and can escape our atmosphere .
Explain to me how this will " build up " in our water supply ?
Considering the largest portion of this element is not just released into the water supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over time this could add up and I would suspect that even reaching 1\% contamination on our water from years of pollution from these many sources would reduce public water to unusable.Please educate yourself about what this article is talking about.
Tritium has a halflife of about 12.5 years - this means that effectively all of the tritium produced before you were born DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE (I am assuming you are at least in your 20's).
Additionally the decay products are helium-3 which is lighter than air and can escape our atmosphere.
Explain to me how this will "build up" in our water supply?
Considering the largest portion of this element is not just released into the water supply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734582</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1263290460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then <b>swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down</b>.</p></div><p>Wow... that sounds a lot like what would happen if your water supply was contaminated by tritium.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to do myself some damage with it , I would have to remove it from the plastic casing , crush the glass vial in my teeth , while carefully keeping my mouth closed ( as tritium gas is lighter than air ) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down.Wow... that sounds a lot like what would happen if your water supply was contaminated by tritium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down.Wow... that sounds a lot like what would happen if your water supply was contaminated by tritium.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737676</id>
	<title>Re:Forget about champagne</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263314100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possibly; it would explain the 'taste' of American beer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly ; it would explain the 'taste ' of American beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly; it would explain the 'taste' of American beer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732124</id>
	<title>Simple.</title>
	<author>GWRedDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263221220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Allow the construction of new plants. Newer designs are cheaper and safer. If new plants were allowed, they would gradually replace the aging designs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow the construction of new plants .
Newer designs are cheaper and safer .
If new plants were allowed , they would gradually replace the aging designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow the construction of new plants.
Newer designs are cheaper and safer.
If new plants were allowed, they would gradually replace the aging designs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772</id>
	<title>Forget about champagne</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1263218820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>is my beer in danger? That's what I would like to know!</htmltext>
<tokenext>is my beer in danger ?
That 's what I would like to know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is my beer in danger?
That's what I would like to know!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735014</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1263296460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Come up with ways to clean up every kind of radiation spill quickly, and demonstrate them by restoring the area around Chernobyl, and only then am I willing to change my mind about the unique dangers of nuclear power.</p></div><p>By the way, that last part would be difficult to demonstrate.  Presumably living in an area with increased radiation contributes to cancer, but it's very difficult to pin down causes with epidemiological studies.  Of the hundreds of people who defied evacuation orders and still live in Chernobyl and the surrounding area, it's not clear that they suffer from any ill effects.  The natural wildlife in the area, both flora and fauna, is actually thriving, no doubt due to the much smaller population density of humans in the area these days.  It's becoming an impressive park/wildlife preserve.  Simply having the people leave has "restored" the area to be far more hospitable to most life than it was before the accident.  Of course, most animals don't live the decades humans do, so I wouldn't recommend spending the next two decades of your life there.  But it's not entirely clear you'd suffer any ill effects by it.  You'd almost certainly have a increased cancer risk, but you might never actually suffer any ill-effects.  It might even be healthier than living in central Los Angeles.  Hard to say, one way or the other...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come up with ways to clean up every kind of radiation spill quickly , and demonstrate them by restoring the area around Chernobyl , and only then am I willing to change my mind about the unique dangers of nuclear power.By the way , that last part would be difficult to demonstrate .
Presumably living in an area with increased radiation contributes to cancer , but it 's very difficult to pin down causes with epidemiological studies .
Of the hundreds of people who defied evacuation orders and still live in Chernobyl and the surrounding area , it 's not clear that they suffer from any ill effects .
The natural wildlife in the area , both flora and fauna , is actually thriving , no doubt due to the much smaller population density of humans in the area these days .
It 's becoming an impressive park/wildlife preserve .
Simply having the people leave has " restored " the area to be far more hospitable to most life than it was before the accident .
Of course , most animals do n't live the decades humans do , so I would n't recommend spending the next two decades of your life there .
But it 's not entirely clear you 'd suffer any ill effects by it .
You 'd almost certainly have a increased cancer risk , but you might never actually suffer any ill-effects .
It might even be healthier than living in central Los Angeles .
Hard to say , one way or the other.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come up with ways to clean up every kind of radiation spill quickly, and demonstrate them by restoring the area around Chernobyl, and only then am I willing to change my mind about the unique dangers of nuclear power.By the way, that last part would be difficult to demonstrate.
Presumably living in an area with increased radiation contributes to cancer, but it's very difficult to pin down causes with epidemiological studies.
Of the hundreds of people who defied evacuation orders and still live in Chernobyl and the surrounding area, it's not clear that they suffer from any ill effects.
The natural wildlife in the area, both flora and fauna, is actually thriving, no doubt due to the much smaller population density of humans in the area these days.
It's becoming an impressive park/wildlife preserve.
Simply having the people leave has "restored" the area to be far more hospitable to most life than it was before the accident.
Of course, most animals don't live the decades humans do, so I wouldn't recommend spending the next two decades of your life there.
But it's not entirely clear you'd suffer any ill effects by it.
You'd almost certainly have a increased cancer risk, but you might never actually suffer any ill-effects.
It might even be healthier than living in central Los Angeles.
Hard to say, one way or the other...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735230</id>
	<title>Re:power ain't safe</title>
	<author>Calinous</author>
	<datestamp>1263298860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need no breakthru in physics - we only need a breakthru in fusion technology. We know the necessary physics for fusion, fission, solar, geothermal, tide,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... What we lack is either efficiency (fusion is still under break-even), price dumps (solar), places to build and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need no breakthru in physics - we only need a breakthru in fusion technology .
We know the necessary physics for fusion , fission , solar , geothermal , tide , ... What we lack is either efficiency ( fusion is still under break-even ) , price dumps ( solar ) , places to build and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need no breakthru in physics - we only need a breakthru in fusion technology.
We know the necessary physics for fusion, fission, solar, geothermal, tide, ... What we lack is either efficiency (fusion is still under break-even), price dumps (solar), places to build and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731816</id>
	<title>Three words:</title>
	<author>JoeLinux</author>
	<datestamp>1263219120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pebble Bed Reactor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pebble Bed Reactor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pebble Bed Reactor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731724</id>
	<title>Homer Simpson Does it Again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263218520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>D' oh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>D ' oh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D' oh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734458</id>
	<title>Re:VT Voters - Contact your Legislator!</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1263288840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>nuclear for base-load power generation</p></div><p> <i>wrong again</i><br><a href="http://nuclear-news.net/2009/11/10/examining-the-myth-of-nuclear-and-baseload-power/" title="nuclear-news.net">http://nuclear-news.net/2009/11/10/examining-the-myth-of-nuclear-and-baseload-power/</a> [nuclear-news.net]<br>Nuclear can NOT supply base-load.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nuclear for base-load power generation wrong againhttp : //nuclear-news.net/2009/11/10/examining-the-myth-of-nuclear-and-baseload-power/ [ nuclear-news.net ] Nuclear can NOT supply base-load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nuclear for base-load power generation wrong againhttp://nuclear-news.net/2009/11/10/examining-the-myth-of-nuclear-and-baseload-power/ [nuclear-news.net]Nuclear can NOT supply base-load.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735124</id>
	<title>Re:Mutagenic effects of Tritium</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1263297600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I provide a comprehensive list of scientific studies on the effects of tritium *WITH REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS* and it's a moderated as a troll.</p><p>
Well obviously there is a fanboi out there with moderator points who has an axe to grind, who could not actually conduct an intelligent conversation and decided it would be a good idea to mod me down. I have a message for you;</p><p>
Grow up.</p><p>
Responsible Nuclear advocacy involves a process of acknowledging the problems of the nuclear industry so they can be fixed, not just living in a fantasy world where we make believe there is nothing wrong. The effects of radioactive isotopes have been studied and the medical consequences of things like tritium are know - who are you really serving holding this information back from people who *do* want to educate themselves.</p><p>
So here is my post over again - I will re-post it over and over until you have no more mod points or until some moderator who does appreciate the information mods it up. This is the most pathetic abuse of the slashdot moderation system I have ever seen. </p><p>

I don't understand why the following was moderated a troll;</p><p>
In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings the following information may help. Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects, so I'll just quote from those works;
</p><p> <i>
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
</i></p><p><i>
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
</i></p><p><i>
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
</i></p><p>For those who think "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones"
</p><p> <i>
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
</i></p><p><i>
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
</i>
<strong>References;</strong> </p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>  Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water. Health Physics. 58. 5:625-629. 1990.<br> <br>  Dobson, RL. The Toxicity of Tritium. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203. 1979.<br> <br>  Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium. Mutation Research. 50: 101-110. 1978.<br> <br>  Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness. Health Physics. 65 (6)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:657-672; 1993. [This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]<br> <br>  Laskey, JW, et al. Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation. Radiation Research.56:171-179. 1973.<br> <br>  Rytomaa, T, et al. Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339. 1979.</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I provide a comprehensive list of scientific studies on the effects of tritium * WITH REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS * and it 's a moderated as a troll .
Well obviously there is a fanboi out there with moderator points who has an axe to grind , who could not actually conduct an intelligent conversation and decided it would be a good idea to mod me down .
I have a message for you ; Grow up .
Responsible Nuclear advocacy involves a process of acknowledging the problems of the nuclear industry so they can be fixed , not just living in a fantasy world where we make believe there is nothing wrong .
The effects of radioactive isotopes have been studied and the medical consequences of things like tritium are know - who are you really serving holding this information back from people who * do * want to educate themselves .
So here is my post over again - I will re-post it over and over until you have no more mod points or until some moderator who does appreciate the information mods it up .
This is the most pathetic abuse of the slashdot moderation system I have ever seen .
I do n't understand why the following was moderated a troll ; In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water 's effect on living beings the following information may help .
Tritium is biologically mutagenic * because * it 's a low energy emitter .
This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells .
The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects , so I 'll just quote from those works ; Tritium can be inhaled , ingested , or absorbed through skin .
Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water .
Consequently , an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium .
( Komatsu ) Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death ( Dobson , 1976 ) , mutations ( Ito ) and chromosome damage ( Hori ) per dose than higher tritium doses .
Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays .
( Straume ) ( Dobson , 1976 ) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure ; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts .
( Dobson , 1974 ) Organically bound tritium ( tritium bound in animal or plant tissue ) can stay in the body for 10 years or more .
For those who think " of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones " Tritium can cause mutations , tumors and cell death .
( Rytomaa ) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice ( Torok ) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations .
( Dobson , 1979 ) ( Laskey ) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA , the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms .
DNA is especially sensitive to radiation .
( Hori ) A cell 's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water .
( Straume ) ( Carr ) First , as an isotope of hydrogen ( the cell 's most ubiquitous element ) , tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery ; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure .
R. Lowry Dobson , MD , PhD .
( 1979 ) References ; Komatsu , K and Okumura , Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water .
Health Physics .
58. 5 : 625-629 .
1990. Dobson , RL .
The Toxicity of Tritium .
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium , Vienna : Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1 : 203 .
1979. Hori , TA and Nakai , S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium .
Mutation Research .
50 : 101-110 .
1978. Straume , T and Carsten , AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness .
Health Physics .
65 ( 6 ) : 657-672 ; 1993 .
[ This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium ] Laskey , JW , et al .
Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation .
Radiation Research.56 : 171-179 .
1973. Rytomaa , T , et al .
Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules .
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna : Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1 : 339 .
1979 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I provide a comprehensive list of scientific studies on the effects of tritium *WITH REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS* and it's a moderated as a troll.
Well obviously there is a fanboi out there with moderator points who has an axe to grind, who could not actually conduct an intelligent conversation and decided it would be a good idea to mod me down.
I have a message for you;
Grow up.
Responsible Nuclear advocacy involves a process of acknowledging the problems of the nuclear industry so they can be fixed, not just living in a fantasy world where we make believe there is nothing wrong.
The effects of radioactive isotopes have been studied and the medical consequences of things like tritium are know - who are you really serving holding this information back from people who *do* want to educate themselves.
So here is my post over again - I will re-post it over and over until you have no more mod points or until some moderator who does appreciate the information mods it up.
This is the most pathetic abuse of the slashdot moderation system I have ever seen.
I don't understand why the following was moderated a troll;
In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings the following information may help.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter.
This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells.
The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects, so I'll just quote from those works;
 
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin.
Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water.
Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium.
(Komatsu)

Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses.
Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts.
(Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
For those who think "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones"
 
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death.
(Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations.
(Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms.
DNA is especially sensitive to radiation.
(Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water.
(Straume)(Carr)

First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure.
R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD.
(1979)

References;    Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water.
Health Physics.
58. 5:625-629.
1990.   Dobson, RL.
The Toxicity of Tritium.
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203.
1979.   Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium.
Mutation Research.
50: 101-110.
1978.   Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness.
Health Physics.
65 (6) :657-672; 1993.
[This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]   Laskey, JW, et al.
Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation.
Radiation Research.56:171-179.
1973.   Rytomaa, T, et al.
Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules.
International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339.
1979. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734200</id>
	<title>The hippies had no political power - thus bullshit</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1263328440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's more commercial opinion than public opinion.  If the old nuclear designs were as good as advertised you wouldn't need a government to build them, so consider what the private sector thinks of the idea.  "You want to build something that costs that much and won't be running for years with electricity that costs more than the market rate? Hahahaha, dream on".<br>There are some that have sucumbed to the "too cheap to meter" PR that will dispute the above problem and I can only suggest to them that they get some figures for an actual real single plant - not some rubbery agregate of numbers where the actual source data is unavailable (like the usual reply I get when I ask this).  In the process of looking for this information you will see exactly what I mean, the reality doesn't match the PR.<br>The near future however holds out the prospect of smaller reactors that don't take anywhere near as long to build or cost anywhere near as much with a possibility of savings via mass production.  If the Hyperion stuff is as good as advertised that will be one example, and the Chinese may also get there with pebble bed in the next few years now that they have a prototype.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more commercial opinion than public opinion .
If the old nuclear designs were as good as advertised you would n't need a government to build them , so consider what the private sector thinks of the idea .
" You want to build something that costs that much and wo n't be running for years with electricity that costs more than the market rate ?
Hahahaha , dream on " .There are some that have sucumbed to the " too cheap to meter " PR that will dispute the above problem and I can only suggest to them that they get some figures for an actual real single plant - not some rubbery agregate of numbers where the actual source data is unavailable ( like the usual reply I get when I ask this ) .
In the process of looking for this information you will see exactly what I mean , the reality does n't match the PR.The near future however holds out the prospect of smaller reactors that do n't take anywhere near as long to build or cost anywhere near as much with a possibility of savings via mass production .
If the Hyperion stuff is as good as advertised that will be one example , and the Chinese may also get there with pebble bed in the next few years now that they have a prototype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more commercial opinion than public opinion.
If the old nuclear designs were as good as advertised you wouldn't need a government to build them, so consider what the private sector thinks of the idea.
"You want to build something that costs that much and won't be running for years with electricity that costs more than the market rate?
Hahahaha, dream on".There are some that have sucumbed to the "too cheap to meter" PR that will dispute the above problem and I can only suggest to them that they get some figures for an actual real single plant - not some rubbery agregate of numbers where the actual source data is unavailable (like the usual reply I get when I ask this).
In the process of looking for this information you will see exactly what I mean, the reality doesn't match the PR.The near future however holds out the prospect of smaller reactors that don't take anywhere near as long to build or cost anywhere near as much with a possibility of savings via mass production.
If the Hyperion stuff is as good as advertised that will be one example, and the Chinese may also get there with pebble bed in the next few years now that they have a prototype.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733294</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>Lil'wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1263230640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The words "crumbling," "decrepit" and "poorly run" are pretty loaded, especially referring to levels of tritium around half the limit found on site, and no detectable levels off site.</p></div><p>But in his defense, he did refer to Illinois, and those three words should be the state motto.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The words " crumbling , " " decrepit " and " poorly run " are pretty loaded , especially referring to levels of tritium around half the limit found on site , and no detectable levels off site.But in his defense , he did refer to Illinois , and those three words should be the state motto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The words "crumbling," "decrepit" and "poorly run" are pretty loaded, especially referring to levels of tritium around half the limit found on site, and no detectable levels off site.But in his defense, he did refer to Illinois, and those three words should be the state motto.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733488</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can think of a great place that is virtually NIMBY proof; economically depressed areas. The blinders of affluence make the world a very different place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of a great place that is virtually NIMBY proof ; economically depressed areas .
The blinders of affluence make the world a very different place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of a great place that is virtually NIMBY proof; economically depressed areas.
The blinders of affluence make the world a very different place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735148</id>
	<title>Interesting you mention that</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1263297840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For many years the UK Government claimed that it was safest to discharge tritium as tritiated water. That's because they were dumping loads of it in the North Sea and wanted to justify themselves. But in fact we argued that our plant was capable of discharging the (small amount of)waste as cold tritium gas mixed with nitrogen and argon, and the best thing to do was to blast it straight up a stack and let it diffuse away. Unofficially we were right, officially we were contrary to Government policy, and in this country (as under Bush) being right but contrary to policy gets you sacked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For many years the UK Government claimed that it was safest to discharge tritium as tritiated water .
That 's because they were dumping loads of it in the North Sea and wanted to justify themselves .
But in fact we argued that our plant was capable of discharging the ( small amount of ) waste as cold tritium gas mixed with nitrogen and argon , and the best thing to do was to blast it straight up a stack and let it diffuse away .
Unofficially we were right , officially we were contrary to Government policy , and in this country ( as under Bush ) being right but contrary to policy gets you sacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For many years the UK Government claimed that it was safest to discharge tritium as tritiated water.
That's because they were dumping loads of it in the North Sea and wanted to justify themselves.
But in fact we argued that our plant was capable of discharging the (small amount of)waste as cold tritium gas mixed with nitrogen and argon, and the best thing to do was to blast it straight up a stack and let it diffuse away.
Unofficially we were right, officially we were contrary to Government policy, and in this country (as under Bush) being right but contrary to policy gets you sacked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734966</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>richard.cs</author>
	<datestamp>1263295560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, before people freak out - Tritium is a beta emitter. Barely any electrons make it through the boro-silicate glass or plastic secondary container. Those that do are unlikely to penetrate my first layer of skin.</p></div><p>Effectively zero electrons make it through, it's probably a less significant effect than the tritium diffusing through the glass (which is also insignificant). What does escape through the glass is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremstrahlung" title="wikipedia.org">bremstrahlung</a> [wikipedia.org], X-ray radiation produced when the electrons strike the glass wall of the container. It's still too weak to be a health risk and the plastic outer can will absorb quite a bit since they're very low energy but it is detectable. If you took the inner glass capsule out and placed it on a sheet of photographic film wrapped in foil to block the light and came back in a few months to develop it you'd see a dark line where it was sitting.</p><p>I have a couple of these, one on my keyring and one on my penknife - they're very useful to tag things so you can find them if you drop them and the keyring one also helps me find the right key in the dark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , before people freak out - Tritium is a beta emitter .
Barely any electrons make it through the boro-silicate glass or plastic secondary container .
Those that do are unlikely to penetrate my first layer of skin.Effectively zero electrons make it through , it 's probably a less significant effect than the tritium diffusing through the glass ( which is also insignificant ) .
What does escape through the glass is bremstrahlung [ wikipedia.org ] , X-ray radiation produced when the electrons strike the glass wall of the container .
It 's still too weak to be a health risk and the plastic outer can will absorb quite a bit since they 're very low energy but it is detectable .
If you took the inner glass capsule out and placed it on a sheet of photographic film wrapped in foil to block the light and came back in a few months to develop it you 'd see a dark line where it was sitting.I have a couple of these , one on my keyring and one on my penknife - they 're very useful to tag things so you can find them if you drop them and the keyring one also helps me find the right key in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, before people freak out - Tritium is a beta emitter.
Barely any electrons make it through the boro-silicate glass or plastic secondary container.
Those that do are unlikely to penetrate my first layer of skin.Effectively zero electrons make it through, it's probably a less significant effect than the tritium diffusing through the glass (which is also insignificant).
What does escape through the glass is bremstrahlung [wikipedia.org], X-ray radiation produced when the electrons strike the glass wall of the container.
It's still too weak to be a health risk and the plastic outer can will absorb quite a bit since they're very low energy but it is detectable.
If you took the inner glass capsule out and placed it on a sheet of photographic film wrapped in foil to block the light and came back in a few months to develop it you'd see a dark line where it was sitting.I have a couple of these, one on my keyring and one on my penknife - they're very useful to tag things so you can find them if you drop them and the keyring one also helps me find the right key in the dark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732386</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1263223320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The legislated limit varies widely according to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Regulatory\_limits" title="wikipedia.org">country you are at</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The legislated limit varies widely according to the country you are at [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The legislated limit varies widely according to the country you are at [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30744150</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1263297600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those guesses assume the same type of reactors we are using now (that only consume 3\%-5\% of the fuel) and that we don't extract any from the ocean or other sources like coal.</p><p>If we are allowed to build other types of reactors that breed non-fissionable elements such as thorium into fuel then we are looking at thousands of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those guesses assume the same type of reactors we are using now ( that only consume 3 \ % -5 \ % of the fuel ) and that we do n't extract any from the ocean or other sources like coal.If we are allowed to build other types of reactors that breed non-fissionable elements such as thorium into fuel then we are looking at thousands of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those guesses assume the same type of reactors we are using now (that only consume 3\%-5\% of the fuel) and that we don't extract any from the ocean or other sources like coal.If we are allowed to build other types of reactors that breed non-fissionable elements such as thorium into fuel then we are looking at thousands of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733234</id>
	<title>Re:Tritium is hydrogen</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1263230100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of it will but it's also chemically reactive, it's the hydro part of hydrocarbons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of it will but it 's also chemically reactive , it 's the hydro part of hydrocarbons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of it will but it's also chemically reactive, it's the hydro part of hydrocarbons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731992</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the author of the article fudged the units (presumably he couldn't spell the name of the actual unit). The level of contamination is 17,000 picocuries per liter, not parts per liter.</p><p>It is still a low level, and is less than the EPA standard for drinking water. But not as low as your calculation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the author of the article fudged the units ( presumably he could n't spell the name of the actual unit ) .
The level of contamination is 17,000 picocuries per liter , not parts per liter.It is still a low level , and is less than the EPA standard for drinking water .
But not as low as your calculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the author of the article fudged the units (presumably he couldn't spell the name of the actual unit).
The level of contamination is 17,000 picocuries per liter, not parts per liter.It is still a low level, and is less than the EPA standard for drinking water.
But not as low as your calculation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735466</id>
	<title>Re:VT Voters - Contact your Legislator!</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1263301020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>an facility that can cause mass destruction and death if failure occurs smacks of disregard for safety and human life to get things back to making money again</p></div></blockquote><p>Nice to see that someone else sees the same dangers that I do. I've been ranting against the Interstate Highway System for years too - how many more people need die in senseless, firey crashes just so that people and goods can be moved around the country?</p><p>If shutting down the Interstate Highway Death Corridor System saves just one life then it is worth it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>an facility that can cause mass destruction and death if failure occurs smacks of disregard for safety and human life to get things back to making money againNice to see that someone else sees the same dangers that I do .
I 've been ranting against the Interstate Highway System for years too - how many more people need die in senseless , firey crashes just so that people and goods can be moved around the country ? If shutting down the Interstate Highway Death Corridor System saves just one life then it is worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an facility that can cause mass destruction and death if failure occurs smacks of disregard for safety and human life to get things back to making money againNice to see that someone else sees the same dangers that I do.
I've been ranting against the Interstate Highway System for years too - how many more people need die in senseless, firey crashes just so that people and goods can be moved around the country?If shutting down the Interstate Highway Death Corridor System saves just one life then it is worth it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732214</id>
	<title>Re:Forget about champagne</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is my beer in danger? That's what I would like to know!</p></div><p>*burps* Not any more, mate, no worries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is my beer in danger ?
That 's what I would like to know !
* burps * Not any more , mate , no worries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is my beer in danger?
That's what I would like to know!
*burps* Not any more, mate, no worries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733930</id>
	<title>Re:Forget about champagne</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1263237840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your beer may be able to detect ionizing radiation:  <a href="http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201001/physicshistory.cfm" title="aps.org">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201001/physicshistory.cfm</a> [aps.org]  This explains the fascination that physicists have with the liquid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your beer may be able to detect ionizing radiation : http : //www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201001/physicshistory.cfm [ aps.org ] This explains the fascination that physicists have with the liquid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your beer may be able to detect ionizing radiation:  http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201001/physicshistory.cfm [aps.org]  This explains the fascination that physicists have with the liquid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732238</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More Perspective - Leaks 101:</p><p>#1 - Leaks generally do not fix themselves.<br>#2 - Leaks (unfixed) do not usually get smaller.<br>#3 - Leaks (unfixed) have a tendency to get bigger.</p><p>- in other words, complaining about an unfixed (not to mention unfound) 25-fold increase in the level of leaked radiation over an 8-week period *is not fucking absurd*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More Perspective - Leaks 101 : # 1 - Leaks generally do not fix themselves. # 2 - Leaks ( unfixed ) do not usually get smaller. # 3 - Leaks ( unfixed ) have a tendency to get bigger.- in other words , complaining about an unfixed ( not to mention unfound ) 25-fold increase in the level of leaked radiation over an 8-week period * is not fucking absurd * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More Perspective - Leaks 101:#1 - Leaks generally do not fix themselves.#2 - Leaks (unfixed) do not usually get smaller.#3 - Leaks (unfixed) have a tendency to get bigger.- in other words, complaining about an unfixed (not to mention unfound) 25-fold increase in the level of leaked radiation over an 8-week period *is not fucking absurd*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732566</id>
	<title>Re:Rose-colored perspective</title>
	<author>Puff\_Of\_Hot\_Air</author>
	<datestamp>1263224700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although your criticism that differing radio active isotopes is valid, it would seem that your stipulation that Cobalt-60 is more dangerous than Uranium-238 is incorrect. According to www.ead.anl.gov the lifetime cancer mortality per unit intake for ingestion of Uranium-238 is 7.5 * 10^-11. For Cobalt-60, it is 1.4 * 10^ -11. From this, it appears that Cobalt-60 is less dangerous, and hence the GP was correct in making the comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although your criticism that differing radio active isotopes is valid , it would seem that your stipulation that Cobalt-60 is more dangerous than Uranium-238 is incorrect .
According to www.ead.anl.gov the lifetime cancer mortality per unit intake for ingestion of Uranium-238 is 7.5 * 10 ^ -11 .
For Cobalt-60 , it is 1.4 * 10 ^ -11 .
From this , it appears that Cobalt-60 is less dangerous , and hence the GP was correct in making the comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although your criticism that differing radio active isotopes is valid, it would seem that your stipulation that Cobalt-60 is more dangerous than Uranium-238 is incorrect.
According to www.ead.anl.gov the lifetime cancer mortality per unit intake for ingestion of Uranium-238 is 7.5 * 10^-11.
For Cobalt-60, it is 1.4 * 10^ -11.
From this, it appears that Cobalt-60 is less dangerous, and hence the GP was correct in making the comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733954</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>credd144az</author>
	<datestamp>1263238260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cobalt Thorium G? I've seen what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr.\_Strangelove" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">that</a> [wikipedia.org] can do...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cobalt Thorium G ?
I 've seen what that [ wikipedia.org ] can do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cobalt Thorium G?
I've seen what that [wikipedia.org] can do...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732080</id>
	<title>Lame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good grief, could this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article possibly be more biased?  Who the hell does Slashdot think it is, the MSM?  I thought the Internet was supposed to be an improvement.</p><p>Lets just agree with the idiots at Greenpeace.... on one condition, that if we agree the current plants are operating far beyond their original design life they agree with us that the solution is to replace them with modern safer reactors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good grief , could this / .
article possibly be more biased ?
Who the hell does Slashdot think it is , the MSM ?
I thought the Internet was supposed to be an improvement.Lets just agree with the idiots at Greenpeace.... on one condition , that if we agree the current plants are operating far beyond their original design life they agree with us that the solution is to replace them with modern safer reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good grief, could this /.
article possibly be more biased?
Who the hell does Slashdot think it is, the MSM?
I thought the Internet was supposed to be an improvement.Lets just agree with the idiots at Greenpeace.... on one condition, that if we agree the current plants are operating far beyond their original design life they agree with us that the solution is to replace them with modern safer reactors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732904</id>
	<title>Re:Superpowers</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263227340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet showering in it will give you the incredible superpower of ultra-accelerated... MUTATION! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet showering in it will give you the incredible superpower of ultra-accelerated... MUTATION ! ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet showering in it will give you the incredible superpower of ultra-accelerated... MUTATION! ^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732506</id>
	<title>power ain't safe</title>
	<author>Wansu</author>
	<datestamp>1263224340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There ain't no safe, clean way to generate power in the amounts we need.</p><p>A little over a year ago, the TVA Kingston Ash Spill had everybody up in arms about coal plants.</p><p>We get most of our electrical power from coal plants. Nuclear is second. I doubt this is likely to change in my lifetime unless there's some stunning breakthru in physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There ai n't no safe , clean way to generate power in the amounts we need.A little over a year ago , the TVA Kingston Ash Spill had everybody up in arms about coal plants.We get most of our electrical power from coal plants .
Nuclear is second .
I doubt this is likely to change in my lifetime unless there 's some stunning breakthru in physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There ain't no safe, clean way to generate power in the amounts we need.A little over a year ago, the TVA Kingston Ash Spill had everybody up in arms about coal plants.We get most of our electrical power from coal plants.
Nuclear is second.
I doubt this is likely to change in my lifetime unless there's some stunning breakthru in physics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731840</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1263219240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Build new nuclear reactors, specifically of the design that, either, doesn't use tritium or is melt down proof. Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a, somewhat, excellent energy source?

Uncool green peace, uncool.</p></div><p>Exactly.  We should be embracing the technology and improving it with newer installations and better designs.  But instead, I'm sure we'll hear from every anti-group in the world about how this leak is the sign of the apocalypse or some nonsense.</p><p>We seem to have done a pretty damn good job with the automobile over the last 50 years of improvements.  Why we can't seem to do the same thing with this energy source is beyond me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Build new nuclear reactors , specifically of the design that , either , does n't use tritium or is melt down proof .
Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a , somewhat , excellent energy source ?
Uncool green peace , uncool.Exactly .
We should be embracing the technology and improving it with newer installations and better designs .
But instead , I 'm sure we 'll hear from every anti-group in the world about how this leak is the sign of the apocalypse or some nonsense.We seem to have done a pretty damn good job with the automobile over the last 50 years of improvements .
Why we ca n't seem to do the same thing with this energy source is beyond me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Build new nuclear reactors, specifically of the design that, either, doesn't use tritium or is melt down proof.
Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a, somewhat, excellent energy source?
Uncool green peace, uncool.Exactly.
We should be embracing the technology and improving it with newer installations and better designs.
But instead, I'm sure we'll hear from every anti-group in the world about how this leak is the sign of the apocalypse or some nonsense.We seem to have done a pretty damn good job with the automobile over the last 50 years of improvements.
Why we can't seem to do the same thing with this energy source is beyond me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732486</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263224160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because tritium beta decay is low energy does not mean its not a big deal and can't easily kill you.</p><p>YES if your sitting next to a sold block of tritium or heck even plutonium they might feel warm to the touch but they won't really hurt you.</p><p>**HOWEVER** if either one is inhaled or ingested (contaminated ground water) even very low levels will cause cell damage (radiation poisioning) and can be quite deadly.</p><p>The dead layer of our skin protects us from beta radiation externally ONLY.  Once indgested your screwed!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because tritium beta decay is low energy does not mean its not a big deal and ca n't easily kill you.YES if your sitting next to a sold block of tritium or heck even plutonium they might feel warm to the touch but they wo n't really hurt you .
* * HOWEVER * * if either one is inhaled or ingested ( contaminated ground water ) even very low levels will cause cell damage ( radiation poisioning ) and can be quite deadly.The dead layer of our skin protects us from beta radiation externally ONLY .
Once indgested your screwed !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because tritium beta decay is low energy does not mean its not a big deal and can't easily kill you.YES if your sitting next to a sold block of tritium or heck even plutonium they might feel warm to the touch but they won't really hurt you.
**HOWEVER** if either one is inhaled or ingested (contaminated ground water) even very low levels will cause cell damage (radiation poisioning) and can be quite deadly.The dead layer of our skin protects us from beta radiation externally ONLY.
Once indgested your screwed!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263219480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all, what do you find wrong with the summary?</p><p>I'm genuinely curious. I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin (no pun intended) there, but couldn't find any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all , what do you find wrong with the summary ? I 'm genuinely curious .
I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin ( no pun intended ) there , but could n't find any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all, what do you find wrong with the summary?I'm genuinely curious.
I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin (no pun intended) there, but couldn't find any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736660</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263310020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget to mention that Helium-3 and Tritium are one of the lightest gases in existence (and "leeching" through containments strongly implies gaseous form, I suppose)</p><p>Once they are in biosphere, they basically just go up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget to mention that Helium-3 and Tritium are one of the lightest gases in existence ( and " leeching " through containments strongly implies gaseous form , I suppose ) Once they are in biosphere , they basically just go up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget to mention that Helium-3 and Tritium are one of the lightest gases in existence (and "leeching" through containments strongly implies gaseous form, I suppose)Once they are in biosphere, they basically just go up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733886</id>
	<title>Re:Lame</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263236940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lets just agree with the idiots at Greenpeace</p></div><p>No, don't bother. The idiots at Greenpeace are the type that has no qualms about scaring scientifically illiterate people with important sounding language like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen\_monoxide\_hoax" title="wikipedia.org">dihydrogen monoxide</a> [wikipedia.org] if it advances their agenda. They fight tooth and nail dirty and they only seem to get what they want by scaring people. Greenpeace and the Sierra Club can kiss my axle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets just agree with the idiots at GreenpeaceNo , do n't bother .
The idiots at Greenpeace are the type that has no qualms about scaring scientifically illiterate people with important sounding language like dihydrogen monoxide [ wikipedia.org ] if it advances their agenda .
They fight tooth and nail dirty and they only seem to get what they want by scaring people .
Greenpeace and the Sierra Club can kiss my axle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets just agree with the idiots at GreenpeaceNo, don't bother.
The idiots at Greenpeace are the type that has no qualms about scaring scientifically illiterate people with important sounding language like dihydrogen monoxide [wikipedia.org] if it advances their agenda.
They fight tooth and nail dirty and they only seem to get what they want by scaring people.
Greenpeace and the Sierra Club can kiss my axle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732336</id>
	<title>Re:Rose-colored perspective</title>
	<author>JDevers</author>
	<datestamp>1263222780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question: What weighs more a kilogram of U-238 or a kilogram of Co-60?</p><p>Answer:  Wait long enough and the correct answer is Co-60...</p><p>Sorry, couldn't resist.  Just an alpha versus beta and gamma particle thing...</p><p>In reality though, the bio-half life of tritium of a week or two combined with it being a weak beta emitter means it really isn't all that dangerous in even close to the quantities discussed here...  This is just a non-story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : What weighs more a kilogram of U-238 or a kilogram of Co-60 ? Answer : Wait long enough and the correct answer is Co-60...Sorry , could n't resist .
Just an alpha versus beta and gamma particle thing...In reality though , the bio-half life of tritium of a week or two combined with it being a weak beta emitter means it really is n't all that dangerous in even close to the quantities discussed here... This is just a non-story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: What weighs more a kilogram of U-238 or a kilogram of Co-60?Answer:  Wait long enough and the correct answer is Co-60...Sorry, couldn't resist.
Just an alpha versus beta and gamma particle thing...In reality though, the bio-half life of tritium of a week or two combined with it being a weak beta emitter means it really isn't all that dangerous in even close to the quantities discussed here...  This is just a non-story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736194</id>
	<title>Re:Rose-colored perspective</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1263307140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>lifetime cancer mortality per unit intake</p></div></blockquote><p>Also, I suspect that their unit is a curie, not a kg.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lifetime cancer mortality per unit intakeAlso , I suspect that their unit is a curie , not a kg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lifetime cancer mortality per unit intakeAlso, I suspect that their unit is a curie, not a kg.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734592</id>
	<title>Re:Self-inflicted</title>
	<author>fredmosby</author>
	<datestamp>1263290640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a meaningless argument.  No matter how thick the pipes are they could have always use thicker pipes.  No matter how thick the seals are the could have always used thicker seals.  No matter what design they settled on there was probably a more expensive design that was rejected.  The fact that nuclear plants in the US have gone this long without major problems is a good indication that they were built well enough.  All they have to do is find the leak, patch it, and change their maintenance procedures to find similar leaks in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a meaningless argument .
No matter how thick the pipes are they could have always use thicker pipes .
No matter how thick the seals are the could have always used thicker seals .
No matter what design they settled on there was probably a more expensive design that was rejected .
The fact that nuclear plants in the US have gone this long without major problems is a good indication that they were built well enough .
All they have to do is find the leak , patch it , and change their maintenance procedures to find similar leaks in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a meaningless argument.
No matter how thick the pipes are they could have always use thicker pipes.
No matter how thick the seals are the could have always used thicker seals.
No matter what design they settled on there was probably a more expensive design that was rejected.
The fact that nuclear plants in the US have gone this long without major problems is a good indication that they were built well enough.
All they have to do is find the leak, patch it, and change their maintenance procedures to find similar leaks in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741126</id>
	<title>Re:A Sticky Situation</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1263326520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer this one: <a href="http://macgyver.wikia.com/wiki/Pilot" title="wikia.com" rel="nofollow">http://macgyver.wikia.com/wiki/Pilot</a> [wikia.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer this one : http : //macgyver.wikia.com/wiki/Pilot [ wikia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer this one: http://macgyver.wikia.com/wiki/Pilot [wikia.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731988</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>eldepeche</author>
	<datestamp>1263220200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The words "crumbling," "decrepit" and "poorly run" are pretty loaded, especially referring to levels of tritium around half the limit found on site, and no detectable levels off site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The words " crumbling , " " decrepit " and " poorly run " are pretty loaded , especially referring to levels of tritium around half the limit found on site , and no detectable levels off site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The words "crumbling," "decrepit" and "poorly run" are pretty loaded, especially referring to levels of tritium around half the limit found on site, and no detectable levels off site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733430</id>
	<title>obligatory</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263232080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Soviet Russia, you leak into reactor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , you leak into reactor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, you leak into reactor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792</id>
	<title>Big Deal...?</title>
	<author>NalosLayor</author>
	<datestamp>1263219000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're talking about *tritium* here, not plutonium. It's just not all that dangerous as far as radioactive materials go. You might well be *WEARING* some right now if you have a watch that glows in the dark. Unless they're releasing hundreds of pounds of it at a time here (they aren't, there's  ~165lbs of the stuff in the US right now) , any farm even a kilometer away is not a real health hazard.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about * tritium * here , not plutonium .
It 's just not all that dangerous as far as radioactive materials go .
You might well be * WEARING * some right now if you have a watch that glows in the dark .
Unless they 're releasing hundreds of pounds of it at a time here ( they are n't , there 's ~ 165lbs of the stuff in the US right now ) , any farm even a kilometer away is not a real health hazard .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about *tritium* here, not plutonium.
It's just not all that dangerous as far as radioactive materials go.
You might well be *WEARING* some right now if you have a watch that glows in the dark.
Unless they're releasing hundreds of pounds of it at a time here (they aren't, there's  ~165lbs of the stuff in the US right now) , any farm even a kilometer away is not a real health hazard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735048</id>
	<title>is Champagne available anywhere but France.</title>
	<author>acidfast7</author>
	<datestamp>1263296880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that alone is enough to prevent me from reading the article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that alone is enough to prevent me from reading the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that alone is enough to prevent me from reading the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731720</id>
	<title>A Sticky Situation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263218460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct\_tape</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct \ _tape</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct\_tape</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734878</id>
	<title>Build more reactors</title>
	<author>z\_gringo</author>
	<datestamp>1263294420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The solution to this is to build more nuclear power plants.  Nuclear is the cleanest and safest energy we have available, and people freaking out and trying to ban nuclear power is just misguided.  We need to take advantage of new technology and build newer more up to date plants that won't have these problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to this is to build more nuclear power plants .
Nuclear is the cleanest and safest energy we have available , and people freaking out and trying to ban nuclear power is just misguided .
We need to take advantage of new technology and build newer more up to date plants that wo n't have these problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to this is to build more nuclear power plants.
Nuclear is the cleanest and safest energy we have available, and people freaking out and trying to ban nuclear power is just misguided.
We need to take advantage of new technology and build newer more up to date plants that won't have these problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735288</id>
	<title>Re:As a Vermont resident...</title>
	<author>revxul</author>
	<datestamp>1263299520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, people here aren't too happy at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , people here are n't too happy at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, people here aren't too happy at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731730</id>
	<title>Superpowers</title>
	<author>Kell Bengal</author>
	<datestamp>1263218580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can someone please explain how I can leverage this situation to develop superpowers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please explain how I can leverage this situation to develop superpowers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please explain how I can leverage this situation to develop superpowers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732942</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1263227760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pollution isn't an amorpous blob, it's a specific resource "out of place". As long as the amount out of place is not causing problems then yes it ok to pollute to a small enough degree. No pollution at all "just in case" simply means we would rather die than piss on a tree. This does not mean small levels can't have a significant impact (re: GHG concentrations) it just means you have to look at the facts before declaring which byproducts of life are a serious health hazard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pollution is n't an amorpous blob , it 's a specific resource " out of place " .
As long as the amount out of place is not causing problems then yes it ok to pollute to a small enough degree .
No pollution at all " just in case " simply means we would rather die than piss on a tree .
This does not mean small levels ca n't have a significant impact ( re : GHG concentrations ) it just means you have to look at the facts before declaring which byproducts of life are a serious health hazard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pollution isn't an amorpous blob, it's a specific resource "out of place".
As long as the amount out of place is not causing problems then yes it ok to pollute to a small enough degree.
No pollution at all "just in case" simply means we would rather die than piss on a tree.
This does not mean small levels can't have a significant impact (re: GHG concentrations) it just means you have to look at the facts before declaring which byproducts of life are a serious health hazard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732318</id>
	<title>Re:Self-inflicted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An ounce of prevention could have saved them from having to shell out for a pound of cure.</p><p>Instead of using thinner pipes, they could have used what the original plans called for.  Instead of using crappier seals, they could have used the ones the original plans called for.  Instead of compacting everything into one area, they could have left it at two, like the original plans probably called for.</p><p>This is engineering, and it's the way it's been done on damn near everything for a long time.  Engineers draw up plans, bean counters go back and make changes.  Engineers make new plans to work around what the bean counters did, but it's too late, because the modified plans are by that time already in production.  Of course, the original plans are the ones that are submitted to the safety agencies for verification...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An ounce of prevention could have saved them from having to shell out for a pound of cure.Instead of using thinner pipes , they could have used what the original plans called for .
Instead of using crappier seals , they could have used the ones the original plans called for .
Instead of compacting everything into one area , they could have left it at two , like the original plans probably called for.This is engineering , and it 's the way it 's been done on damn near everything for a long time .
Engineers draw up plans , bean counters go back and make changes .
Engineers make new plans to work around what the bean counters did , but it 's too late , because the modified plans are by that time already in production .
Of course , the original plans are the ones that are submitted to the safety agencies for verification.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An ounce of prevention could have saved them from having to shell out for a pound of cure.Instead of using thinner pipes, they could have used what the original plans called for.
Instead of using crappier seals, they could have used the ones the original plans called for.
Instead of compacting everything into one area, they could have left it at two, like the original plans probably called for.This is engineering, and it's the way it's been done on damn near everything for a long time.
Engineers draw up plans, bean counters go back and make changes.
Engineers make new plans to work around what the bean counters did, but it's too late, because the modified plans are by that time already in production.
Of course, the original plans are the ones that are submitted to the safety agencies for verification...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732016</id>
	<title>Tritium is hydrogen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tritium is just an isotope of Hydrogen. Being that it is too light the Earth to hold onto it gravitationally so doesn't it all just end up wisping away into space?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium is just an isotope of Hydrogen .
Being that it is too light the Earth to hold onto it gravitationally so does n't it all just end up wisping away into space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium is just an isotope of Hydrogen.
Being that it is too light the Earth to hold onto it gravitationally so doesn't it all just end up wisping away into space?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741322</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>fadir</author>
	<datestamp>1263327360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brilliant idea!</p><p>So we replace an extremely dirty, outdated and/or dangerous technology (coal plants, old nuclear power plants) that uses none-renewable resources with a slightly less outdated, less dangerous and still dirty technology that still uses none-renewable resources.<br>Yes, that makes a hell lot of sense!</p><p>How much Uranium do we have on earth? How long will that last us? There are guess ranging between 50 (Greenpeace) and 200 (nuclear lobby). Either way it's not endless and the more plants we build the shorter it will last.</p><p>Does that sound logical to anyone here except those earning billions running the plants?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant idea ! So we replace an extremely dirty , outdated and/or dangerous technology ( coal plants , old nuclear power plants ) that uses none-renewable resources with a slightly less outdated , less dangerous and still dirty technology that still uses none-renewable resources.Yes , that makes a hell lot of sense ! How much Uranium do we have on earth ?
How long will that last us ?
There are guess ranging between 50 ( Greenpeace ) and 200 ( nuclear lobby ) .
Either way it 's not endless and the more plants we build the shorter it will last.Does that sound logical to anyone here except those earning billions running the plants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant idea!So we replace an extremely dirty, outdated and/or dangerous technology (coal plants, old nuclear power plants) that uses none-renewable resources with a slightly less outdated, less dangerous and still dirty technology that still uses none-renewable resources.Yes, that makes a hell lot of sense!How much Uranium do we have on earth?
How long will that last us?
There are guess ranging between 50 (Greenpeace) and 200 (nuclear lobby).
Either way it's not endless and the more plants we build the shorter it will last.Does that sound logical to anyone here except those earning billions running the plants?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732452</id>
	<title>Re:Forget about champagne</title>
	<author>LeperPuppet</author>
	<datestamp>1263223740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Increased radiation levels in American beer can only be a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Increased radiation levels in American beer can only be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Increased radiation levels in American beer can only be a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172</id>
	<title>Tritium is fairly common...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tritium is the common name for hydrogen-3 (3H), which is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Like ordinary hydrogen (1H or hydrogen-1, called protium) and deuterium (2H or hydrogen-2), tritium has a single proton in its nucleus. Unlike ordinary hydrogen, deuterium and tritium have neutrons in their nucleus. Deuterium has one neutron in its nucleus and is stable, while tritium's nucleus contains two neutrons and is unstable. Tritium decays spontaneously to helium-3 (3He) through ejection of a beta particle (essentially a high-energy electron). The half-life of tritium is about 12.32 years. Since the number of protons determines chemical bonding, tritium behaves like ordinary hydrogen and can replace ordinary hydrogen in water molecules. Thus, tritium readily cycles through the hydrologic and biologic components of the environment. Tritium has three times the mass of ordinary hydrogen due to the two extra neutrons. Because of this extra mass, water containing tritium evaporates at a slightly slower rate than water containing only hydrogen-1.
<br>
<br>
The unit of measure of tritium in water is the tritium unit (TU). One tritium unit equals 1 tritium atom in 1018 hydrogen atoms. In SI units, one tritium unit is about 0.118 bequerels per liter (Bq/L), where the bequerel is one decay per second. In picocuries per liter, 1 TU is approximately 3.19 pCi/L. Tritium occurs in very small quantities naturally, being produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. Natural (pre-nuclear age) levels of tritium in precipitation are on the order of 1 to 5 TU. Nuclear-weapons testing during the 1950s and 1960s created relatively large amounts of tritium in the atmosphere that can be detected in ground water that was recharged during this period. Greatly elevated levels of tritium can be present in ground water contaminated with radioactive wastes.
<br>
<br>
It hasn't been until recently that the detection of the very miniscule ammounts of Tritium leakage through several feet of rebar, concrete, steel, and lead have been detectible as the units of measure are so minute to be nearly indetectable. As such, they don't pose much of a threat to humans, or other creatures in general. The half-life of Tritium in the typicaly human is roughly ten days, and is of such a low yield of energy to be about as harmful as living in Colorado being bombarded with a multiple increase of Cosmic rays versus people who live closer to sea level. In fact, when measuring the radioactive levels of Tritium you will notice that the K+ ions in bananas are radioactive as well.
<br>
<br>
Basically, all of this overreacting to 'radioactive' stuff should result in EVERYTHING being banned that's radioactive. If they were so concerned with such low level contamination, they should do away with Limestone rock on the walls of schools (radioactive), granite countertops (radioactive), bananas (radioactive), and all manner of other things that emit EM and positron/neutron radiation on such low levels.
<br>
<br>
The irony of all the craziness over 'radioactivity' is that on average, people who work near nuclear reactors, or have 'any' exposure on an ongoing basis at a very low level are typically healthier than the crazy people scared of all this radiation floating around.
<br>
<br>
If you take all the TLD (thermo-luminescent devices) worn by all Department of Energy employees and Nuclear Sub/Carrier personnel to measure very accurately the radiation exposure over a year, and add up every TLD in the DOE and Navy, it is still less radiation than 1 person receives by living in Denver Colorado for a year.
<br>
<br>
Thus, by this non-sensical IT'S RADIOACTIVE IT MUST BE BAD FOR US logic, we should quarantine Colorado, because obviously it's going to end up becoming a mutated Zombieland where only those highly paranoid, and well adept at using all manner of sharp, blunt, and dangerous instruments for maiming Zombies will survive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium is the common name for hydrogen-3 ( 3H ) , which is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen .
Like ordinary hydrogen ( 1H or hydrogen-1 , called protium ) and deuterium ( 2H or hydrogen-2 ) , tritium has a single proton in its nucleus .
Unlike ordinary hydrogen , deuterium and tritium have neutrons in their nucleus .
Deuterium has one neutron in its nucleus and is stable , while tritium 's nucleus contains two neutrons and is unstable .
Tritium decays spontaneously to helium-3 ( 3He ) through ejection of a beta particle ( essentially a high-energy electron ) .
The half-life of tritium is about 12.32 years .
Since the number of protons determines chemical bonding , tritium behaves like ordinary hydrogen and can replace ordinary hydrogen in water molecules .
Thus , tritium readily cycles through the hydrologic and biologic components of the environment .
Tritium has three times the mass of ordinary hydrogen due to the two extra neutrons .
Because of this extra mass , water containing tritium evaporates at a slightly slower rate than water containing only hydrogen-1 .
The unit of measure of tritium in water is the tritium unit ( TU ) .
One tritium unit equals 1 tritium atom in 1018 hydrogen atoms .
In SI units , one tritium unit is about 0.118 bequerels per liter ( Bq/L ) , where the bequerel is one decay per second .
In picocuries per liter , 1 TU is approximately 3.19 pCi/L .
Tritium occurs in very small quantities naturally , being produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays .
Natural ( pre-nuclear age ) levels of tritium in precipitation are on the order of 1 to 5 TU .
Nuclear-weapons testing during the 1950s and 1960s created relatively large amounts of tritium in the atmosphere that can be detected in ground water that was recharged during this period .
Greatly elevated levels of tritium can be present in ground water contaminated with radioactive wastes .
It has n't been until recently that the detection of the very miniscule ammounts of Tritium leakage through several feet of rebar , concrete , steel , and lead have been detectible as the units of measure are so minute to be nearly indetectable .
As such , they do n't pose much of a threat to humans , or other creatures in general .
The half-life of Tritium in the typicaly human is roughly ten days , and is of such a low yield of energy to be about as harmful as living in Colorado being bombarded with a multiple increase of Cosmic rays versus people who live closer to sea level .
In fact , when measuring the radioactive levels of Tritium you will notice that the K + ions in bananas are radioactive as well .
Basically , all of this overreacting to 'radioactive ' stuff should result in EVERYTHING being banned that 's radioactive .
If they were so concerned with such low level contamination , they should do away with Limestone rock on the walls of schools ( radioactive ) , granite countertops ( radioactive ) , bananas ( radioactive ) , and all manner of other things that emit EM and positron/neutron radiation on such low levels .
The irony of all the craziness over 'radioactivity ' is that on average , people who work near nuclear reactors , or have 'any ' exposure on an ongoing basis at a very low level are typically healthier than the crazy people scared of all this radiation floating around .
If you take all the TLD ( thermo-luminescent devices ) worn by all Department of Energy employees and Nuclear Sub/Carrier personnel to measure very accurately the radiation exposure over a year , and add up every TLD in the DOE and Navy , it is still less radiation than 1 person receives by living in Denver Colorado for a year .
Thus , by this non-sensical IT 'S RADIOACTIVE IT MUST BE BAD FOR US logic , we should quarantine Colorado , because obviously it 's going to end up becoming a mutated Zombieland where only those highly paranoid , and well adept at using all manner of sharp , blunt , and dangerous instruments for maiming Zombies will survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium is the common name for hydrogen-3 (3H), which is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen.
Like ordinary hydrogen (1H or hydrogen-1, called protium) and deuterium (2H or hydrogen-2), tritium has a single proton in its nucleus.
Unlike ordinary hydrogen, deuterium and tritium have neutrons in their nucleus.
Deuterium has one neutron in its nucleus and is stable, while tritium's nucleus contains two neutrons and is unstable.
Tritium decays spontaneously to helium-3 (3He) through ejection of a beta particle (essentially a high-energy electron).
The half-life of tritium is about 12.32 years.
Since the number of protons determines chemical bonding, tritium behaves like ordinary hydrogen and can replace ordinary hydrogen in water molecules.
Thus, tritium readily cycles through the hydrologic and biologic components of the environment.
Tritium has three times the mass of ordinary hydrogen due to the two extra neutrons.
Because of this extra mass, water containing tritium evaporates at a slightly slower rate than water containing only hydrogen-1.
The unit of measure of tritium in water is the tritium unit (TU).
One tritium unit equals 1 tritium atom in 1018 hydrogen atoms.
In SI units, one tritium unit is about 0.118 bequerels per liter (Bq/L), where the bequerel is one decay per second.
In picocuries per liter, 1 TU is approximately 3.19 pCi/L.
Tritium occurs in very small quantities naturally, being produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays.
Natural (pre-nuclear age) levels of tritium in precipitation are on the order of 1 to 5 TU.
Nuclear-weapons testing during the 1950s and 1960s created relatively large amounts of tritium in the atmosphere that can be detected in ground water that was recharged during this period.
Greatly elevated levels of tritium can be present in ground water contaminated with radioactive wastes.
It hasn't been until recently that the detection of the very miniscule ammounts of Tritium leakage through several feet of rebar, concrete, steel, and lead have been detectible as the units of measure are so minute to be nearly indetectable.
As such, they don't pose much of a threat to humans, or other creatures in general.
The half-life of Tritium in the typicaly human is roughly ten days, and is of such a low yield of energy to be about as harmful as living in Colorado being bombarded with a multiple increase of Cosmic rays versus people who live closer to sea level.
In fact, when measuring the radioactive levels of Tritium you will notice that the K+ ions in bananas are radioactive as well.
Basically, all of this overreacting to 'radioactive' stuff should result in EVERYTHING being banned that's radioactive.
If they were so concerned with such low level contamination, they should do away with Limestone rock on the walls of schools (radioactive), granite countertops (radioactive), bananas (radioactive), and all manner of other things that emit EM and positron/neutron radiation on such low levels.
The irony of all the craziness over 'radioactivity' is that on average, people who work near nuclear reactors, or have 'any' exposure on an ongoing basis at a very low level are typically healthier than the crazy people scared of all this radiation floating around.
If you take all the TLD (thermo-luminescent devices) worn by all Department of Energy employees and Nuclear Sub/Carrier personnel to measure very accurately the radiation exposure over a year, and add up every TLD in the DOE and Navy, it is still less radiation than 1 person receives by living in Denver Colorado for a year.
Thus, by this non-sensical IT'S RADIOACTIVE IT MUST BE BAD FOR US logic, we should quarantine Colorado, because obviously it's going to end up becoming a mutated Zombieland where only those highly paranoid, and well adept at using all manner of sharp, blunt, and dangerous instruments for maiming Zombies will survive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732396</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>Edmund Blackadder</author>
	<datestamp>1263223380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no melt down proof reactors, although there are a lot of people that say certain designs they have are meltdown proof. That of course all depends on a bunch of convenient but untrue assumptions they make.</p><p>The only reactor concept that can be called melt down proof is fusion. Most environmentalists do not oppose fusion experiments, but we have not gotten fusion to work yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no melt down proof reactors , although there are a lot of people that say certain designs they have are meltdown proof .
That of course all depends on a bunch of convenient but untrue assumptions they make.The only reactor concept that can be called melt down proof is fusion .
Most environmentalists do not oppose fusion experiments , but we have not gotten fusion to work yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no melt down proof reactors, although there are a lot of people that say certain designs they have are meltdown proof.
That of course all depends on a bunch of convenient but untrue assumptions they make.The only reactor concept that can be called melt down proof is fusion.
Most environmentalists do not oppose fusion experiments, but we have not gotten fusion to work yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732012</id>
	<title>Hey uh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't we try throwing toilet water on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we try throwing toilet water on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we try throwing toilet water on it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735800</id>
	<title>Re:Tritium is fairly common...</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1263304500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Thus, by this non-sensical IT'S RADIOACTIVE IT MUST BE BAD FOR US logic, we should quarantine Colorado, because obviously it's going to end up becoming a mutated Zombieland where only those highly paranoid, and well adept at using all manner of sharp, blunt, and dangerous instruments for maiming Zombies will survive.</p></div></blockquote><p>I see you've never been to Denver.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus , by this non-sensical IT 'S RADIOACTIVE IT MUST BE BAD FOR US logic , we should quarantine Colorado , because obviously it 's going to end up becoming a mutated Zombieland where only those highly paranoid , and well adept at using all manner of sharp , blunt , and dangerous instruments for maiming Zombies will survive.I see you 've never been to Denver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus, by this non-sensical IT'S RADIOACTIVE IT MUST BE BAD FOR US logic, we should quarantine Colorado, because obviously it's going to end up becoming a mutated Zombieland where only those highly paranoid, and well adept at using all manner of sharp, blunt, and dangerous instruments for maiming Zombies will survive.I see you've never been to Denver.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764</id>
	<title>VT Voters - Contact your Legislator!</title>
	<author>achbed</author>
	<datestamp>1263218760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The state legislature is currently debating the proposed extension of the operating license of this facility.  Given the track record of shoddy inspection processes, cost-cutting measures at the expense of safety, and not properly contributing to the decommissioning funds needed to safely close the plant, Entergy should not be allowed to continue the farce of safety for another 20 years.  The linked article shows not only a disregard for the safety and long-term survival of the facility by not exploring a possible leak for months, but it also shows how little regard safety warnings are.  Ignoring a low oil warning in a car would make me cringe - but not fixing a warning system and "closely monitoring the pump" instead in an facility that can cause mass destruction and death if failure occurs smacks of disregard for safety and human life to get things back to making money again.</p><p>And having labor unions pushing to keep this facility open, and bending all their political influence on this?  They should be ashamed of themselves.  Who will be hired to clean up once the facility is being closed?  Union labor.  And all for a few bucks while Vermont burns in a nuclear fire due to neglect and mismanagement.</p><p>Please contact your legislator and tell them to vote NO to the operating license renewal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The state legislature is currently debating the proposed extension of the operating license of this facility .
Given the track record of shoddy inspection processes , cost-cutting measures at the expense of safety , and not properly contributing to the decommissioning funds needed to safely close the plant , Entergy should not be allowed to continue the farce of safety for another 20 years .
The linked article shows not only a disregard for the safety and long-term survival of the facility by not exploring a possible leak for months , but it also shows how little regard safety warnings are .
Ignoring a low oil warning in a car would make me cringe - but not fixing a warning system and " closely monitoring the pump " instead in an facility that can cause mass destruction and death if failure occurs smacks of disregard for safety and human life to get things back to making money again.And having labor unions pushing to keep this facility open , and bending all their political influence on this ?
They should be ashamed of themselves .
Who will be hired to clean up once the facility is being closed ?
Union labor .
And all for a few bucks while Vermont burns in a nuclear fire due to neglect and mismanagement.Please contact your legislator and tell them to vote NO to the operating license renewal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The state legislature is currently debating the proposed extension of the operating license of this facility.
Given the track record of shoddy inspection processes, cost-cutting measures at the expense of safety, and not properly contributing to the decommissioning funds needed to safely close the plant, Entergy should not be allowed to continue the farce of safety for another 20 years.
The linked article shows not only a disregard for the safety and long-term survival of the facility by not exploring a possible leak for months, but it also shows how little regard safety warnings are.
Ignoring a low oil warning in a car would make me cringe - but not fixing a warning system and "closely monitoring the pump" instead in an facility that can cause mass destruction and death if failure occurs smacks of disregard for safety and human life to get things back to making money again.And having labor unions pushing to keep this facility open, and bending all their political influence on this?
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Who will be hired to clean up once the facility is being closed?
Union labor.
And all for a few bucks while Vermont burns in a nuclear fire due to neglect and mismanagement.Please contact your legislator and tell them to vote NO to the operating license renewal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733570</id>
	<title>Re:Forget about champagne</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1263233400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your beer is probably safe. Your kids' milk and Mac'n'cheese are at risk. Rising tritium levels could be an early indicator of other contaminates having gotten loose: tritium can migrate faster than cesium, strontium, etc. Strontium is particularly problematic in Vermont, since grazing animals concentrate it in their milk, and Vermont is still a major dairy state.

</p><p>As other posters and TFA point out, if conditions at the VY were really the way that Entergy has said they are, then there could be no tritium leaking into the ground water because there would be no buried pipes or tanks that could leak. The presence of tritium suggests that the plant was not built according to plan: someone routed a pipe underground, or decided that a settling tank that was supposed to be on the surface would be better if it was installed below the frost line...

</p><p>In theory, light water fission plants could be built and operated safely. But in a cost-cutting, capitalist economy the actual practice is not going to be that way. The problem with nuclear power is not a materials engineering problem. It is mostly a social engineering problem: we don't have a clue how to manage anything as complex as building and running these things in a way that would ensure that not one of the thousands of persons involved would never fuck it up.

</p><p>Before we can do fission power safely, we need to make a higher quality human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your beer is probably safe .
Your kids ' milk and Mac'n'cheese are at risk .
Rising tritium levels could be an early indicator of other contaminates having gotten loose : tritium can migrate faster than cesium , strontium , etc .
Strontium is particularly problematic in Vermont , since grazing animals concentrate it in their milk , and Vermont is still a major dairy state .
As other posters and TFA point out , if conditions at the VY were really the way that Entergy has said they are , then there could be no tritium leaking into the ground water because there would be no buried pipes or tanks that could leak .
The presence of tritium suggests that the plant was not built according to plan : someone routed a pipe underground , or decided that a settling tank that was supposed to be on the surface would be better if it was installed below the frost line.. . In theory , light water fission plants could be built and operated safely .
But in a cost-cutting , capitalist economy the actual practice is not going to be that way .
The problem with nuclear power is not a materials engineering problem .
It is mostly a social engineering problem : we do n't have a clue how to manage anything as complex as building and running these things in a way that would ensure that not one of the thousands of persons involved would never fuck it up .
Before we can do fission power safely , we need to make a higher quality human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your beer is probably safe.
Your kids' milk and Mac'n'cheese are at risk.
Rising tritium levels could be an early indicator of other contaminates having gotten loose: tritium can migrate faster than cesium, strontium, etc.
Strontium is particularly problematic in Vermont, since grazing animals concentrate it in their milk, and Vermont is still a major dairy state.
As other posters and TFA point out, if conditions at the VY were really the way that Entergy has said they are, then there could be no tritium leaking into the ground water because there would be no buried pipes or tanks that could leak.
The presence of tritium suggests that the plant was not built according to plan: someone routed a pipe underground, or decided that a settling tank that was supposed to be on the surface would be better if it was installed below the frost line...

In theory, light water fission plants could be built and operated safely.
But in a cost-cutting, capitalist economy the actual practice is not going to be that way.
The problem with nuclear power is not a materials engineering problem.
It is mostly a social engineering problem: we don't have a clue how to manage anything as complex as building and running these things in a way that would ensure that not one of the thousands of persons involved would never fuck it up.
Before we can do fission power safely, we need to make a higher quality human.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736608</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1263309720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However well run a nuclear power plant is, and however low the probability, a Chernobyl style accident that causes contamination of a large area for thousands of years cannot happen with other kinds of power plants.

</p></div><p>
However well run a coal power plant is, and however low the levels, pumping so much mercury and heavy carbon particulate into the atmosphere cannot happen with nuclear power plants.
</p><p>
However well run an oil power plant is, and however low the dosage, releasing so much sulfur and carbon waste into the atmosphere cannot happen with nuclear power plants.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However well run a nuclear power plant is , and however low the probability , a Chernobyl style accident that causes contamination of a large area for thousands of years can not happen with other kinds of power plants .
However well run a coal power plant is , and however low the levels , pumping so much mercury and heavy carbon particulate into the atmosphere can not happen with nuclear power plants .
However well run an oil power plant is , and however low the dosage , releasing so much sulfur and carbon waste into the atmosphere can not happen with nuclear power plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However well run a nuclear power plant is, and however low the probability, a Chernobyl style accident that causes contamination of a large area for thousands of years cannot happen with other kinds of power plants.
However well run a coal power plant is, and however low the levels, pumping so much mercury and heavy carbon particulate into the atmosphere cannot happen with nuclear power plants.
However well run an oil power plant is, and however low the dosage, releasing so much sulfur and carbon waste into the atmosphere cannot happen with nuclear power plants.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788</id>
	<title>What could be done?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263218940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Build new nuclear reactors, specifically of the design that, either, doesn't use tritium or is melt down proof. Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a, somewhat, excellent energy source?

Uncool green peace, uncool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Build new nuclear reactors , specifically of the design that , either , does n't use tritium or is melt down proof .
Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a , somewhat , excellent energy source ?
Uncool green peace , uncool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Build new nuclear reactors, specifically of the design that, either, doesn't use tritium or is melt down proof.
Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a, somewhat, excellent energy source?
Uncool green peace, uncool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733320</id>
	<title>Re:Superpowers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263230820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just make sure the controlled release is provided to you via the daily milkman. The old nuclear plans are leaky that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make sure the controlled release is provided to you via the daily milkman .
The old nuclear plans are leaky that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make sure the controlled release is provided to you via the daily milkman.
The old nuclear plans are leaky that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732576</id>
	<title>Re:What could be done?</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1263224760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We seem to have done a pretty damn good job with the automobile over the last 50 years of improvements. Why we can't seem to do the same thing with this energy source is beyond me."</p><p>Try repeating this to yourself next time you are filling your car with gas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We seem to have done a pretty damn good job with the automobile over the last 50 years of improvements .
Why we ca n't seem to do the same thing with this energy source is beyond me .
" Try repeating this to yourself next time you are filling your car with gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We seem to have done a pretty damn good job with the automobile over the last 50 years of improvements.
Why we can't seem to do the same thing with this energy source is beyond me.
"Try repeating this to yourself next time you are filling your car with gas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733594</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is up with the summary?</title>
	<author>Memnos</author>
	<datestamp>1263233580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF is right.  In general I agree as that far as the spin, loaded terms, and hyperbole, that the summary causes more danger from its bullshit emissions than the subject matter it "addresses"<br> <br>

As an addendum, which you might already be aware of:<br> <br>

One reason tritium is pricey on the world's markets is that it is especially useful in producing boosted fission weapons, which greatly exceed the efficiency of the chain reaction.  In a fission weapon one key performance factor is doubling time (aka "alpha") which represents the time required for the number of fission reactions to increase by 2x.  The shorter the doubling time in an exponentially based energetic reaction such as fission, the (much) more energy is produced -- in the A-bomb case it's crucial to have as many doublings as possible before explosive disassembly overcomes inertial confinement.  Even the misnamed "H-Bombs" (2+ stage devices) produce most of their yield from fission processes, so similar principles apply.<br> <br>

But as you stated, tritium leakages are not a cause for concern, unless one has magic tiny tritium-gobbling nano-machines in the air that will collect the isotope and sell it to the highest bidder prior to decay or diffusion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF is right .
In general I agree as that far as the spin , loaded terms , and hyperbole , that the summary causes more danger from its bullshit emissions than the subject matter it " addresses " As an addendum , which you might already be aware of : One reason tritium is pricey on the world 's markets is that it is especially useful in producing boosted fission weapons , which greatly exceed the efficiency of the chain reaction .
In a fission weapon one key performance factor is doubling time ( aka " alpha " ) which represents the time required for the number of fission reactions to increase by 2x .
The shorter the doubling time in an exponentially based energetic reaction such as fission , the ( much ) more energy is produced -- in the A-bomb case it 's crucial to have as many doublings as possible before explosive disassembly overcomes inertial confinement .
Even the misnamed " H-Bombs " ( 2 + stage devices ) produce most of their yield from fission processes , so similar principles apply .
But as you stated , tritium leakages are not a cause for concern , unless one has magic tiny tritium-gobbling nano-machines in the air that will collect the isotope and sell it to the highest bidder prior to decay or diffusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF is right.
In general I agree as that far as the spin, loaded terms, and hyperbole, that the summary causes more danger from its bullshit emissions than the subject matter it "addresses" 

As an addendum, which you might already be aware of: 

One reason tritium is pricey on the world's markets is that it is especially useful in producing boosted fission weapons, which greatly exceed the efficiency of the chain reaction.
In a fission weapon one key performance factor is doubling time (aka "alpha") which represents the time required for the number of fission reactions to increase by 2x.
The shorter the doubling time in an exponentially based energetic reaction such as fission, the (much) more energy is produced -- in the A-bomb case it's crucial to have as many doublings as possible before explosive disassembly overcomes inertial confinement.
Even the misnamed "H-Bombs" (2+ stage devices) produce most of their yield from fission processes, so similar principles apply.
But as you stated, tritium leakages are not a cause for concern, unless one has magic tiny tritium-gobbling nano-machines in the air that will collect the isotope and sell it to the highest bidder prior to decay or diffusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732234</id>
	<title>send in homer Simpson to fix it and also let him r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>send in homer Simpson to fix it and also let him run sector 7G</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>send in homer Simpson to fix it and also let him run sector 7G</tokentext>
<sentencetext>send in homer Simpson to fix it and also let him run sector 7G</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30818116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30744806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30738016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30746810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30742124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30744150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30740174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_2054237_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732142
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732326
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733670
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733828
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734410
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737190
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735014
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735258
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734940
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736608
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732640
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735210
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731988
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733352
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737290
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734458
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736190
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30818116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30742124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30744806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30744150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30738016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734582
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30740174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30736362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30741126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30735706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30746810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30731772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30737676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30733570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30734698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_2054237.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_2054237.30732124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
