<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_06_156236</id>
	<title>Tritium Leak At Vermont Nuclear Plant Grows</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1265473020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mdsolar writes <i>"The <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/11/2054237/Another-Crumbling-Reactor-Springs-a-Tritium-Leak">tritium leak</a> into ground water at Vermont Yankee <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403593.html">has now tested at 775,000 picocuries per liter</a>, 37 times higher than the federal drinking water standard. 'Despite the much higher reading, an NRC spokeswoman said Thursday there was nothing to fear. "There's not currently, nor is there likely to be, an impact on public health or safety or the environment," the NRC's Diane Screnci said in an interview. She had maintained previously that the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it. ... The National Academy of Sciences said in 2005 that any exposure to ionizing radiation from an isotope like tritium elevates the risk of cancer, though it also said with small exposures, the risk would be low. '  At what level should the NRC <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DLEQ200.htm">shut down the troubled plant</a>?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mdsolar writes " The tritium leak into ground water at Vermont Yankee has now tested at 775,000 picocuries per liter , 37 times higher than the federal drinking water standard .
'Despite the much higher reading , an NRC spokeswoman said Thursday there was nothing to fear .
" There 's not currently , nor is there likely to be , an impact on public health or safety or the environment , " the NRC 's Diane Screnci said in an interview .
She had maintained previously that the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it .
... The National Academy of Sciences said in 2005 that any exposure to ionizing radiation from an isotope like tritium elevates the risk of cancer , though it also said with small exposures , the risk would be low .
' At what level should the NRC shut down the troubled plant ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mdsolar writes "The tritium leak into ground water at Vermont Yankee has now tested at 775,000 picocuries per liter, 37 times higher than the federal drinking water standard.
'Despite the much higher reading, an NRC spokeswoman said Thursday there was nothing to fear.
"There's not currently, nor is there likely to be, an impact on public health or safety or the environment," the NRC's Diane Screnci said in an interview.
She had maintained previously that the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it.
... The National Academy of Sciences said in 2005 that any exposure to ionizing radiation from an isotope like tritium elevates the risk of cancer, though it also said with small exposures, the risk would be low.
'  At what level should the NRC shut down the troubled plant?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046540</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265481300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tritium keyrings look pretty cool! I'd love to order some, but does anyone have any experience with shipping these things internationally (into other EU countries, not necessarily to the US)? I'd imagine the "nucular" aspect makes it a pain in the ass to ship (or smuggle), but maybe I'm overestimating the paranoia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tritium keyrings look pretty cool !
I 'd love to order some , but does anyone have any experience with shipping these things internationally ( into other EU countries , not necessarily to the US ) ?
I 'd imagine the " nucular " aspect makes it a pain in the ass to ship ( or smuggle ) , but maybe I 'm overestimating the paranoia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tritium keyrings look pretty cool!
I'd love to order some, but does anyone have any experience with shipping these things internationally (into other EU countries, not necessarily to the US)?
I'd imagine the "nucular" aspect makes it a pain in the ass to ship (or smuggle), but maybe I'm overestimating the paranoia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046900</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265484300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because all the owners of the plant care about is making money. As a limited liability entity, there's little to no downside in not discovering or fixing a leak. All they stand to lose is their investment. If the cost of finding and/or fixing a leak is more than their investment, they won't bother.</p><p>This is why if we want to ramp up nuclear energy production in this country, the business paradigm has to shift, because the costs of leaks can be so enormous compared to the stake that the shareholders have. Perhaps what we need is to separate operations from maintenance. One company does operations, and so are incentivized to maximize production. A separate private entity is hired by operations (forced to be hired, by law) to police and spot errors, and they get paid to do this. The more problems they find, the more they get paid. It's all about incentive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because all the owners of the plant care about is making money .
As a limited liability entity , there 's little to no downside in not discovering or fixing a leak .
All they stand to lose is their investment .
If the cost of finding and/or fixing a leak is more than their investment , they wo n't bother.This is why if we want to ramp up nuclear energy production in this country , the business paradigm has to shift , because the costs of leaks can be so enormous compared to the stake that the shareholders have .
Perhaps what we need is to separate operations from maintenance .
One company does operations , and so are incentivized to maximize production .
A separate private entity is hired by operations ( forced to be hired , by law ) to police and spot errors , and they get paid to do this .
The more problems they find , the more they get paid .
It 's all about incentive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because all the owners of the plant care about is making money.
As a limited liability entity, there's little to no downside in not discovering or fixing a leak.
All they stand to lose is their investment.
If the cost of finding and/or fixing a leak is more than their investment, they won't bother.This is why if we want to ramp up nuclear energy production in this country, the business paradigm has to shift, because the costs of leaks can be so enormous compared to the stake that the shareholders have.
Perhaps what we need is to separate operations from maintenance.
One company does operations, and so are incentivized to maximize production.
A separate private entity is hired by operations (forced to be hired, by law) to police and spot errors, and they get paid to do this.
The more problems they find, the more they get paid.
It's all about incentive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047846</id>
	<title>Re:totally safe</title>
	<author>oznog</author>
	<datestamp>1265450040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because once tritium ends up inside a cell, beta particles have all the subtleness of a bull in a china shop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because once tritium ends up inside a cell , beta particles have all the subtleness of a bull in a china shop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because once tritium ends up inside a cell, beta particles have all the subtleness of a bull in a china shop!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046000</id>
	<title>If only Howard dean was still gov.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This shit wouldnt happen if howard dean was still in office. fuck jim douglas up his hate mongering ass!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This shit wouldnt happen if howard dean was still in office .
fuck jim douglas up his hate mongering ass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This shit wouldnt happen if howard dean was still in office.
fuck jim douglas up his hate mongering ass!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046392</id>
	<title>Re:to all the nuclear proponents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265480220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a serious problem, and taxpayers \_aren't\_ paying for it.</p><p>But if it \_was\_ a serious problem, then yes, taxpayers should pay for it. Just like taxpayers pay for it if my house catches on fire. And taxpayers would pay for it if a wind turbine collapsed, and taypayers pay to clean up the pollution left by coal plants and coal mining. You do realize that cleaning up the acid mine drainage from coal mines is mostly paid by taxes, right?</p><p>If it's a small leak or a small accident, then yes, the plant should and will pay for it. But in a serious emergency, do you really \_want\_ them to take care of it? The government has more training in disaster management, and they have more resources. Plus I'm not really gonna trust the people that caused the problem to fix it properly. So yes, taxes pay for disaster relief. That's the way it's always been. But when was the last time there was a disaster at a nuclear plant in the US? I can give you several places where the government is paying to clean up after coal just within a few miles of my house. But the only instance of them cleaning up after nuclear that I can think of is Three Mile Island. And that wasn't exactly expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a serious problem , and taxpayers \ _are n't \ _ paying for it.But if it \ _was \ _ a serious problem , then yes , taxpayers should pay for it .
Just like taxpayers pay for it if my house catches on fire .
And taxpayers would pay for it if a wind turbine collapsed , and taypayers pay to clean up the pollution left by coal plants and coal mining .
You do realize that cleaning up the acid mine drainage from coal mines is mostly paid by taxes , right ? If it 's a small leak or a small accident , then yes , the plant should and will pay for it .
But in a serious emergency , do you really \ _want \ _ them to take care of it ?
The government has more training in disaster management , and they have more resources .
Plus I 'm not really gon na trust the people that caused the problem to fix it properly .
So yes , taxes pay for disaster relief .
That 's the way it 's always been .
But when was the last time there was a disaster at a nuclear plant in the US ?
I can give you several places where the government is paying to clean up after coal just within a few miles of my house .
But the only instance of them cleaning up after nuclear that I can think of is Three Mile Island .
And that was n't exactly expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a serious problem, and taxpayers \_aren't\_ paying for it.But if it \_was\_ a serious problem, then yes, taxpayers should pay for it.
Just like taxpayers pay for it if my house catches on fire.
And taxpayers would pay for it if a wind turbine collapsed, and taypayers pay to clean up the pollution left by coal plants and coal mining.
You do realize that cleaning up the acid mine drainage from coal mines is mostly paid by taxes, right?If it's a small leak or a small accident, then yes, the plant should and will pay for it.
But in a serious emergency, do you really \_want\_ them to take care of it?
The government has more training in disaster management, and they have more resources.
Plus I'm not really gonna trust the people that caused the problem to fix it properly.
So yes, taxes pay for disaster relief.
That's the way it's always been.
But when was the last time there was a disaster at a nuclear plant in the US?
I can give you several places where the government is paying to clean up after coal just within a few miles of my house.
But the only instance of them cleaning up after nuclear that I can think of is Three Mile Island.
And that wasn't exactly expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046890</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1265484180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh for Bobs sake, put some chewing gum on the leak and lets get on with our lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh for Bobs sake , put some chewing gum on the leak and lets get on with our lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh for Bobs sake, put some chewing gum on the leak and lets get on with our lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046568</id>
	<title>Re:I won't lie- This concerns me</title>
	<author>rhyder128k</author>
	<datestamp>1265481540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't worry, nature has a way of balancing itself out and adapting to changes. You'll probably grow an extra cock, but you'll have extra fingers to hold it with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , nature has a way of balancing itself out and adapting to changes .
You 'll probably grow an extra cock , but you 'll have extra fingers to hold it with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, nature has a way of balancing itself out and adapting to changes.
You'll probably grow an extra cock, but you'll have extra fingers to hold it with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049024</id>
	<title>Re:Super powers</title>
	<author>HeadlessNotAHorseman</author>
	<datestamp>1265461560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What kind of super powers do I get if I drink that water?</p></div><p>The super power of slightly elevated cancer risk!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of super powers do I get if I drink that water ? The super power of slightly elevated cancer risk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of super powers do I get if I drink that water?The super power of slightly elevated cancer risk!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31065590</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not shocked they didn't know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265625780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sound a lot like software maintenance.. I'm currently in a role where part of my responsibility is to maintain a 12 year old smalltalk app.  Very similar to your situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sound a lot like software maintenance.. I 'm currently in a role where part of my responsibility is to maintain a 12 year old smalltalk app .
Very similar to your situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sound a lot like software maintenance.. I'm currently in a role where part of my responsibility is to maintain a 12 year old smalltalk app.
Very similar to your situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047248</id>
	<title>Re:totally safe</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1265487480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tritium releases a low energy beta particle, which is not particularly dangerous.  Other beta emitters, such as [32]P emit high energy beta particles that can penetrate the skin, or even create Bremsstrahlung X-rays. Not all emissions of the same type are equally energetic (or equally dangerous). But you're basically correct, it is totally safe for the time being.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium releases a low energy beta particle , which is not particularly dangerous .
Other beta emitters , such as [ 32 ] P emit high energy beta particles that can penetrate the skin , or even create Bremsstrahlung X-rays .
Not all emissions of the same type are equally energetic ( or equally dangerous ) .
But you 're basically correct , it is totally safe for the time being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium releases a low energy beta particle, which is not particularly dangerous.
Other beta emitters, such as [32]P emit high energy beta particles that can penetrate the skin, or even create Bremsstrahlung X-rays.
Not all emissions of the same type are equally energetic (or equally dangerous).
But you're basically correct, it is totally safe for the time being.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047770</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265449260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse.</i> </p><p>From the summary:</p><p> <i>37 times higher than the federal drinking water standard.</i> </p><p>and</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it.</i> </p><p>C'mon, pull my other leg. Engineers may design a three, four or five times safety margin into bridges or buildings, but who believes a toxicity standard is ever set at thirty-seven times the safe level? Someone here is full of crap. Even the standards for arsenic can't be anywhere near that high.</p><p>In most cases, setting such a limit would make nearly any  known substance unusable.</p><p> <i>What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse.</i> </p><p>It's routine for big corporations to have their transgressions overlooked. When I was in the Coast Guard many years ago, it was well known that Standard Oil had constantly seeping underwater pipelines at their fuel docks in San Francisco Bay. Applicable per-day fines could have run to thousands of dollars, but they were never imposed. Why? -- SO whined that they'd take their marbles and relocate elsewhere. The old "economic impact on the region" BS argument.</p><p>This despite the fact that the CG had absolute authority to enforce the law. In fact, we were told that we had jurisdiction over any conceivable pollution of the Bay. The example we were given was that, if there were a car crash on the adjacent Embarcadero Freeway (mercifully since removed following the Loma Prieta earthquake in '89), and oil ran down the freeway piers and into the water, the CG had authority to go up on the freeway and cite the owner of source vehicle for pollution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse .
From the summary : 37 times higher than the federal drinking water standard .
and ...safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it .
C'mon , pull my other leg .
Engineers may design a three , four or five times safety margin into bridges or buildings , but who believes a toxicity standard is ever set at thirty-seven times the safe level ?
Someone here is full of crap .
Even the standards for arsenic ca n't be anywhere near that high.In most cases , setting such a limit would make nearly any known substance unusable .
What I do n't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse .
It 's routine for big corporations to have their transgressions overlooked .
When I was in the Coast Guard many years ago , it was well known that Standard Oil had constantly seeping underwater pipelines at their fuel docks in San Francisco Bay .
Applicable per-day fines could have run to thousands of dollars , but they were never imposed .
Why ? -- SO whined that they 'd take their marbles and relocate elsewhere .
The old " economic impact on the region " BS argument.This despite the fact that the CG had absolute authority to enforce the law .
In fact , we were told that we had jurisdiction over any conceivable pollution of the Bay .
The example we were given was that , if there were a car crash on the adjacent Embarcadero Freeway ( mercifully since removed following the Loma Prieta earthquake in '89 ) , and oil ran down the freeway piers and into the water , the CG had authority to go up on the freeway and cite the owner of source vehicle for pollution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse.
From the summary: 37 times higher than the federal drinking water standard.
and ...safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it.
C'mon, pull my other leg.
Engineers may design a three, four or five times safety margin into bridges or buildings, but who believes a toxicity standard is ever set at thirty-seven times the safe level?
Someone here is full of crap.
Even the standards for arsenic can't be anywhere near that high.In most cases, setting such a limit would make nearly any  known substance unusable.
What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse.
It's routine for big corporations to have their transgressions overlooked.
When I was in the Coast Guard many years ago, it was well known that Standard Oil had constantly seeping underwater pipelines at their fuel docks in San Francisco Bay.
Applicable per-day fines could have run to thousands of dollars, but they were never imposed.
Why? -- SO whined that they'd take their marbles and relocate elsewhere.
The old "economic impact on the region" BS argument.This despite the fact that the CG had absolute authority to enforce the law.
In fact, we were told that we had jurisdiction over any conceivable pollution of the Bay.
The example we were given was that, if there were a car crash on the adjacent Embarcadero Freeway (mercifully since removed following the Loma Prieta earthquake in '89), and oil ran down the freeway piers and into the water, the CG had authority to go up on the freeway and cite the owner of source vehicle for pollution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047480</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1265446980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that some categories of tritium-powered light sources may not be legal to manufacture in the US, though they seem to be legal to import, sell, and own. Why can I buy a tritium gunsight or exit sign, but those keychains and similar products are so rare?</p><p>If items like the keychains are not legal then the ban isn't enforced. DX ships them here, where they have stopped shipping lasers &gt; 5mW to the US. United Nuclear sells them, as posted, and I've never heard of a private sale shipment getting confiscated by US Customs in the forums where people talk about this stuff.</p><p>(Anyone who wants some of these things, check candlepower forums. A couple of guys there do direct sales and it costs a lot less than what United Nuclear charges.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that some categories of tritium-powered light sources may not be legal to manufacture in the US , though they seem to be legal to import , sell , and own .
Why can I buy a tritium gunsight or exit sign , but those keychains and similar products are so rare ? If items like the keychains are not legal then the ban is n't enforced .
DX ships them here , where they have stopped shipping lasers &gt; 5mW to the US .
United Nuclear sells them , as posted , and I 've never heard of a private sale shipment getting confiscated by US Customs in the forums where people talk about this stuff .
( Anyone who wants some of these things , check candlepower forums .
A couple of guys there do direct sales and it costs a lot less than what United Nuclear charges .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that some categories of tritium-powered light sources may not be legal to manufacture in the US, though they seem to be legal to import, sell, and own.
Why can I buy a tritium gunsight or exit sign, but those keychains and similar products are so rare?If items like the keychains are not legal then the ban isn't enforced.
DX ships them here, where they have stopped shipping lasers &gt; 5mW to the US.
United Nuclear sells them, as posted, and I've never heard of a private sale shipment getting confiscated by US Customs in the forums where people talk about this stuff.
(Anyone who wants some of these things, check candlepower forums.
A couple of guys there do direct sales and it costs a lot less than what United Nuclear charges.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046486</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265480940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>COOL! X men are on the way! Was Wolverine born in Vermont? I thought he was canadian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>COOL !
X men are on the way !
Was Wolverine born in Vermont ?
I thought he was canadian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>COOL!
X men are on the way!
Was Wolverine born in Vermont?
I thought he was canadian.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046286</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265479200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia, they had incompetent idiots running their nuclear powerplants, and a government not willing to do the right thing and shut them down. Disaster was the result.</p><p>In Corporatist America, they have incompetent idiots running the nuclear powerplants, and a government not willing to do the right thing and shut them down. Disaster in the making?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , they had incompetent idiots running their nuclear powerplants , and a government not willing to do the right thing and shut them down .
Disaster was the result.In Corporatist America , they have incompetent idiots running the nuclear powerplants , and a government not willing to do the right thing and shut them down .
Disaster in the making ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, they had incompetent idiots running their nuclear powerplants, and a government not willing to do the right thing and shut them down.
Disaster was the result.In Corporatist America, they have incompetent idiots running the nuclear powerplants, and a government not willing to do the right thing and shut them down.
Disaster in the making?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046534</id>
	<title>Re:I won't lie- This concerns me</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1265481300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>

We hear your concerns and we are instituting a remediation program immediately!  You should shortly be receiving a package via USPS bulk rate. In it you will find a shovel, a radiation detection badge, and a large zippered radiation proof bag. <br> <br>Directions<br> <br>Take the shovel and dig a "Safety" hole three feet wide, 4 to 6 feet deep, and about as long as you are tall. <br> Put on the detection badge. Please wear the detection badge at all times. <br>You will note the badge has the words "Hell No, We Don't Glow" printed on it.<br> If those words fad out OR if the badge does in fact begin to glow you should take the bag and climb into the Safety Hole. <br>Get in the bag and zipper it up from the inside to keep the radiation out. Now lay quietly in the bottom of the Safety Hole until help arrives.<br> <br>Thanks for your cooperation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We hear your concerns and we are instituting a remediation program immediately !
You should shortly be receiving a package via USPS bulk rate .
In it you will find a shovel , a radiation detection badge , and a large zippered radiation proof bag .
Directions Take the shovel and dig a " Safety " hole three feet wide , 4 to 6 feet deep , and about as long as you are tall .
Put on the detection badge .
Please wear the detection badge at all times .
You will note the badge has the words " Hell No , We Do n't Glow " printed on it .
If those words fad out OR if the badge does in fact begin to glow you should take the bag and climb into the Safety Hole .
Get in the bag and zipper it up from the inside to keep the radiation out .
Now lay quietly in the bottom of the Safety Hole until help arrives .
Thanks for your cooperation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

We hear your concerns and we are instituting a remediation program immediately!
You should shortly be receiving a package via USPS bulk rate.
In it you will find a shovel, a radiation detection badge, and a large zippered radiation proof bag.
Directions Take the shovel and dig a "Safety" hole three feet wide, 4 to 6 feet deep, and about as long as you are tall.
Put on the detection badge.
Please wear the detection badge at all times.
You will note the badge has the words "Hell No, We Don't Glow" printed on it.
If those words fad out OR if the badge does in fact begin to glow you should take the bag and climb into the Safety Hole.
Get in the bag and zipper it up from the inside to keep the radiation out.
Now lay quietly in the bottom of the Safety Hole until help arrives.
Thanks for your cooperation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046216</id>
	<title>Not A Major Concern</title>
	<author>echusarcana</author>
	<datestamp>1265478600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A light water reactor isn't capable of producing much tritium since hydrogen has to absorb two neutrons to become it.  Since it doesn't exist in nature any amount, no matter how small, is detectable. Not really a concern. You would most likely get more radiation exposure from coal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A light water reactor is n't capable of producing much tritium since hydrogen has to absorb two neutrons to become it .
Since it does n't exist in nature any amount , no matter how small , is detectable .
Not really a concern .
You would most likely get more radiation exposure from coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A light water reactor isn't capable of producing much tritium since hydrogen has to absorb two neutrons to become it.
Since it doesn't exist in nature any amount, no matter how small, is detectable.
Not really a concern.
You would most likely get more radiation exposure from coal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048024</id>
	<title>"At what level?!?"</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1265452020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey; I have an idea: Let's apply the nuke plant standard for isotope release to COAL plants!<br>];)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey ; I have an idea : Let 's apply the nuke plant standard for isotope release to COAL plants !
] ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey; I have an idea: Let's apply the nuke plant standard for isotope release to COAL plants!
];)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047414</id>
	<title>Super powers</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1265489280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of super powers do I get if I drink that water?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of super powers do I get if I drink that water ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of super powers do I get if I drink that water?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046660</id>
	<title>I'm not shocked they didn't know</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1265482320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the 10000 or so jobs I have over the years was working in a refinery for a few months. During that time some of the workers tried to find some pipes for maintenance. No one knew where they were. There were the design diagrams, the "as-builts" and numerous additions and removals by contractors upgrading and doing maintenance. Some new ones were out in, some ripped out, and others abandoned in place.</p><p>Metal detectors did not help, there was too much metal buried and scattered around.</p><p>The situation was so bad they resorted to dowsing. I'm serious!</p><p>Lately I've heard of small robots using GPS to travel a pipe and map it out. But with so many old plants and old pipes, it will be a long time before the situation is unsnarled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the 10000 or so jobs I have over the years was working in a refinery for a few months .
During that time some of the workers tried to find some pipes for maintenance .
No one knew where they were .
There were the design diagrams , the " as-builts " and numerous additions and removals by contractors upgrading and doing maintenance .
Some new ones were out in , some ripped out , and others abandoned in place.Metal detectors did not help , there was too much metal buried and scattered around.The situation was so bad they resorted to dowsing .
I 'm serious ! Lately I 've heard of small robots using GPS to travel a pipe and map it out .
But with so many old plants and old pipes , it will be a long time before the situation is unsnarled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the 10000 or so jobs I have over the years was working in a refinery for a few months.
During that time some of the workers tried to find some pipes for maintenance.
No one knew where they were.
There were the design diagrams, the "as-builts" and numerous additions and removals by contractors upgrading and doing maintenance.
Some new ones were out in, some ripped out, and others abandoned in place.Metal detectors did not help, there was too much metal buried and scattered around.The situation was so bad they resorted to dowsing.
I'm serious!Lately I've heard of small robots using GPS to travel a pipe and map it out.
But with so many old plants and old pipes, it will be a long time before the situation is unsnarled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047810</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>ahabswhale</author>
	<datestamp>1265449620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse."</p><p>I'll tell you why.  It's because the EPA is no longer in the business of protecting citizens.  They are in the business of protecting corporations and whatever whims the government may have at the time.  For another example of their carefree regard concerning public safety just look at 9/11 where they declared the area safe in spite of all the dangerous particulate matter in the air and now rescuers who didn't have proper protective gear are having serious health issues (while being simultaneously told to go fuck themselves when it comes to covering their health care costs).  The EPA is a joke.  I don't see any point to their existence if they won't do their job.  They are a waste of taxpayer money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What I do n't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse .
" I 'll tell you why .
It 's because the EPA is no longer in the business of protecting citizens .
They are in the business of protecting corporations and whatever whims the government may have at the time .
For another example of their carefree regard concerning public safety just look at 9/11 where they declared the area safe in spite of all the dangerous particulate matter in the air and now rescuers who did n't have proper protective gear are having serious health issues ( while being simultaneously told to go fuck themselves when it comes to covering their health care costs ) .
The EPA is a joke .
I do n't see any point to their existence if they wo n't do their job .
They are a waste of taxpayer money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse.
"I'll tell you why.
It's because the EPA is no longer in the business of protecting citizens.
They are in the business of protecting corporations and whatever whims the government may have at the time.
For another example of their carefree regard concerning public safety just look at 9/11 where they declared the area safe in spite of all the dangerous particulate matter in the air and now rescuers who didn't have proper protective gear are having serious health issues (while being simultaneously told to go fuck themselves when it comes to covering their health care costs).
The EPA is a joke.
I don't see any point to their existence if they won't do their job.
They are a waste of taxpayer money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31054856</id>
	<title>Tritium Safer Than Tobacco Smoke</title>
	<author>sudon't</author>
	<datestamp>1265537520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We know this because the EPA has told us that, while there is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke, safe levels have been established for radiation exposure.
Since I'm not dead, I'd say there's nothing to worry about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We know this because the EPA has told us that , while there is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke , safe levels have been established for radiation exposure .
Since I 'm not dead , I 'd say there 's nothing to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know this because the EPA has told us that, while there is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke, safe levels have been established for radiation exposure.
Since I'm not dead, I'd say there's nothing to worry about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046378</id>
	<title>Acceptable risks</title>
	<author>Zemran</author>
	<datestamp>1265480100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one person in one hundred thousand starts to glow in the dark and dies, it is considered an acceptable risk for everyone except that person.  No one can prove that that cancer that killed that person was caused by the leak so they can get away with it.  It is statistically insignificant.  I do not like to think that manslaughter is insignificant but these people think that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one person in one hundred thousand starts to glow in the dark and dies , it is considered an acceptable risk for everyone except that person .
No one can prove that that cancer that killed that person was caused by the leak so they can get away with it .
It is statistically insignificant .
I do not like to think that manslaughter is insignificant but these people think that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one person in one hundred thousand starts to glow in the dark and dies, it is considered an acceptable risk for everyone except that person.
No one can prove that that cancer that killed that person was caused by the leak so they can get away with it.
It is statistically insignificant.
I do not like to think that manslaughter is insignificant but these people think that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046822</id>
	<title>Re:to all the nuclear proponents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265483580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd prefer tritanium over mercury, but then I don't have a choice in that matter whether coal power plants spew mercury/thorium/uranium all over me. Who pays those cleanup costs?</p><p>Seriously, tritanium is also known as Hydrogen (2n+p). Half life is short (12 years if I remember correctly). It dilutes. Biological half life is 10 days or something like that. But who needs real information if there is you got fear?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd prefer tritanium over mercury , but then I do n't have a choice in that matter whether coal power plants spew mercury/thorium/uranium all over me .
Who pays those cleanup costs ? Seriously , tritanium is also known as Hydrogen ( 2n + p ) .
Half life is short ( 12 years if I remember correctly ) .
It dilutes .
Biological half life is 10 days or something like that .
But who needs real information if there is you got fear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd prefer tritanium over mercury, but then I don't have a choice in that matter whether coal power plants spew mercury/thorium/uranium all over me.
Who pays those cleanup costs?Seriously, tritanium is also known as Hydrogen (2n+p).
Half life is short (12 years if I remember correctly).
It dilutes.
Biological half life is 10 days or something like that.
But who needs real information if there is you got fear?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31051032</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, I wonder if they're hiding anything?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265534220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>37x the amount is actually a 3700\%, increase still, you should be fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>37x the amount is actually a 3700 \ % , increase still , you should be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>37x the amount is actually a 3700\%, increase still, you should be fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048220</id>
	<title>Re:to all the nuclear proponents</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265454240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean when radiation is found at a nuclear plant?</p><p>However, I see your point and agree that either both must be privatized or both must be socialized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean when radiation is found at a nuclear plant ? However , I see your point and agree that either both must be privatized or both must be socialized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean when radiation is found at a nuclear plant?However, I see your point and agree that either both must be privatized or both must be socialized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047666</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1265448300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>775,000 picocuries per liter = 775,000 * 10^-12 * 3.7 * 10^10 decays/second per liter = 28 675 decays/sec per liter<br> <br>

I'm not sure how energetically tritium decays and cbf looking it up, but I doubt that's enough to emit anything close to enough photons to be visible, which means that compared to those glow sticks the tritium is incredibly dilute.<br>
I expect the expense in commercial tritium production is creating it in concentrated form, I really doubt the leaked tritium had any significant value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>775,000 picocuries per liter = 775,000 * 10 ^ -12 * 3.7 * 10 ^ 10 decays/second per liter = 28 675 decays/sec per liter I 'm not sure how energetically tritium decays and cbf looking it up , but I doubt that 's enough to emit anything close to enough photons to be visible , which means that compared to those glow sticks the tritium is incredibly dilute .
I expect the expense in commercial tritium production is creating it in concentrated form , I really doubt the leaked tritium had any significant value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>775,000 picocuries per liter = 775,000 * 10^-12 * 3.7 * 10^10 decays/second per liter = 28 675 decays/sec per liter 

I'm not sure how energetically tritium decays and cbf looking it up, but I doubt that's enough to emit anything close to enough photons to be visible, which means that compared to those glow sticks the tritium is incredibly dilute.
I expect the expense in commercial tritium production is creating it in concentrated form, I really doubt the leaked tritium had any significant value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049474</id>
	<title>Re:Now everyone go to your corners and rant.</title>
	<author>wrook</author>
	<datestamp>1265465700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trick is that "far-left" and "far-right" are simply inventions to keep people arguing about trivial matters.  So occupied, the masses don't realize what is actually happening in the circles of power.  It amuses me that American media is always so polarized.  The even hire people to take up "far-right" and "far-left" stances and argue on camera.  Given the vitriol engendered in their arguments, viewers mistakenly believe that the topics are important.  This allows policy makers to carry on with their agenda without interference from the unwashed masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trick is that " far-left " and " far-right " are simply inventions to keep people arguing about trivial matters .
So occupied , the masses do n't realize what is actually happening in the circles of power .
It amuses me that American media is always so polarized .
The even hire people to take up " far-right " and " far-left " stances and argue on camera .
Given the vitriol engendered in their arguments , viewers mistakenly believe that the topics are important .
This allows policy makers to carry on with their agenda without interference from the unwashed masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trick is that "far-left" and "far-right" are simply inventions to keep people arguing about trivial matters.
So occupied, the masses don't realize what is actually happening in the circles of power.
It amuses me that American media is always so polarized.
The even hire people to take up "far-right" and "far-left" stances and argue on camera.
Given the vitriol engendered in their arguments, viewers mistakenly believe that the topics are important.
This allows policy makers to carry on with their agenda without interference from the unwashed masses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046552</id>
	<title>totally safe</title>
	<author>hamanu</author>
	<datestamp>1265481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the love of god, tritium decays by beta particle emission. Why the boy-who-cried-wolf nuclear panic over a beta emitter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the love of god , tritium decays by beta particle emission .
Why the boy-who-cried-wolf nuclear panic over a beta emitter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the love of god, tritium decays by beta particle emission.
Why the boy-who-cried-wolf nuclear panic over a beta emitter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31061714</id>
	<title>This...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265651220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is not the tritium leak you are looking for. Move along... [jedi wave]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is not the tritium leak you are looking for .
Move along... [ jedi wave ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is not the tritium leak you are looking for.
Move along... [jedi wave]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046506</id>
	<title>Re:we do not apply limits</title>
	<author>HiddenCamper</author>
	<datestamp>1265481060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually they did act. They noticed the rates increasing. They added more wells and kept testing to locate the problem. They are self-policing and reporting using their corrective action process. Going over a limit will get them a hefty fine, but all things considered when a problem just pops up like this you dont know where its at and you have little control over it. They are doing the right things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they did act .
They noticed the rates increasing .
They added more wells and kept testing to locate the problem .
They are self-policing and reporting using their corrective action process .
Going over a limit will get them a hefty fine , but all things considered when a problem just pops up like this you dont know where its at and you have little control over it .
They are doing the right things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they did act.
They noticed the rates increasing.
They added more wells and kept testing to locate the problem.
They are self-policing and reporting using their corrective action process.
Going over a limit will get them a hefty fine, but all things considered when a problem just pops up like this you dont know where its at and you have little control over it.
They are doing the right things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046120</id>
	<title>actually, the levels only doubled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article says the levels in the well from before doubled and are still below the federal level. Levels at another existing well dropped. And a new well was drilled to try to find the leak and it has a much higher concentration of tritium.</p><p>Unless you're drinking from the new well (and no one is, it's a test well), this doesn't really affect you at all. It's not like you're getting 37x as much radiation now (at least as far as the data we have says). And it's part of the process of finding the leak and fixing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says the levels in the well from before doubled and are still below the federal level .
Levels at another existing well dropped .
And a new well was drilled to try to find the leak and it has a much higher concentration of tritium.Unless you 're drinking from the new well ( and no one is , it 's a test well ) , this does n't really affect you at all .
It 's not like you 're getting 37x as much radiation now ( at least as far as the data we have says ) .
And it 's part of the process of finding the leak and fixing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says the levels in the well from before doubled and are still below the federal level.
Levels at another existing well dropped.
And a new well was drilled to try to find the leak and it has a much higher concentration of tritium.Unless you're drinking from the new well (and no one is, it's a test well), this doesn't really affect you at all.
It's not like you're getting 37x as much radiation now (at least as far as the data we have says).
And it's part of the process of finding the leak and fixing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</id>
	<title>They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1265480340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...because tritium's <i>really expensive to make</i> and they're wasting it.

</p><p>A few years back I bought a bunch of <a href="http://www.glosticks.co.uk/tritium-glow-rings-c-24.html" title="glosticks.co.uk">glow-in-the-dark keyrings</a> [glosticks.co.uk] as stocking fillers for my family. These are little tubes containing tritium. The tritium produces very low energy beta particles, which excite phosphor on the inside of the tube, which cause them to glow. They have a half-life of 12 years, which in effect means that they glow usefully for about five or six years before they need replacing. (I should probably get them new ones.)

</p><p>Let me repeat that: it's a little glowing thing that will glow for <i>six years</i>, continuously. They don't need recharging, they don't need their batteries changed, they don't need exposure to sunlight. They're fantastic for safety-critical things like exit signs. My father sails, and he has his tied to the end of the emergency torch on his boat --- it means that if he needs it in a hurry in the dark, he can <i>find</i> it. I know a nurse who uses them to find things in bags of equipment. They're really handy.

</p><p>Naturally, they're banned in the US, because they're atomic.

</p><p>(Tritium, being hydrogen and really hard to contain, will slowly diffuse out through the walls of the glass tube and into the environment. However there's a tiny, tiny amount of the stuff, and the radioactivity they emit is so weak it won't penetrate six millimetres of air, let alone anything solid. I suppose it is possible to absorb the stuff into the body --- we are largely made of hydrogen, after all --- but the low energies, short half-life and tiny quantities means that you're probably more likely to get radiation damage from Bikini Atoll than your tritium keyring.)

</p><p>Incidentally, did you know that after the Chalk River reactor in Canada was shut down in 2009 due to overreaction, there is now a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes? There are only five reactors worldwide, sorry, four now, that produce the stuff. I wonder how many people that shutdown has killed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...because tritium 's really expensive to make and they 're wasting it .
A few years back I bought a bunch of glow-in-the-dark keyrings [ glosticks.co.uk ] as stocking fillers for my family .
These are little tubes containing tritium .
The tritium produces very low energy beta particles , which excite phosphor on the inside of the tube , which cause them to glow .
They have a half-life of 12 years , which in effect means that they glow usefully for about five or six years before they need replacing .
( I should probably get them new ones .
) Let me repeat that : it 's a little glowing thing that will glow for six years , continuously .
They do n't need recharging , they do n't need their batteries changed , they do n't need exposure to sunlight .
They 're fantastic for safety-critical things like exit signs .
My father sails , and he has his tied to the end of the emergency torch on his boat --- it means that if he needs it in a hurry in the dark , he can find it .
I know a nurse who uses them to find things in bags of equipment .
They 're really handy .
Naturally , they 're banned in the US , because they 're atomic .
( Tritium , being hydrogen and really hard to contain , will slowly diffuse out through the walls of the glass tube and into the environment .
However there 's a tiny , tiny amount of the stuff , and the radioactivity they emit is so weak it wo n't penetrate six millimetres of air , let alone anything solid .
I suppose it is possible to absorb the stuff into the body --- we are largely made of hydrogen , after all --- but the low energies , short half-life and tiny quantities means that you 're probably more likely to get radiation damage from Bikini Atoll than your tritium keyring .
) Incidentally , did you know that after the Chalk River reactor in Canada was shut down in 2009 due to overreaction , there is now a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes ?
There are only five reactors worldwide , sorry , four now , that produce the stuff .
I wonder how many people that shutdown has killed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because tritium's really expensive to make and they're wasting it.
A few years back I bought a bunch of glow-in-the-dark keyrings [glosticks.co.uk] as stocking fillers for my family.
These are little tubes containing tritium.
The tritium produces very low energy beta particles, which excite phosphor on the inside of the tube, which cause them to glow.
They have a half-life of 12 years, which in effect means that they glow usefully for about five or six years before they need replacing.
(I should probably get them new ones.
)

Let me repeat that: it's a little glowing thing that will glow for six years, continuously.
They don't need recharging, they don't need their batteries changed, they don't need exposure to sunlight.
They're fantastic for safety-critical things like exit signs.
My father sails, and he has his tied to the end of the emergency torch on his boat --- it means that if he needs it in a hurry in the dark, he can find it.
I know a nurse who uses them to find things in bags of equipment.
They're really handy.
Naturally, they're banned in the US, because they're atomic.
(Tritium, being hydrogen and really hard to contain, will slowly diffuse out through the walls of the glass tube and into the environment.
However there's a tiny, tiny amount of the stuff, and the radioactivity they emit is so weak it won't penetrate six millimetres of air, let alone anything solid.
I suppose it is possible to absorb the stuff into the body --- we are largely made of hydrogen, after all --- but the low energies, short half-life and tiny quantities means that you're probably more likely to get radiation damage from Bikini Atoll than your tritium keyring.
)

Incidentally, did you know that after the Chalk River reactor in Canada was shut down in 2009 due to overreaction, there is now a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes?
There are only five reactors worldwide, sorry, four now, that produce the stuff.
I wonder how many people that shutdown has killed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046556</id>
	<title>Re:we do not apply limits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a limit for DRINKING WATER. Are anybody going dig a well there and drink it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a limit for DRINKING WATER .
Are anybody going dig a well there and drink it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a limit for DRINKING WATER.
Are anybody going dig a well there and drink it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048196</id>
	<title>Re:I won't lie- This concerns me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265453760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and It is a bit concerning</i> </p><p>Only pompous dicks use "concerning" as an adjective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and It is a bit concerning Only pompous dicks use " concerning " as an adjective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and It is a bit concerning Only pompous dicks use "concerning" as an adjective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047994</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not shocked they didn't know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265451780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No one knew where they were. There were the design diagrams, the "as-builts" and numerous additions and removals by contractors upgrading and doing maintenance.</p></div><p>You're lucky you even had "as-builts".  And you'd be even more lucky for them to actually be correct.  In my experience, in the oil industry there is little or no relation between "as-sold" specs, design, what is built, and what is actually installed.  I can only imagine what it ends up looking like after ten years of maintenance and modifications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one knew where they were .
There were the design diagrams , the " as-builts " and numerous additions and removals by contractors upgrading and doing maintenance.You 're lucky you even had " as-builts " .
And you 'd be even more lucky for them to actually be correct .
In my experience , in the oil industry there is little or no relation between " as-sold " specs , design , what is built , and what is actually installed .
I can only imagine what it ends up looking like after ten years of maintenance and modifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one knew where they were.
There were the design diagrams, the "as-builts" and numerous additions and removals by contractors upgrading and doing maintenance.You're lucky you even had "as-builts".
And you'd be even more lucky for them to actually be correct.
In my experience, in the oil industry there is little or no relation between "as-sold" specs, design, what is built, and what is actually installed.
I can only imagine what it ends up looking like after ten years of maintenance and modifications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284</id>
	<title>Now everyone go to your corners and rant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265479140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Far-Right:<br>There's nothing to see here, it's just those damn liberals and their whining about nuclear power.  It's all perfectly safe, there's absolutely no problems whats-so-ever with this plant or any other plant.  A possible indicator of other problems around the country?  Pshaw..  more liberal clap-trap.  We can fix all our power problems with just building a lot of nuclear plants.  Waste schmaste.</p><p>Far-Left:<br>This is just PROOF that the nuclear power industry are all a bunch of bastard weasels.  We ought to shut the whole shootin-match down for good.  We can get all of our power from wind and solar anyway.  37 times the standard!  I bet the standard is set too high anyway!  These plants are all rotting from neglect, and there's probably a ton they're not telling us!  I recently saw The China Syndrome and Silkwood, and let me tell you that's all just the tip of the iceberg!  Chernobyl!</p><p>I'm just really sick of the nonsense on both sides.  They both insulate themselves from the other and don't want to hear any real truths from "the other side".  The whole nuclear power issue is 90\% a "side of the room argument" where nobody wants to be associated with an idea from "the other side".  This is what needs to stop to make any progress on the whole issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Far-Right : There 's nothing to see here , it 's just those damn liberals and their whining about nuclear power .
It 's all perfectly safe , there 's absolutely no problems whats-so-ever with this plant or any other plant .
A possible indicator of other problems around the country ?
Pshaw.. more liberal clap-trap .
We can fix all our power problems with just building a lot of nuclear plants .
Waste schmaste.Far-Left : This is just PROOF that the nuclear power industry are all a bunch of bastard weasels .
We ought to shut the whole shootin-match down for good .
We can get all of our power from wind and solar anyway .
37 times the standard !
I bet the standard is set too high anyway !
These plants are all rotting from neglect , and there 's probably a ton they 're not telling us !
I recently saw The China Syndrome and Silkwood , and let me tell you that 's all just the tip of the iceberg !
Chernobyl ! I 'm just really sick of the nonsense on both sides .
They both insulate themselves from the other and do n't want to hear any real truths from " the other side " .
The whole nuclear power issue is 90 \ % a " side of the room argument " where nobody wants to be associated with an idea from " the other side " .
This is what needs to stop to make any progress on the whole issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far-Right:There's nothing to see here, it's just those damn liberals and their whining about nuclear power.
It's all perfectly safe, there's absolutely no problems whats-so-ever with this plant or any other plant.
A possible indicator of other problems around the country?
Pshaw..  more liberal clap-trap.
We can fix all our power problems with just building a lot of nuclear plants.
Waste schmaste.Far-Left:This is just PROOF that the nuclear power industry are all a bunch of bastard weasels.
We ought to shut the whole shootin-match down for good.
We can get all of our power from wind and solar anyway.
37 times the standard!
I bet the standard is set too high anyway!
These plants are all rotting from neglect, and there's probably a ton they're not telling us!
I recently saw The China Syndrome and Silkwood, and let me tell you that's all just the tip of the iceberg!
Chernobyl!I'm just really sick of the nonsense on both sides.
They both insulate themselves from the other and don't want to hear any real truths from "the other side".
The whole nuclear power issue is 90\% a "side of the room argument" where nobody wants to be associated with an idea from "the other side".
This is what needs to stop to make any progress on the whole issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046110</id>
	<title>How many lives?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many lives are put at risk when we take a large electrical generation plant off-line?  Very tough to calculate, because the impact is so distributed, but there are concrete consequences, none the less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many lives are put at risk when we take a large electrical generation plant off-line ?
Very tough to calculate , because the impact is so distributed , but there are concrete consequences , none the less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many lives are put at risk when we take a large electrical generation plant off-line?
Very tough to calculate, because the impact is so distributed, but there are concrete consequences, none the less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046074</id>
	<title>Get my Tritium and Helium 3 kits TODAY!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><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>Make BIG $$$$ by buying my kit to salvage that Tritium and Helium 3! The Gold market is in a bubble, the stock market is going down, the Real Estate Market is flat and MORE foreclosures are on their way! Glen Beck has expounded on his radio show about how Tritium and Helium 3 is the ONLY hedge against the Obama caused inflation! The Dollar is DEAD! Get the kit and become RICH!</p><p>Just capture the Tritium and Helium 3 with the kit, mail it in, receive your check for BIG $$$$$$!!</p><p>Buy now! </p><p>Just ten equal payments of $19.99 charged to your credit card in a span of minutes! And if you act NOW, we'll throw in another one for absolutely free!</p><p>Just call!</p><p>1-800-STUPIDS</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3 .
Make BIG $ $ $ $ by buying my kit to salvage that Tritium and Helium 3 !
The Gold market is in a bubble , the stock market is going down , the Real Estate Market is flat and MORE foreclosures are on their way !
Glen Beck has expounded on his radio show about how Tritium and Helium 3 is the ONLY hedge against the Obama caused inflation !
The Dollar is DEAD !
Get the kit and become RICH ! Just capture the Tritium and Helium 3 with the kit , mail it in , receive your check for BIG $ $ $ $ $ $ !
! Buy now !
Just ten equal payments of $ 19.99 charged to your credit card in a span of minutes !
And if you act NOW , we 'll throw in another one for absolutely free ! Just call ! 1-800-STUPIDS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3.
Make BIG $$$$ by buying my kit to salvage that Tritium and Helium 3!
The Gold market is in a bubble, the stock market is going down, the Real Estate Market is flat and MORE foreclosures are on their way!
Glen Beck has expounded on his radio show about how Tritium and Helium 3 is the ONLY hedge against the Obama caused inflation!
The Dollar is DEAD!
Get the kit and become RICH!Just capture the Tritium and Helium 3 with the kit, mail it in, receive your check for BIG $$$$$$!
!Buy now!
Just ten equal payments of $19.99 charged to your credit card in a span of minutes!
And if you act NOW, we'll throw in another one for absolutely free!Just call!1-800-STUPIDS
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049148</id>
	<title>Re:How many lives?</title>
	<author>raehl</author>
	<datestamp>1265462340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>there are concrete consequences</i></p><p>Did someone invent concrete that runs on electricity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are concrete consequencesDid someone invent concrete that runs on electricity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are concrete consequencesDid someone invent concrete that runs on electricity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046460</id>
	<title>What a bunch of numbskulls.</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1265480760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We get far more exposure from radon outgassing from the granite countertops in our kitchens.</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p><p>Let's pay attention to something we can actually get exposed to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We get far more exposure from radon outgassing from the granite countertops in our kitchens.http : //www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html [ nytimes.com ] Let 's pay attention to something we can actually get exposed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We get far more exposure from radon outgassing from the granite countertops in our kitchens.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html [nytimes.com]Let's pay attention to something we can actually get exposed to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046186</id>
	<title>how low can you go?</title>
	<author>smoothnorman</author>
	<datestamp>1265478360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"At what level...?" is always an curious legalistic way to go about the question.  I'd reply "as low as possible", that is, it becomes an engineering/economic question, not a biochemical one.  How low a leakage of tritium (not good for human ingestion at <i>any</i> level) is feasible?  and/or: i'll wager they can do much better than where it currently stands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" At what level... ?
" is always an curious legalistic way to go about the question .
I 'd reply " as low as possible " , that is , it becomes an engineering/economic question , not a biochemical one .
How low a leakage of tritium ( not good for human ingestion at any level ) is feasible ?
and/or : i 'll wager they can do much better than where it currently stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At what level...?
" is always an curious legalistic way to go about the question.
I'd reply "as low as possible", that is, it becomes an engineering/economic question, not a biochemical one.
How low a leakage of tritium (not good for human ingestion at any level) is feasible?
and/or: i'll wager they can do much better than where it currently stands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046064</id>
	<title>When life gives you lemons, make lemonade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely there's plenty of potential for making heavy water (d2o), right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely there 's plenty of potential for making heavy water ( d2o ) , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely there's plenty of potential for making heavy water (d2o), right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046162</id>
	<title>How are they allowed to keep running?</title>
	<author>Pete Venkman</author>
	<datestamp>1265478120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that the whole purpose of testing groundwater was to find and STOP contamination.  If they've repeatedly failed this test, how are they allowed to continue operations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that the whole purpose of testing groundwater was to find and STOP contamination .
If they 've repeatedly failed this test , how are they allowed to continue operations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that the whole purpose of testing groundwater was to find and STOP contamination.
If they've repeatedly failed this test, how are they allowed to continue operations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047866</id>
	<title>Re:to all the nuclear proponents</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265450280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think nuclear is something we're going to have to use, but I am \_extremely\_ worried it's going to be another privatize the gains and socialize the losses deal.</i></p><p>That's because our system doesn't really respect private property rights.  If the Yankee plant leaks into private wells, each well owner should be able to sue Yankee for the full value of that land and anything on it.  If it's critical the whole Town is up for compensation.  Whole towns are so expensive that it's cheaper to just do maintenance.</p><p>If it gets into the Connecticut River (adjacent) the owner of the River should be able to sue Yankee for the full value of the river from that point south.  But, oh, wait, the river only belongs to the 'State' of NH and they're not going to do anything about it.</p><p>(I understand the Yankee plant leak isn't that bad, but the mechanistic problems here are the concern).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think nuclear is something we 're going to have to use , but I am \ _extremely \ _ worried it 's going to be another privatize the gains and socialize the losses deal.That 's because our system does n't really respect private property rights .
If the Yankee plant leaks into private wells , each well owner should be able to sue Yankee for the full value of that land and anything on it .
If it 's critical the whole Town is up for compensation .
Whole towns are so expensive that it 's cheaper to just do maintenance.If it gets into the Connecticut River ( adjacent ) the owner of the River should be able to sue Yankee for the full value of the river from that point south .
But , oh , wait , the river only belongs to the 'State ' of NH and they 're not going to do anything about it .
( I understand the Yankee plant leak is n't that bad , but the mechanistic problems here are the concern ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think nuclear is something we're going to have to use, but I am \_extremely\_ worried it's going to be another privatize the gains and socialize the losses deal.That's because our system doesn't really respect private property rights.
If the Yankee plant leaks into private wells, each well owner should be able to sue Yankee for the full value of that land and anything on it.
If it's critical the whole Town is up for compensation.
Whole towns are so expensive that it's cheaper to just do maintenance.If it gets into the Connecticut River (adjacent) the owner of the River should be able to sue Yankee for the full value of the river from that point south.
But, oh, wait, the river only belongs to the 'State' of NH and they're not going to do anything about it.
(I understand the Yankee plant leak isn't that bad, but the mechanistic problems here are the concern).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047964</id>
	<title>EEEEK! GIANT ANTS!</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1265451540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spend your time wading in 775,000 picocuries of tritium, or spend your time downwind of a coal-fired power plant.</p><p>Betcha I know which one will kill you first....<br>];)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spend your time wading in 775,000 picocuries of tritium , or spend your time downwind of a coal-fired power plant.Betcha I know which one will kill you first.... ] ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spend your time wading in 775,000 picocuries of tritium, or spend your time downwind of a coal-fired power plant.Betcha I know which one will kill you first....];)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046582</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>MoonBuggy</author>
	<datestamp>1265481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Naturally, they're banned in the US, because they're atomic.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I'm going to have to give you a [citation needed] for that one, on the basis that United Nuclear (a US company) are still <a href="http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=product\_info&amp;cPath=2\_8&amp;products\_id=480" title="unitednuclear.com">selling</a> [unitednuclear.com] them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Naturally , they 're banned in the US , because they 're atomic .
I 'm going to have to give you a [ citation needed ] for that one , on the basis that United Nuclear ( a US company ) are still selling [ unitednuclear.com ] them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naturally, they're banned in the US, because they're atomic.
I'm going to have to give you a [citation needed] for that one, on the basis that United Nuclear (a US company) are still selling [unitednuclear.com] them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31050114</id>
	<title>Re:I know it's a troll but ...</title>
	<author>HiddenCamper</author>
	<datestamp>1265474280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reactor grade water is not corrosive at all, in fact it is extremely pure. Now there is radiation in it, but there's nothing that would necessarily cause pipe embrittlement. Pipes naturally have breaks and leaks over time, and pipes at a power plant are designed to leak before break to prevent an accident from happening. As of right now the titrated water hasnt contaminated drinking water supplies. they are test wells that all plants have to check for this kind of thing. Now if they said they found tritium in the nearby lakes and rivers i would be concerned (this coming from someone who lives next to the hanford site). Also, the radioactive waste water at hanford, they are worried it could reach the aquafer underneath it within the next 15-20 years. plenty of time to clean it up. The contamination that would get in the river wouldnt be as bad as the stuff they were spilling in there 40-50 years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reactor grade water is not corrosive at all , in fact it is extremely pure .
Now there is radiation in it , but there 's nothing that would necessarily cause pipe embrittlement .
Pipes naturally have breaks and leaks over time , and pipes at a power plant are designed to leak before break to prevent an accident from happening .
As of right now the titrated water hasnt contaminated drinking water supplies .
they are test wells that all plants have to check for this kind of thing .
Now if they said they found tritium in the nearby lakes and rivers i would be concerned ( this coming from someone who lives next to the hanford site ) .
Also , the radioactive waste water at hanford , they are worried it could reach the aquafer underneath it within the next 15-20 years .
plenty of time to clean it up .
The contamination that would get in the river wouldnt be as bad as the stuff they were spilling in there 40-50 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reactor grade water is not corrosive at all, in fact it is extremely pure.
Now there is radiation in it, but there's nothing that would necessarily cause pipe embrittlement.
Pipes naturally have breaks and leaks over time, and pipes at a power plant are designed to leak before break to prevent an accident from happening.
As of right now the titrated water hasnt contaminated drinking water supplies.
they are test wells that all plants have to check for this kind of thing.
Now if they said they found tritium in the nearby lakes and rivers i would be concerned (this coming from someone who lives next to the hanford site).
Also, the radioactive waste water at hanford, they are worried it could reach the aquafer underneath it within the next 15-20 years.
plenty of time to clean it up.
The contamination that would get in the river wouldnt be as bad as the stuff they were spilling in there 40-50 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048386</id>
	<title>Re:oh, mdsolar submitted this story</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1265455620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then he would not approve of what this chap says he did.

<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/can.general/browse\_thread/thread/71f021ee576edef9" title="google.com"> Do it yourself Heavy Water Reactor</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then he would not approve of what this chap says he did .
Do it yourself Heavy Water Reactor [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then he would not approve of what this chap says he did.
Do it yourself Heavy Water Reactor [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048018</id>
	<title>Re:Not A Major Concern</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265452020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but you are wrong, tritium can be harvested from your TAP WATER.  Now run and make up some more FUD, about something you know little or nothing about.  Deuterium is also present in tap water, as well---panic now and beat the rush!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but you are wrong , tritium can be harvested from your TAP WATER .
Now run and make up some more FUD , about something you know little or nothing about .
Deuterium is also present in tap water , as well---panic now and beat the rush !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but you are wrong, tritium can be harvested from your TAP WATER.
Now run and make up some more FUD, about something you know little or nothing about.
Deuterium is also present in tap water, as well---panic now and beat the rush!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048264</id>
	<title>Re:totally safe (uh uh)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265454600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, beta particles are stopped by aluminum foil, skin, etc.<br>But, not if the tritium replaces a H in water, forming tritiated water, which then, gosh darn it, winds up inside your body, yea, verily right next to your chromosomes, since water is water is water and it diffuses quite nicely.  No aluminum foil shields now..</p><p>Tritiated water is a big problem.</p><p>Sort of like breathing in an alpha emitter (like radon or various other radium,uranium, thorium daughters) which is stopped by paper stuck to fine particles in cigarette smoke.  Puts those alpha emitters right on the surface of those lung cells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , beta particles are stopped by aluminum foil , skin , etc.But , not if the tritium replaces a H in water , forming tritiated water , which then , gosh darn it , winds up inside your body , yea , verily right next to your chromosomes , since water is water is water and it diffuses quite nicely .
No aluminum foil shields now..Tritiated water is a big problem.Sort of like breathing in an alpha emitter ( like radon or various other radium,uranium , thorium daughters ) which is stopped by paper stuck to fine particles in cigarette smoke .
Puts those alpha emitters right on the surface of those lung cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, beta particles are stopped by aluminum foil, skin, etc.But, not if the tritium replaces a H in water, forming tritiated water, which then, gosh darn it, winds up inside your body, yea, verily right next to your chromosomes, since water is water is water and it diffuses quite nicely.
No aluminum foil shields now..Tritiated water is a big problem.Sort of like breathing in an alpha emitter (like radon or various other radium,uranium, thorium daughters) which is stopped by paper stuck to fine particles in cigarette smoke.
Puts those alpha emitters right on the surface of those lung cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047468</id>
	<title>That's 0.775 microcuries per liter</title>
	<author>clyde\_cadiddlehopper</author>
	<datestamp>1265489940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sensational numbers!  My heads almost didn't stay unexploded when I read 775,000 picocuries per liter. Somehow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.775 microcuries per liter doesn't grab the nuke-fearing soul quite the same way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sensational numbers !
My heads almost did n't stay unexploded when I read 775,000 picocuries per liter .
Somehow .775 microcuries per liter does n't grab the nuke-fearing soul quite the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sensational numbers!
My heads almost didn't stay unexploded when I read 775,000 picocuries per liter.
Somehow .775 microcuries per liter doesn't grab the nuke-fearing soul quite the same way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046750</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265483100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The tritium leak into ground water at Vermont Yankee has now tested at 775,000 picocuries per liter[...] the NRC's Diane Screnci [...] maintained previously that the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>What's the purpose of a safety limit and abundance of caution if you're going to turn around and claim that it's got lots of caution and therefore can be ignored? Or put another way, does this mean that she considers caution a silly thing to spend any time on?

</p><p>Like others, I've had to accept that nuclear power is one of the best energy sources, but this is fucking pathetic. Come on, Diane, even people who are pro-nuclear are put off by your bullshit. Close up your shop, get out of town, and let us bring in some people who will do it right. Your attitude makes it clear that this leak is the least of your problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The tritium leak into ground water at Vermont Yankee has now tested at 775,000 picocuries per liter [ ... ] the NRC 's Diane Screnci [ ... ] maintained previously that the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it .
What 's the purpose of a safety limit and abundance of caution if you 're going to turn around and claim that it 's got lots of caution and therefore can be ignored ?
Or put another way , does this mean that she considers caution a silly thing to spend any time on ?
Like others , I 've had to accept that nuclear power is one of the best energy sources , but this is fucking pathetic .
Come on , Diane , even people who are pro-nuclear are put off by your bullshit .
Close up your shop , get out of town , and let us bring in some people who will do it right .
Your attitude makes it clear that this leak is the least of your problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tritium leak into ground water at Vermont Yankee has now tested at 775,000 picocuries per liter[...] the NRC's Diane Screnci [...] maintained previously that the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it.
What's the purpose of a safety limit and abundance of caution if you're going to turn around and claim that it's got lots of caution and therefore can be ignored?
Or put another way, does this mean that she considers caution a silly thing to spend any time on?
Like others, I've had to accept that nuclear power is one of the best energy sources, but this is fucking pathetic.
Come on, Diane, even people who are pro-nuclear are put off by your bullshit.
Close up your shop, get out of town, and let us bring in some people who will do it right.
Your attitude makes it clear that this leak is the least of your problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049034</id>
	<title>Re:What a bunch of numbskulls.</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1265461620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Preach it brother.</p><p>People are panicking over a trace amount of tritium that cannot possibly harm them, while on the other hand ignoring, say, leaking gas station storage tanks that can actually poison them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Preach it brother.People are panicking over a trace amount of tritium that can not possibly harm them , while on the other hand ignoring , say , leaking gas station storage tanks that can actually poison them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Preach it brother.People are panicking over a trace amount of tritium that cannot possibly harm them, while on the other hand ignoring, say, leaking gas station storage tanks that can actually poison them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046518</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265481120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like they don't care to actually spend the money. It's exactly the short sighted nothing but the quarterly report matters thinking that is busily torpedoing the U.S. economy. A rational person would rather fix the problem now than create yet another public backlash against nuclear power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like they do n't care to actually spend the money .
It 's exactly the short sighted nothing but the quarterly report matters thinking that is busily torpedoing the U.S. economy. A rational person would rather fix the problem now than create yet another public backlash against nuclear power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like they don't care to actually spend the money.
It's exactly the short sighted nothing but the quarterly report matters thinking that is busily torpedoing the U.S. economy. A rational person would rather fix the problem now than create yet another public backlash against nuclear power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048194</id>
	<title>Re:actually, the levels only doubled</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265453760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EXACTLY!</p><p>I'd be a lot more concerned if they weren't able to find a location with a high reading since that would mean they had no clue where it was coming from. It looks like they're on-track for fixing the leak before any radiation leaves the grounds. Exactly what we want them to do.</p><p>I can't help imagining an all too likely true scenario. One operator is overheard saying to another, "I think we may have a public relations problem". Next day the headline reads "PROBLEM AT NUCLEAR PLANT, OPERATORS UNSURE!!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EXACTLY ! I 'd be a lot more concerned if they were n't able to find a location with a high reading since that would mean they had no clue where it was coming from .
It looks like they 're on-track for fixing the leak before any radiation leaves the grounds .
Exactly what we want them to do.I ca n't help imagining an all too likely true scenario .
One operator is overheard saying to another , " I think we may have a public relations problem " .
Next day the headline reads " PROBLEM AT NUCLEAR PLANT , OPERATORS UNSURE ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EXACTLY!I'd be a lot more concerned if they weren't able to find a location with a high reading since that would mean they had no clue where it was coming from.
It looks like they're on-track for fixing the leak before any radiation leaves the grounds.
Exactly what we want them to do.I can't help imagining an all too likely true scenario.
One operator is overheard saying to another, "I think we may have a public relations problem".
Next day the headline reads "PROBLEM AT NUCLEAR PLANT, OPERATORS UNSURE!!!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047654</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265448240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually in both the USSR &amp; USA the actual reactor operators were/are all very well trained intelligent people who knew exactly what they were/are doing. The problem was, as always, the management who *didn't* know what they were doing...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually in both the USSR &amp; USA the actual reactor operators were/are all very well trained intelligent people who knew exactly what they were/are doing .
The problem was , as always , the management who * did n't * know what they were doing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually in both the USSR &amp; USA the actual reactor operators were/are all very well trained intelligent people who knew exactly what they were/are doing.
The problem was, as always, the management who *didn't* know what they were doing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046072</id>
	<title>oh, mdsolar submitted this story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>personally I'm sick of his anti-nuclear agenda. White Power!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>personally I 'm sick of his anti-nuclear agenda .
White Power !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>personally I'm sick of his anti-nuclear agenda.
White Power!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049656</id>
	<title>Tritium</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1265468040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium with references in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings.

</p><p>
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. 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>It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.
</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>
<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>A list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium with references in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water 's effect on living beings .
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 .
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 .
It 's often said " of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones " and while it 's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it 's toxicity should not be under-estimated .
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>A list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium with references in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings.
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.
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.
It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.
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_02_06_156236.31047612</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>lightperson</author>
	<datestamp>1265448000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe that any tritium needs to migrate out of the glowsticks or anything else where the tritium (hydrogen)is bound into a stable compound. Perhaps Lithium Hydride is stable enough, or perhaps some other compound.  Calcium Hydroxide?  There are probably 100s of stable minerals, containing hydrogen, exposed to the air that don't decompose to let go of the hydrogen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe that any tritium needs to migrate out of the glowsticks or anything else where the tritium ( hydrogen ) is bound into a stable compound .
Perhaps Lithium Hydride is stable enough , or perhaps some other compound .
Calcium Hydroxide ?
There are probably 100s of stable minerals , containing hydrogen , exposed to the air that do n't decompose to let go of the hydrogen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe that any tritium needs to migrate out of the glowsticks or anything else where the tritium (hydrogen)is bound into a stable compound.
Perhaps Lithium Hydride is stable enough, or perhaps some other compound.
Calcium Hydroxide?
There are probably 100s of stable minerals, containing hydrogen, exposed to the air that don't decompose to let go of the hydrogen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046094</id>
	<title>2.7 million picocuries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, the latest reading was 2.7 million picocuries:

<a href="http://www.vpr.net/news\_detail/87126/" title="vpr.net">http://www.vpr.net/news\_detail/87126/</a> [vpr.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the latest reading was 2.7 million picocuries : http : //www.vpr.net/news \ _detail/87126/ [ vpr.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the latest reading was 2.7 million picocuries:

http://www.vpr.net/news\_detail/87126/ [vpr.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048214</id>
	<title>A blessing- a tritiated blessing from the Lord!</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265454060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can someone find an Ebay link to an auction for an advanced combat optical gunsight with an inscripted reference to a Bible verse that appears lit for several decades when viewed through the scope?
<br> <br>
<tt>[JN 8:12]</tt> <i>Then spake Jesus again unto them saying, "I am the light of the world: he who followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of five keV beta emission incident unto copper-activated zinc and burning sulfur emitting greenish secondary radiation having peak wavelength of one millionth of a cubit."</i>
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKTRkmwDP-c" title="youtube.com">Advance to 3:40 in this gunsight review</a> [youtube.com] to get the idea. For those of you who aren't Christians, well whatever, get over it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone find an Ebay link to an auction for an advanced combat optical gunsight with an inscripted reference to a Bible verse that appears lit for several decades when viewed through the scope ?
[ JN 8 : 12 ] Then spake Jesus again unto them saying , " I am the light of the world : he who followeth me shall not walk in darkness , but shall have the light of five keV beta emission incident unto copper-activated zinc and burning sulfur emitting greenish secondary radiation having peak wavelength of one millionth of a cubit .
" Advance to 3 : 40 in this gunsight review [ youtube.com ] to get the idea .
For those of you who are n't Christians , well whatever , get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone find an Ebay link to an auction for an advanced combat optical gunsight with an inscripted reference to a Bible verse that appears lit for several decades when viewed through the scope?
[JN 8:12] Then spake Jesus again unto them saying, "I am the light of the world: he who followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of five keV beta emission incident unto copper-activated zinc and burning sulfur emitting greenish secondary radiation having peak wavelength of one millionth of a cubit.
"
 
Advance to 3:40 in this gunsight review [youtube.com] to get the idea.
For those of you who aren't Christians, well whatever, get over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047136</id>
	<title>Re:Now everyone go to your corners and rant.</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1265486580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With modern nuclear plants, I'd agree.  Unfortunately, the U.S. has no modern nuclear plants, and the existing reactors are often well past the age where any conventional plant would have been completely gutted and rebuild, but they don't do that because these things are so darn expensive and you'd never be able to get permission to start it up again once you shut it down anyway.  We should be building new nuclear power plants and shutting down these fossils.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With modern nuclear plants , I 'd agree .
Unfortunately , the U.S. has no modern nuclear plants , and the existing reactors are often well past the age where any conventional plant would have been completely gutted and rebuild , but they do n't do that because these things are so darn expensive and you 'd never be able to get permission to start it up again once you shut it down anyway .
We should be building new nuclear power plants and shutting down these fossils .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With modern nuclear plants, I'd agree.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has no modern nuclear plants, and the existing reactors are often well past the age where any conventional plant would have been completely gutted and rebuild, but they don't do that because these things are so darn expensive and you'd never be able to get permission to start it up again once you shut it down anyway.
We should be building new nuclear power plants and shutting down these fossils.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1265476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Why aren't those leaks taken care of fast, whether they are or aren't actually dangerous? We've had enough issues with fear of nuclear power, no need to let such stories grow out of proportions. Otherwise, we'll never see the US convert to nuclear power instead of gas and coal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to shoot yourself in the foot .
Why are n't those leaks taken care of fast , whether they are or are n't actually dangerous ?
We 've had enough issues with fear of nuclear power , no need to let such stories grow out of proportions .
Otherwise , we 'll never see the US convert to nuclear power instead of gas and coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
Why aren't those leaks taken care of fast, whether they are or aren't actually dangerous?
We've had enough issues with fear of nuclear power, no need to let such stories grow out of proportions.
Otherwise, we'll never see the US convert to nuclear power instead of gas and coal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047082</id>
	<title>Re:actually, the levels only doubled</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1265485920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the drinking-water limit isn't particularly useful, since these levels aren't being found in drinking water. As such we should be comparing to "safe" limits for the scenario (or at least levels for the "general environment*"). </p><p>I think drinking water levels however are often used - seemingly out of context - in this way because they are perceived as more reliable. People reason that much more scrutiny would be placed on whether something is safe for human consumption than for any other purpose. They then have to evaluate themselves how unsafe it has to be to drink for it to be unsafe or damaging to the environment*. </p><p>People are more inclined to rely on a piece of trustworthy information that has to be brought into relevance by their own inexpert/vague estimation than they are to rely on a piece of untrustworthy information regardless of how relevant. Sometimes there's a thin blurry line between ignorance and a healthy dose of scepticism.</p><p>* I use the term "environment" quite loosely, some people may be thinking of the cute bunny-rabbits while others may be thinking about crop yield. The distinction isn't really relevant to the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the drinking-water limit is n't particularly useful , since these levels are n't being found in drinking water .
As such we should be comparing to " safe " limits for the scenario ( or at least levels for the " general environment * " ) .
I think drinking water levels however are often used - seemingly out of context - in this way because they are perceived as more reliable .
People reason that much more scrutiny would be placed on whether something is safe for human consumption than for any other purpose .
They then have to evaluate themselves how unsafe it has to be to drink for it to be unsafe or damaging to the environment * .
People are more inclined to rely on a piece of trustworthy information that has to be brought into relevance by their own inexpert/vague estimation than they are to rely on a piece of untrustworthy information regardless of how relevant .
Sometimes there 's a thin blurry line between ignorance and a healthy dose of scepticism .
* I use the term " environment " quite loosely , some people may be thinking of the cute bunny-rabbits while others may be thinking about crop yield .
The distinction is n't really relevant to the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the drinking-water limit isn't particularly useful, since these levels aren't being found in drinking water.
As such we should be comparing to "safe" limits for the scenario (or at least levels for the "general environment*").
I think drinking water levels however are often used - seemingly out of context - in this way because they are perceived as more reliable.
People reason that much more scrutiny would be placed on whether something is safe for human consumption than for any other purpose.
They then have to evaluate themselves how unsafe it has to be to drink for it to be unsafe or damaging to the environment*.
People are more inclined to rely on a piece of trustworthy information that has to be brought into relevance by their own inexpert/vague estimation than they are to rely on a piece of untrustworthy information regardless of how relevant.
Sometimes there's a thin blurry line between ignorance and a healthy dose of scepticism.
* I use the term "environment" quite loosely, some people may be thinking of the cute bunny-rabbits while others may be thinking about crop yield.
The distinction isn't really relevant to the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046988</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265485140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is in how you perceive "well regulated". A regulatory agency often behaves just like any other private entity. It wants to expand it's market (the number and scope of persons regulated) and increase it's revenue (i.e. funding). This means that the NRA is very "pro-nuclear"; and sadly "pro-nuclear" means hiding all of the pervasive issues that our decrepit plants have so that there's less fodder for the anti-nuclear folks to throw around.</p><p>Thus, regulatory agencies often have the wrong set of incentives. What you need is a system that incentivizes catching these issues early. What we need is an entity--a private entity not as susceptible to lobbying--that gets paid more money the more issues they uncover. That will bring some balance back to the equation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is in how you perceive " well regulated " .
A regulatory agency often behaves just like any other private entity .
It wants to expand it 's market ( the number and scope of persons regulated ) and increase it 's revenue ( i.e .
funding ) . This means that the NRA is very " pro-nuclear " ; and sadly " pro-nuclear " means hiding all of the pervasive issues that our decrepit plants have so that there 's less fodder for the anti-nuclear folks to throw around.Thus , regulatory agencies often have the wrong set of incentives .
What you need is a system that incentivizes catching these issues early .
What we need is an entity--a private entity not as susceptible to lobbying--that gets paid more money the more issues they uncover .
That will bring some balance back to the equation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is in how you perceive "well regulated".
A regulatory agency often behaves just like any other private entity.
It wants to expand it's market (the number and scope of persons regulated) and increase it's revenue (i.e.
funding). This means that the NRA is very "pro-nuclear"; and sadly "pro-nuclear" means hiding all of the pervasive issues that our decrepit plants have so that there's less fodder for the anti-nuclear folks to throw around.Thus, regulatory agencies often have the wrong set of incentives.
What you need is a system that incentivizes catching these issues early.
What we need is an entity--a private entity not as susceptible to lobbying--that gets paid more money the more issues they uncover.
That will bring some balance back to the equation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047986</id>
	<title>Water study warns of Utah uranium leak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265451720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear power is an idea that looks good on paper, but the nuke industry is controlled by big oil, subsidized by tax money, and overseen by bureaucrats.  Don't expect much in the way of responsibility.  Unless the problems are too big to conceal, they are ignored or covered up.  BTW, "acceptable levels" of radiation really means that nobody important lives nearby.</p><p>--------------------<br>Las Vegas SUN: Water study warns of Utah uranium leak<br>Today: March 23, 1999 at 11:06:00 PST<br>By Mary Manning,  LAS VEGAS SUN</p><p>Uranium is leaking from a Utah site into the Colorado River at 530 times the federal radiation limit, threatening the drinking water of more than 25 million people, according to an independent study released today.</p><p>The findings by the nonprofit watchdog group Project On Government Oversight have prompted Nevada and California representatives to call for the 10.5 million tons of radioactive material to be removed rather than covering it with a cap to protect it from rain and leaving it next to the Colorado River near Moab, Utah.</p><p>The radiation and toxins are entering the river at 6.7 gallons per minute from an old mining site operated for the federal government. The radiation already exceeds Utah standards and the state has called for an extensive study of ground water.</p><p>Based on research done by the Department of Energy's national laboratories, scientists estimate that the uranium perched on the edge of the Colorado River will continue leaking radiation into the river, serving people in Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Tucson for the next 270 years.</p><p>Contamination from the Moab uranium would continue to increase in the river for the next nine years, DOE scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee said. And if there is a flood, the radioactive pile could be washed into the water, significantly raising the level of contamination.</p><p>"Polluter greed is prevailing over the health of millions of Americans exposed to radiation leeching from a toxic waste site into the Colorado River," the Project on Government Oversight, an independent government watchdog group, said in a news release.</p><p>Researchers for the group discovered that the DOE has moved uranium and other toxic materials away from rivers and sources of ground water a dozen times in the West over the past 10 years in cases where the radioactive levels were 10 times smaller than that from the Moab pile.</p><p>The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a plan to allow Atlas Corp., a defunct milling operator, to cap the pile of uranium on site at a cost of $14 million. The DOE estimates it could cost $101 million to move the toxic pile.</p><p>In addition, the Project on Government Oversight report said the uranium and toxic metals pose a threat to endangered fish including the razorback sucker, humpback chub, bonytail chub and Colorado squawfish.</p><p>Besides the radioactivity, the mound contains ammonia, arsenic, lead, mercury and nickel. The toxic pile is stored less than 750 feet from the river and the ground is not lined to prevent leaks.</p><p>The proposed legislation would shift the emphasis from keeping the uranium where it is to cleaning up the pile.</p><p>Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., is cosponsoring HR 393, with Reps. George Miller and Bob Filner, both D-Calif., to shift agency responsibilities for removing the uranium to the DOE.</p><p>"An ounce of contamination prevention is worth a pound of toxic waste in our water supply," Berkley said Monday. "Nevadans are tired of paying the price for America's nuclear legacy, and we're tired of waiting for a crisis before somebody does something."</p><p>In addition to cleanup, the bill would require the U.S. attorney general to assess Atlas' liability and hold it financially responsible for the move. The company is threatening to declare bankruptcy.</p><p>Although the polluted plume has been tracked less than 2 miles into the Colorado River, it could affect water quality downstream. Nevada and California water officials have detected a slight</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power is an idea that looks good on paper , but the nuke industry is controlled by big oil , subsidized by tax money , and overseen by bureaucrats .
Do n't expect much in the way of responsibility .
Unless the problems are too big to conceal , they are ignored or covered up .
BTW , " acceptable levels " of radiation really means that nobody important lives nearby.--------------------Las Vegas SUN : Water study warns of Utah uranium leakToday : March 23 , 1999 at 11 : 06 : 00 PSTBy Mary Manning , LAS VEGAS SUNUranium is leaking from a Utah site into the Colorado River at 530 times the federal radiation limit , threatening the drinking water of more than 25 million people , according to an independent study released today.The findings by the nonprofit watchdog group Project On Government Oversight have prompted Nevada and California representatives to call for the 10.5 million tons of radioactive material to be removed rather than covering it with a cap to protect it from rain and leaving it next to the Colorado River near Moab , Utah.The radiation and toxins are entering the river at 6.7 gallons per minute from an old mining site operated for the federal government .
The radiation already exceeds Utah standards and the state has called for an extensive study of ground water.Based on research done by the Department of Energy 's national laboratories , scientists estimate that the uranium perched on the edge of the Colorado River will continue leaking radiation into the river , serving people in Las Vegas , Los Angeles , Phoenix and Tucson for the next 270 years.Contamination from the Moab uranium would continue to increase in the river for the next nine years , DOE scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee said .
And if there is a flood , the radioactive pile could be washed into the water , significantly raising the level of contamination .
" Polluter greed is prevailing over the health of millions of Americans exposed to radiation leeching from a toxic waste site into the Colorado River , " the Project on Government Oversight , an independent government watchdog group , said in a news release.Researchers for the group discovered that the DOE has moved uranium and other toxic materials away from rivers and sources of ground water a dozen times in the West over the past 10 years in cases where the radioactive levels were 10 times smaller than that from the Moab pile.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a plan to allow Atlas Corp. , a defunct milling operator , to cap the pile of uranium on site at a cost of $ 14 million .
The DOE estimates it could cost $ 101 million to move the toxic pile.In addition , the Project on Government Oversight report said the uranium and toxic metals pose a threat to endangered fish including the razorback sucker , humpback chub , bonytail chub and Colorado squawfish.Besides the radioactivity , the mound contains ammonia , arsenic , lead , mercury and nickel .
The toxic pile is stored less than 750 feet from the river and the ground is not lined to prevent leaks.The proposed legislation would shift the emphasis from keeping the uranium where it is to cleaning up the pile.Rep .
Shelley Berkley , D-Nev. , is cosponsoring HR 393 , with Reps. George Miller and Bob Filner , both D-Calif. , to shift agency responsibilities for removing the uranium to the DOE .
" An ounce of contamination prevention is worth a pound of toxic waste in our water supply , " Berkley said Monday .
" Nevadans are tired of paying the price for America 's nuclear legacy , and we 're tired of waiting for a crisis before somebody does something .
" In addition to cleanup , the bill would require the U.S. attorney general to assess Atlas ' liability and hold it financially responsible for the move .
The company is threatening to declare bankruptcy.Although the polluted plume has been tracked less than 2 miles into the Colorado River , it could affect water quality downstream .
Nevada and California water officials have detected a slight</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power is an idea that looks good on paper, but the nuke industry is controlled by big oil, subsidized by tax money, and overseen by bureaucrats.
Don't expect much in the way of responsibility.
Unless the problems are too big to conceal, they are ignored or covered up.
BTW, "acceptable levels" of radiation really means that nobody important lives nearby.--------------------Las Vegas SUN: Water study warns of Utah uranium leakToday: March 23, 1999 at 11:06:00 PSTBy Mary Manning,  LAS VEGAS SUNUranium is leaking from a Utah site into the Colorado River at 530 times the federal radiation limit, threatening the drinking water of more than 25 million people, according to an independent study released today.The findings by the nonprofit watchdog group Project On Government Oversight have prompted Nevada and California representatives to call for the 10.5 million tons of radioactive material to be removed rather than covering it with a cap to protect it from rain and leaving it next to the Colorado River near Moab, Utah.The radiation and toxins are entering the river at 6.7 gallons per minute from an old mining site operated for the federal government.
The radiation already exceeds Utah standards and the state has called for an extensive study of ground water.Based on research done by the Department of Energy's national laboratories, scientists estimate that the uranium perched on the edge of the Colorado River will continue leaking radiation into the river, serving people in Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Tucson for the next 270 years.Contamination from the Moab uranium would continue to increase in the river for the next nine years, DOE scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee said.
And if there is a flood, the radioactive pile could be washed into the water, significantly raising the level of contamination.
"Polluter greed is prevailing over the health of millions of Americans exposed to radiation leeching from a toxic waste site into the Colorado River," the Project on Government Oversight, an independent government watchdog group, said in a news release.Researchers for the group discovered that the DOE has moved uranium and other toxic materials away from rivers and sources of ground water a dozen times in the West over the past 10 years in cases where the radioactive levels were 10 times smaller than that from the Moab pile.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a plan to allow Atlas Corp., a defunct milling operator, to cap the pile of uranium on site at a cost of $14 million.
The DOE estimates it could cost $101 million to move the toxic pile.In addition, the Project on Government Oversight report said the uranium and toxic metals pose a threat to endangered fish including the razorback sucker, humpback chub, bonytail chub and Colorado squawfish.Besides the radioactivity, the mound contains ammonia, arsenic, lead, mercury and nickel.
The toxic pile is stored less than 750 feet from the river and the ground is not lined to prevent leaks.The proposed legislation would shift the emphasis from keeping the uranium where it is to cleaning up the pile.Rep.
Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., is cosponsoring HR 393, with Reps. George Miller and Bob Filner, both D-Calif., to shift agency responsibilities for removing the uranium to the DOE.
"An ounce of contamination prevention is worth a pound of toxic waste in our water supply," Berkley said Monday.
"Nevadans are tired of paying the price for America's nuclear legacy, and we're tired of waiting for a crisis before somebody does something.
"In addition to cleanup, the bill would require the U.S. attorney general to assess Atlas' liability and hold it financially responsible for the move.
The company is threatening to declare bankruptcy.Although the polluted plume has been tracked less than 2 miles into the Colorado River, it could affect water quality downstream.
Nevada and California water officials have detected a slight</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046446</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265480640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But China only uses top grade babies for their food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But China only uses top grade babies for their food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But China only uses top grade babies for their food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046278</id>
	<title>Recent ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265479140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in southern NH, and to be honest, I'm barely aware of VY's existence (after all, they don't supply my electricity).<br>But I've noticed in recent months that these marketing ads for VY have been showing on the local cable TV touting<br>their <a href="http://iamvy.com/" title="iamvy.com" rel="nofollow">http://iamvy.com/</a> [iamvy.com] website.  I had wondered for what reasons they needed to self-promote, but this latest chain of events<br>certainly can't be helping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in southern NH , and to be honest , I 'm barely aware of VY 's existence ( after all , they do n't supply my electricity ) .But I 've noticed in recent months that these marketing ads for VY have been showing on the local cable TV toutingtheir http : //iamvy.com/ [ iamvy.com ] website .
I had wondered for what reasons they needed to self-promote , but this latest chain of eventscertainly ca n't be helping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in southern NH, and to be honest, I'm barely aware of VY's existence (after all, they don't supply my electricity).But I've noticed in recent months that these marketing ads for VY have been showing on the local cable TV toutingtheir http://iamvy.com/ [iamvy.com] website.
I had wondered for what reasons they needed to self-promote, but this latest chain of eventscertainly can't be helping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047948</id>
	<title>Confounding a critical point</title>
	<author>anorlunda</author>
	<datestamp>1265451420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cited article said that the sample was taken "just to the east of the plant's condensate water storage tank"   That's inside the plant. Then it cited the EPA standard for drinking water.</p><p>Those two facts in close conjunction invite everyone to jump to the conclusion that the public gets its drinking water from next to the storage tank inside the plants grounds.   In reality the nearest public or privately owned well is probably 5 to 10 miles away.</p><p>I remember when I wanted to drill a new well in my yard.  The local building code said that it had to be 100 feet from the septic tank drainage field.  Wow, only 100 feet!!! Now consider how much five miles of intervening ground will filter.</p><p>It is true that 775,000 picocuries per liter is 37 times higher than the limit.  It is also true that there is no public health hazard.   The devil is in the details, and the critical detail not emphasized in the Washpost article is the separation between the tank and the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cited article said that the sample was taken " just to the east of the plant 's condensate water storage tank " That 's inside the plant .
Then it cited the EPA standard for drinking water.Those two facts in close conjunction invite everyone to jump to the conclusion that the public gets its drinking water from next to the storage tank inside the plants grounds .
In reality the nearest public or privately owned well is probably 5 to 10 miles away.I remember when I wanted to drill a new well in my yard .
The local building code said that it had to be 100 feet from the septic tank drainage field .
Wow , only 100 feet ! ! !
Now consider how much five miles of intervening ground will filter.It is true that 775,000 picocuries per liter is 37 times higher than the limit .
It is also true that there is no public health hazard .
The devil is in the details , and the critical detail not emphasized in the Washpost article is the separation between the tank and the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cited article said that the sample was taken "just to the east of the plant's condensate water storage tank"   That's inside the plant.
Then it cited the EPA standard for drinking water.Those two facts in close conjunction invite everyone to jump to the conclusion that the public gets its drinking water from next to the storage tank inside the plants grounds.
In reality the nearest public or privately owned well is probably 5 to 10 miles away.I remember when I wanted to drill a new well in my yard.
The local building code said that it had to be 100 feet from the septic tank drainage field.
Wow, only 100 feet!!!
Now consider how much five miles of intervening ground will filter.It is true that 775,000 picocuries per liter is 37 times higher than the limit.
It is also true that there is no public health hazard.
The devil is in the details, and the critical detail not emphasized in the Washpost article is the separation between the tank and the public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046328</id>
	<title>Gee, I wonder if they're hiding anything?</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265479560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yeah, the water is 37\% more deadly.... you should be fine"</p><p>Uh thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yeah , the water is 37 \ % more deadly.... you should be fine " Uh thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yeah, the water is 37\% more deadly.... you should be fine"Uh thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048716</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When radiation is so weak that it can't even penetrate a few millimeters of air then it is effectively harmless when it is <em>outside</em> of your body.  Tritium in drinking water will end up <em>inside</em> your body.  All of that radiation will be absorbed by the tissue in the immediate vicinity of the radioactive particle.  That cell that ends up containing those few molecules of heavy water will get a huge dose and will be much more likely to mutate.  That makes alpha and beta emitters  very dangerous once they get inside of your body.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When radiation is so weak that it ca n't even penetrate a few millimeters of air then it is effectively harmless when it is outside of your body .
Tritium in drinking water will end up inside your body .
All of that radiation will be absorbed by the tissue in the immediate vicinity of the radioactive particle .
That cell that ends up containing those few molecules of heavy water will get a huge dose and will be much more likely to mutate .
That makes alpha and beta emitters very dangerous once they get inside of your body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When radiation is so weak that it can't even penetrate a few millimeters of air then it is effectively harmless when it is outside of your body.
Tritium in drinking water will end up inside your body.
All of that radiation will be absorbed by the tissue in the immediate vicinity of the radioactive particle.
That cell that ends up containing those few molecules of heavy water will get a huge dose and will be much more likely to mutate.
That makes alpha and beta emitters  very dangerous once they get inside of your body.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046206</id>
	<title>I know it's a troll but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265478480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I'm told how safe nuclear power is something like this happens. The problem they have is the materials are very corrosive and they tend eat through metal and concrete over time. The pipes are buried and the leaks aren't easy to find or fix. Not all the plants use this system but this was one of the plant designs that was considered "safe". Also Hanford has been back in the news because they are dealing with millions of gallons of contaminated water that is slowly leaking. Any time now the ground water is expected to reach a major river. A lot of the contamination comes from processing plants not even reactors. When I was in LA there was contaminated ground water in Canoga Park at several different sites. For something that is so "safe" there sure is a lot of contamination already. People say we can replace all other sources with nuclear power. That would mean 5X as many plants. Worse yet all the existing plants have reached or are nearing their design life. I believe most of the leaking plants are at or nearing their design life. They are trying to extend the licensing on most of the existing plants but is that really a smart idea since many are leaking even without adding 20+ years to them? I know Slashdot is pro nuke and wary of other sources but I've yet to hear of a solar plant or a wind farm contaminating ground water. There's a lot of open desert that is perfect for solar and we have a massive untapped resource in roof tops. There was an intriguing idea of converting roads to solar collectors. For wind most of the power is used along the coast. Offshore wind farms could provide a lot of our power all on their own. It gets rid of most of the bird kill and eyesore issues and the wind is more constant. There are solutions out there that don't involve poisoning groundwater which may one day be a being a bigger need than power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I 'm told how safe nuclear power is something like this happens .
The problem they have is the materials are very corrosive and they tend eat through metal and concrete over time .
The pipes are buried and the leaks are n't easy to find or fix .
Not all the plants use this system but this was one of the plant designs that was considered " safe " .
Also Hanford has been back in the news because they are dealing with millions of gallons of contaminated water that is slowly leaking .
Any time now the ground water is expected to reach a major river .
A lot of the contamination comes from processing plants not even reactors .
When I was in LA there was contaminated ground water in Canoga Park at several different sites .
For something that is so " safe " there sure is a lot of contamination already .
People say we can replace all other sources with nuclear power .
That would mean 5X as many plants .
Worse yet all the existing plants have reached or are nearing their design life .
I believe most of the leaking plants are at or nearing their design life .
They are trying to extend the licensing on most of the existing plants but is that really a smart idea since many are leaking even without adding 20 + years to them ?
I know Slashdot is pro nuke and wary of other sources but I 've yet to hear of a solar plant or a wind farm contaminating ground water .
There 's a lot of open desert that is perfect for solar and we have a massive untapped resource in roof tops .
There was an intriguing idea of converting roads to solar collectors .
For wind most of the power is used along the coast .
Offshore wind farms could provide a lot of our power all on their own .
It gets rid of most of the bird kill and eyesore issues and the wind is more constant .
There are solutions out there that do n't involve poisoning groundwater which may one day be a being a bigger need than power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I'm told how safe nuclear power is something like this happens.
The problem they have is the materials are very corrosive and they tend eat through metal and concrete over time.
The pipes are buried and the leaks aren't easy to find or fix.
Not all the plants use this system but this was one of the plant designs that was considered "safe".
Also Hanford has been back in the news because they are dealing with millions of gallons of contaminated water that is slowly leaking.
Any time now the ground water is expected to reach a major river.
A lot of the contamination comes from processing plants not even reactors.
When I was in LA there was contaminated ground water in Canoga Park at several different sites.
For something that is so "safe" there sure is a lot of contamination already.
People say we can replace all other sources with nuclear power.
That would mean 5X as many plants.
Worse yet all the existing plants have reached or are nearing their design life.
I believe most of the leaking plants are at or nearing their design life.
They are trying to extend the licensing on most of the existing plants but is that really a smart idea since many are leaking even without adding 20+ years to them?
I know Slashdot is pro nuke and wary of other sources but I've yet to hear of a solar plant or a wind farm contaminating ground water.
There's a lot of open desert that is perfect for solar and we have a massive untapped resource in roof tops.
There was an intriguing idea of converting roads to solar collectors.
For wind most of the power is used along the coast.
Offshore wind farms could provide a lot of our power all on their own.
It gets rid of most of the bird kill and eyesore issues and the wind is more constant.
There are solutions out there that don't involve poisoning groundwater which may one day be a being a bigger need than power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049874</id>
	<title>Re:to all the nuclear proponents</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1265471580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I think the nuclear plants should pay the cleanup costs. Coal plants, however, spew out stuff like this every day, and they should also pay cleanup costs. Socializing the losses, if done evenly, harms nuclear only against wind power and some of the better incarnations of hydro and solar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I think the nuclear plants should pay the cleanup costs .
Coal plants , however , spew out stuff like this every day , and they should also pay cleanup costs .
Socializing the losses , if done evenly , harms nuclear only against wind power and some of the better incarnations of hydro and solar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I think the nuclear plants should pay the cleanup costs.
Coal plants, however, spew out stuff like this every day, and they should also pay cleanup costs.
Socializing the losses, if done evenly, harms nuclear only against wind power and some of the better incarnations of hydro and solar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047522</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1265447220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NRC has to pay liabilities for cancer caused by fuel leaks? That'd be like the health inspector paying when a fast food chain poisons someone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NRC has to pay liabilities for cancer caused by fuel leaks ?
That 'd be like the health inspector paying when a fast food chain poisons someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NRC has to pay liabilities for cancer caused by fuel leaks?
That'd be like the health inspector paying when a fast food chain poisons someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046526</id>
	<title>Simple decision not weasel words</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1265481180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a hard job to set safety standards for radiation as there really is not any 100\% safe level other than absolute 0.</p><p>The standards are probably irrationally low for all practical purposes, but regardless of that, there is no dispute that the standards have already been significantly exceeded.</p><p>If they were doing their job properly, they simply need to decide to either immediately fix the leak or shut the site down.  They can review the safety standards later if they want. To do that properly would require a detailed study, in other words, more time than they have now. I don't even think the NRC has the legal authority to arbitrarily decide to ignore the current safety standards.</p><p>The thing that is most scary is the NRC at the highest level apparently believes that weasel words presumably to cover political expediency and cost saving are more appropriate than peoples safety, and a commitment to quickly and properly fix the actual leak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a hard job to set safety standards for radiation as there really is not any 100 \ % safe level other than absolute 0.The standards are probably irrationally low for all practical purposes , but regardless of that , there is no dispute that the standards have already been significantly exceeded.If they were doing their job properly , they simply need to decide to either immediately fix the leak or shut the site down .
They can review the safety standards later if they want .
To do that properly would require a detailed study , in other words , more time than they have now .
I do n't even think the NRC has the legal authority to arbitrarily decide to ignore the current safety standards.The thing that is most scary is the NRC at the highest level apparently believes that weasel words presumably to cover political expediency and cost saving are more appropriate than peoples safety , and a commitment to quickly and properly fix the actual leak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a hard job to set safety standards for radiation as there really is not any 100\% safe level other than absolute 0.The standards are probably irrationally low for all practical purposes, but regardless of that, there is no dispute that the standards have already been significantly exceeded.If they were doing their job properly, they simply need to decide to either immediately fix the leak or shut the site down.
They can review the safety standards later if they want.
To do that properly would require a detailed study, in other words, more time than they have now.
I don't even think the NRC has the legal authority to arbitrarily decide to ignore the current safety standards.The thing that is most scary is the NRC at the highest level apparently believes that weasel words presumably to cover political expediency and cost saving are more appropriate than peoples safety, and a commitment to quickly and properly fix the actual leak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046940</id>
	<title>Re:Not A Major Concern</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265484720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm, while you are correct that in a light water reactor virtually no tritium is created by hydrogen absorbing two neutrons, there are like 5 or 6 other ways that tritium is created in a reactor, all of which create much more tritium than the method you mentioned. I beleive the leading cause of tritium creation in a reactor is by direct fissioning of uranium.  The end result is that light water reactors create a fair amount of tritium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm , while you are correct that in a light water reactor virtually no tritium is created by hydrogen absorbing two neutrons , there are like 5 or 6 other ways that tritium is created in a reactor , all of which create much more tritium than the method you mentioned .
I beleive the leading cause of tritium creation in a reactor is by direct fissioning of uranium .
The end result is that light water reactors create a fair amount of tritium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm, while you are correct that in a light water reactor virtually no tritium is created by hydrogen absorbing two neutrons, there are like 5 or 6 other ways that tritium is created in a reactor, all of which create much more tritium than the method you mentioned.
I beleive the leading cause of tritium creation in a reactor is by direct fissioning of uranium.
The end result is that light water reactors create a fair amount of tritium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047302</id>
	<title>Re:What a bunch of numbskulls.</title>
	<author>agnosticnixie</author>
	<datestamp>1265488140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I guess we'll have to change our granite countertops to something more exotic, they were starting to look nouveau riche</p><p>*sighs*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I guess we 'll have to change our granite countertops to something more exotic , they were starting to look nouveau riche * sighs *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I guess we'll have to change our granite countertops to something more exotic, they were starting to look nouveau riche*sighs*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046594</id>
	<title>Re:Now everyone go to your corners and rant.</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1265481780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was astonished the first time I realized that typical 'environmentalist' groups oppose nuclear power. That blows my mind. To this day I can't figure out how a focus on the environment would lead you *away* from nuclear power, when it is so clearly the safest way to produce abundant electricity with minimal environmental impact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was astonished the first time I realized that typical 'environmentalist ' groups oppose nuclear power .
That blows my mind .
To this day I ca n't figure out how a focus on the environment would lead you * away * from nuclear power , when it is so clearly the safest way to produce abundant electricity with minimal environmental impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was astonished the first time I realized that typical 'environmentalist' groups oppose nuclear power.
That blows my mind.
To this day I can't figure out how a focus on the environment would lead you *away* from nuclear power, when it is so clearly the safest way to produce abundant electricity with minimal environmental impact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046108</id>
	<title>Downstream?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where does the water flow? Does it flow south, toward Boston? Or, does it flow north toward Montreal and Quebec?</p><p>There are a lot of people that could be affected by this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does the water flow ?
Does it flow south , toward Boston ?
Or , does it flow north toward Montreal and Quebec ? There are a lot of people that could be affected by this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does the water flow?
Does it flow south, toward Boston?
Or, does it flow north toward Montreal and Quebec?There are a lot of people that could be affected by this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046034</id>
	<title>I won't lie- This concerns me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a native Vermonter.... At first the leak was super small, something like 1/7th the legal amount which was no big deal. Why freak out?<br>Well, now we're finding out the true amount that seems to be getting through. That's pretty sketch guys and It is a bit concerning.</p><p>Any nuclear people have input on this situation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a native Vermonter.... At first the leak was super small , something like 1/7th the legal amount which was no big deal .
Why freak out ? Well , now we 're finding out the true amount that seems to be getting through .
That 's pretty sketch guys and It is a bit concerning.Any nuclear people have input on this situation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a native Vermonter.... At first the leak was super small, something like 1/7th the legal amount which was no big deal.
Why freak out?Well, now we're finding out the true amount that seems to be getting through.
That's pretty sketch guys and It is a bit concerning.Any nuclear people have input on this situation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047456</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>bhalter80</author>
	<datestamp>1265489820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm also very very pro-nuclear and as I see it the NRC has 2 choices here:

1) get out in front of this, shut down the plant and show they're committed to safe nuclear power
2) keep Vermont Yankee operating despite being in violation of numerous EPA requirements and call all the doubters silly

I can't see #2 working as it will only fuel the anti-nuke crowd since they will be showing they're not even committed to safety with the plants we have now what happens when there are hundreds more.  #1 I suspect is overly simplistic and you can't simply shut down a nuke plant by turning a light switch, sure you can drop the control rods and shut down the reactor but draining the plant is a non-trivial task.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also very very pro-nuclear and as I see it the NRC has 2 choices here : 1 ) get out in front of this , shut down the plant and show they 're committed to safe nuclear power 2 ) keep Vermont Yankee operating despite being in violation of numerous EPA requirements and call all the doubters silly I ca n't see # 2 working as it will only fuel the anti-nuke crowd since they will be showing they 're not even committed to safety with the plants we have now what happens when there are hundreds more .
# 1 I suspect is overly simplistic and you ca n't simply shut down a nuke plant by turning a light switch , sure you can drop the control rods and shut down the reactor but draining the plant is a non-trivial task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also very very pro-nuclear and as I see it the NRC has 2 choices here:

1) get out in front of this, shut down the plant and show they're committed to safe nuclear power
2) keep Vermont Yankee operating despite being in violation of numerous EPA requirements and call all the doubters silly

I can't see #2 working as it will only fuel the anti-nuke crowd since they will be showing they're not even committed to safety with the plants we have now what happens when there are hundreds more.
#1 I suspect is overly simplistic and you can't simply shut down a nuke plant by turning a light switch, sure you can drop the control rods and shut down the reactor but draining the plant is a non-trivial task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046280</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265479140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um......</p><p>That's because they (the people there now) DON'T know how their plant works.</p><p>VY went online in November 30, 1972...</p><p>How many original employees do you think still exist there?  I'd bet its zero. Or close to it.</p><p>How many of the original engineers are even still alive?</p><p>They operate at 120\% of designed capacity right now too.</p><p>Just another example of not taking care of our nations vital infrastructure.  Altho in this case it can kill us.    BRILLIANT!</p><p>captcha:radiator   (LOL)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um......That 's because they ( the people there now ) DO N'T know how their plant works.VY went online in November 30 , 1972...How many original employees do you think still exist there ?
I 'd bet its zero .
Or close to it.How many of the original engineers are even still alive ? They operate at 120 \ % of designed capacity right now too.Just another example of not taking care of our nations vital infrastructure .
Altho in this case it can kill us .
BRILLIANT ! captcha : radiator ( LOL )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um......That's because they (the people there now) DON'T know how their plant works.VY went online in November 30, 1972...How many original employees do you think still exist there?
I'd bet its zero.
Or close to it.How many of the original engineers are even still alive?They operate at 120\% of designed capacity right now too.Just another example of not taking care of our nations vital infrastructure.
Altho in this case it can kill us.
BRILLIANT!captcha:radiator   (LOL)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048594</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265457600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's completely irrelevant if #1 works, dropping the control rods is so expensive that the mere threat would probably have the issue fixed in no time, no matter the cost.<br>Or even if not it will convince every other operator to get their plants double- and triple checked to avoid this happening to them.<br>Those not doing anything should learn that they are \_strongly encouraging\_ dangerous behaviour by driving anyone acting responsibly out of business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's completely irrelevant if # 1 works , dropping the control rods is so expensive that the mere threat would probably have the issue fixed in no time , no matter the cost.Or even if not it will convince every other operator to get their plants double- and triple checked to avoid this happening to them.Those not doing anything should learn that they are \ _strongly encouraging \ _ dangerous behaviour by driving anyone acting responsibly out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's completely irrelevant if #1 works, dropping the control rods is so expensive that the mere threat would probably have the issue fixed in no time, no matter the cost.Or even if not it will convince every other operator to get their plants double- and triple checked to avoid this happening to them.Those not doing anything should learn that they are \_strongly encouraging\_ dangerous behaviour by driving anyone acting responsibly out of business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046210</id>
	<title>Tritium leak monitoring</title>
	<author>cronb</author>
	<datestamp>1265478540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When something like this happens the plant monitors the flow of the tritium into the aquifer, river, etc. VERY carefully. If those levels rise above set limits then they have to shut down.  However, right now they most likely just have to pay a daily fine to operate and that fine is less than the cost of shutdown prior to the fuel reaching the desired burnup. They will most likely continue to operate unless they see a rise above safe levels in the groundwater or the river that is used for cooling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When something like this happens the plant monitors the flow of the tritium into the aquifer , river , etc .
VERY carefully .
If those levels rise above set limits then they have to shut down .
However , right now they most likely just have to pay a daily fine to operate and that fine is less than the cost of shutdown prior to the fuel reaching the desired burnup .
They will most likely continue to operate unless they see a rise above safe levels in the groundwater or the river that is used for cooling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When something like this happens the plant monitors the flow of the tritium into the aquifer, river, etc.
VERY carefully.
If those levels rise above set limits then they have to shut down.
However, right now they most likely just have to pay a daily fine to operate and that fine is less than the cost of shutdown prior to the fuel reaching the desired burnup.
They will most likely continue to operate unless they see a rise above safe levels in the groundwater or the river that is used for cooling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049966</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>willutah</author>
	<datestamp>1265472780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...United Nuclear (a US company) are still <a href="http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=product\_info&amp;cPath=2\_8&amp;products\_id=480" title="unitednuclear.com" rel="nofollow">selling</a> [unitednuclear.com] them.</p></div><p>And 1000 or so Slashdotters just found what to give their loved one for Valentine's Day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...United Nuclear ( a US company ) are still selling [ unitednuclear.com ] them.And 1000 or so Slashdotters just found what to give their loved one for Valentine 's Day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...United Nuclear (a US company) are still selling [unitednuclear.com] them.And 1000 or so Slashdotters just found what to give their loved one for Valentine's Day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046146</id>
	<title>Ignore the limits because they're cautious?</title>
	<author>Dragoniz3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265478060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So we've got these standards and limits on the amounts of toxic chemicals we allow into our drinking water (and thus bodies), and we build a little bit of extra "caution" in, to make EXTRA sure that we don't accidentally poison ourselves... and then our public officials ignore these limits and standards because they're "cautious"? Really now?<br> <br>NRC spokeswoman should be given a hands-on lesson in why we include safety padding in these matters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So we 've got these standards and limits on the amounts of toxic chemicals we allow into our drinking water ( and thus bodies ) , and we build a little bit of extra " caution " in , to make EXTRA sure that we do n't accidentally poison ourselves... and then our public officials ignore these limits and standards because they 're " cautious " ?
Really now ?
NRC spokeswoman should be given a hands-on lesson in why we include safety padding in these matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we've got these standards and limits on the amounts of toxic chemicals we allow into our drinking water (and thus bodies), and we build a little bit of extra "caution" in, to make EXTRA sure that we don't accidentally poison ourselves... and then our public officials ignore these limits and standards because they're "cautious"?
Really now?
NRC spokeswoman should be given a hands-on lesson in why we include safety padding in these matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048154</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, I wonder if they're hiding anything?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265453400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3700\%, but what can possibly go wrong in a nuclear installation when your are off by only two zeros?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3700 \ % , but what can possibly go wrong in a nuclear installation when your are off by only two zeros ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3700\%, but what can possibly go wrong in a nuclear installation when your are off by only two zeros?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046346</id>
	<title>Ready with the caulk gun</title>
	<author>mswope</author>
	<datestamp>1265479740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's that leak again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's that leak again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's that leak again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049060</id>
	<title>Why this is important</title>
	<author>lyonlebrun</author>
	<datestamp>1265461800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a resident of the state across the river (NH), I've been following this carefully.

The context of this story is that Entergy (the company that's running Vermont Yankee) is asking a) to extend its current 30 year license (currently scheduled to expire in 2012) for another 20 years. In addition, they're asking to run the reactor at 120\% of its rated power during that time

This may be a great idea. Getting more years (and maybe even more power) from an existing fixed capital asset might continue to make (relatively inexpensive) power available at no carbon cost. As another poster said, a well-regulated, safe nuclear power plant should be just fine.

But...

1) Entergy has been known to minimize the seriousness things in many of their statements. Most recently, they had told regulators several times that there were *no* underground pipes that could leak. Now... Oops. We didn't realize that those pipes existed...

2) They're trying to sell this plant to some other company. I don't understand the reason - it hasn't been stated clearly.

3) It's not at all clear where the money will come from to decommission the plant when it's closed. (Somewhere between $400-600Million...) Given that Entergy is trying to sell it, will they also pass off their decommissioning fund? (Or is there even one?)

So I would be quite comfortable with extending the license for, say, 5 years at a time, with regular, rigorous inspections, as long as there is a bond or other reliable means of paying for the decommissioning.

Otherwise, we have another example of privatizing the gain while socializing the expense...

NH Resident</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a resident of the state across the river ( NH ) , I 've been following this carefully .
The context of this story is that Entergy ( the company that 's running Vermont Yankee ) is asking a ) to extend its current 30 year license ( currently scheduled to expire in 2012 ) for another 20 years .
In addition , they 're asking to run the reactor at 120 \ % of its rated power during that time This may be a great idea .
Getting more years ( and maybe even more power ) from an existing fixed capital asset might continue to make ( relatively inexpensive ) power available at no carbon cost .
As another poster said , a well-regulated , safe nuclear power plant should be just fine .
But.. . 1 ) Entergy has been known to minimize the seriousness things in many of their statements .
Most recently , they had told regulators several times that there were * no * underground pipes that could leak .
Now... Oops .
We did n't realize that those pipes existed.. . 2 ) They 're trying to sell this plant to some other company .
I do n't understand the reason - it has n't been stated clearly .
3 ) It 's not at all clear where the money will come from to decommission the plant when it 's closed .
( Somewhere between $ 400-600Million... ) Given that Entergy is trying to sell it , will they also pass off their decommissioning fund ?
( Or is there even one ?
) So I would be quite comfortable with extending the license for , say , 5 years at a time , with regular , rigorous inspections , as long as there is a bond or other reliable means of paying for the decommissioning .
Otherwise , we have another example of privatizing the gain while socializing the expense.. . NH Resident</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a resident of the state across the river (NH), I've been following this carefully.
The context of this story is that Entergy (the company that's running Vermont Yankee) is asking a) to extend its current 30 year license (currently scheduled to expire in 2012) for another 20 years.
In addition, they're asking to run the reactor at 120\% of its rated power during that time

This may be a great idea.
Getting more years (and maybe even more power) from an existing fixed capital asset might continue to make (relatively inexpensive) power available at no carbon cost.
As another poster said, a well-regulated, safe nuclear power plant should be just fine.
But...

1) Entergy has been known to minimize the seriousness things in many of their statements.
Most recently, they had told regulators several times that there were *no* underground pipes that could leak.
Now... Oops.
We didn't realize that those pipes existed...

2) They're trying to sell this plant to some other company.
I don't understand the reason - it hasn't been stated clearly.
3) It's not at all clear where the money will come from to decommission the plant when it's closed.
(Somewhere between $400-600Million...) Given that Entergy is trying to sell it, will they also pass off their decommissioning fund?
(Or is there even one?
)

So I would be quite comfortable with extending the license for, say, 5 years at a time, with regular, rigorous inspections, as long as there is a bond or other reliable means of paying for the decommissioning.
Otherwise, we have another example of privatizing the gain while socializing the expense...

NH Resident</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31097152</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265881200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What cancer? Nah all those people got cancer from umm..... 2nd hand smoke!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What cancer ?
Nah all those people got cancer from umm..... 2nd hand smoke !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What cancer?
Nah all those people got cancer from umm..... 2nd hand smoke!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182</id>
	<title>to all the nuclear proponents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265478300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose when this sort of thing happens you'll be ok with taxpayers paying the clean-up costs ?</p><p>I think nuclear is something we're going to have to use, but I am \_extremely\_ worried it's going to be another privatize the gains and socialize the losses deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose when this sort of thing happens you 'll be ok with taxpayers paying the clean-up costs ? I think nuclear is something we 're going to have to use , but I am \ _extremely \ _ worried it 's going to be another privatize the gains and socialize the losses deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose when this sort of thing happens you'll be ok with taxpayers paying the clean-up costs ?I think nuclear is something we're going to have to use, but I am \_extremely\_ worried it's going to be another privatize the gains and socialize the losses deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31050390</id>
	<title>At what level should the NRC shut down the plant?</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1265478120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my understanding the criteria for shutting down a Nuclear Power plant is assessed on mainly two parameters.
</p><p>
A "Licencee Event Report" (LER) is submitted for issues above a safety significance threshold. For example at Davis-Besse, the frequency of the replacement water filters was out of spec. It should have signaled that something is going wrong in the reactor. This is the type of event that should be signaled as a LER even if it seems insignificant.
</p><p>
The second stage is an "Accident Sequence Precursor" (ASP) which defines events that characterise the lead up to an accident at a Nuclear Plant.
Sticking with the Davis Besse example which (from memory) was caused by a fine jet of borated water spraying onto the the *inside* of the reactor head. Water rusts steel, reactor head is steel, rust goes in water, water goes through filter, filter catches rust, management says it's ok, reactor head gets hole [if allowed to continue - reactor core breach and potential for explosion] - 'Accident Sequence Precursor'.
</p><p>
By examining the trends for LER's and ASP statistically for all nuclear plants the NRC can get an overview of the operational state of all the plants *if* the operators of the plant co-operate and share their operational data (which I also believe to be a legal obligation of the Licensee) with the NRC. At issue is the characterisation of what sort of events should lead to a LER.
</p><p>
At the Davis Besse plant I believe that it led to criminal charges as management allowed the plant to operate outside of it's "Basis Design" which is a known operational characteristic of the plant. Filter replacement intervals had been defined and were known about and thus should have characterised the plant as "not operating safely". I'm not sure if the criminal charges were placed because management should have reported several LERs instead of inspectors finding a hole in the reactor head when it was shutdown.
</p><p>
"Basis Design Issues" (BDI) are also revealed whilst the reactors are operating - they are not all known when the reactor becomes operational due to the complexity of the machine. Industry wide knowledge of LERs contribute to knowing what BDIs lead to ASPs (and a sentence full of acronyms). Further information can be found in the NRC document <a href="http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti\_id=5618822" title="osti.gov">NUREG 1275 - Volume 14 "Causes and Significance of Design Basis Issues at U.S Nuclear Power Plants"</a> [osti.gov]
</p><p>
As often observed in plane crashes it's a combination of insignificant issues that lead to a problem. The question at hand is whether the leak is indicative of a larger problem for example; lets say our leak has led to filling a concrete void under the reactor core with water. Together the two events are insignificant, however when combined with a third event like a SCRAM of the reactor that suddenly heats that water in the concrete void you have the potential for a serious explosion.
</p><p>
I'm not saying thats whats happening, just that the water leak my be an indicator (a LER) of a larger issue which is used as part of the determination if the plant should be shut down. A leak of triated water into the environment is a serious concern. What is yet to be revealed is if the leak reveals a Basis Design Issue that is serious enough to be a part of an Accident Sequence Precursor.</p><p>
No matter what the outcome the continued operation of the reactor will probably be determined on *if* they can find the leak. Anything that affects the cooling capacity of a Nuclear Reactor is not a situation that can be allowed to persist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my understanding the criteria for shutting down a Nuclear Power plant is assessed on mainly two parameters .
A " Licencee Event Report " ( LER ) is submitted for issues above a safety significance threshold .
For example at Davis-Besse , the frequency of the replacement water filters was out of spec .
It should have signaled that something is going wrong in the reactor .
This is the type of event that should be signaled as a LER even if it seems insignificant .
The second stage is an " Accident Sequence Precursor " ( ASP ) which defines events that characterise the lead up to an accident at a Nuclear Plant .
Sticking with the Davis Besse example which ( from memory ) was caused by a fine jet of borated water spraying onto the the * inside * of the reactor head .
Water rusts steel , reactor head is steel , rust goes in water , water goes through filter , filter catches rust , management says it 's ok , reactor head gets hole [ if allowed to continue - reactor core breach and potential for explosion ] - 'Accident Sequence Precursor' .
By examining the trends for LER 's and ASP statistically for all nuclear plants the NRC can get an overview of the operational state of all the plants * if * the operators of the plant co-operate and share their operational data ( which I also believe to be a legal obligation of the Licensee ) with the NRC .
At issue is the characterisation of what sort of events should lead to a LER .
At the Davis Besse plant I believe that it led to criminal charges as management allowed the plant to operate outside of it 's " Basis Design " which is a known operational characteristic of the plant .
Filter replacement intervals had been defined and were known about and thus should have characterised the plant as " not operating safely " .
I 'm not sure if the criminal charges were placed because management should have reported several LERs instead of inspectors finding a hole in the reactor head when it was shutdown .
" Basis Design Issues " ( BDI ) are also revealed whilst the reactors are operating - they are not all known when the reactor becomes operational due to the complexity of the machine .
Industry wide knowledge of LERs contribute to knowing what BDIs lead to ASPs ( and a sentence full of acronyms ) .
Further information can be found in the NRC document NUREG 1275 - Volume 14 " Causes and Significance of Design Basis Issues at U.S Nuclear Power Plants " [ osti.gov ] As often observed in plane crashes it 's a combination of insignificant issues that lead to a problem .
The question at hand is whether the leak is indicative of a larger problem for example ; lets say our leak has led to filling a concrete void under the reactor core with water .
Together the two events are insignificant , however when combined with a third event like a SCRAM of the reactor that suddenly heats that water in the concrete void you have the potential for a serious explosion .
I 'm not saying thats whats happening , just that the water leak my be an indicator ( a LER ) of a larger issue which is used as part of the determination if the plant should be shut down .
A leak of triated water into the environment is a serious concern .
What is yet to be revealed is if the leak reveals a Basis Design Issue that is serious enough to be a part of an Accident Sequence Precursor .
No matter what the outcome the continued operation of the reactor will probably be determined on * if * they can find the leak .
Anything that affects the cooling capacity of a Nuclear Reactor is not a situation that can be allowed to persist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my understanding the criteria for shutting down a Nuclear Power plant is assessed on mainly two parameters.
A "Licencee Event Report" (LER) is submitted for issues above a safety significance threshold.
For example at Davis-Besse, the frequency of the replacement water filters was out of spec.
It should have signaled that something is going wrong in the reactor.
This is the type of event that should be signaled as a LER even if it seems insignificant.
The second stage is an "Accident Sequence Precursor" (ASP) which defines events that characterise the lead up to an accident at a Nuclear Plant.
Sticking with the Davis Besse example which (from memory) was caused by a fine jet of borated water spraying onto the the *inside* of the reactor head.
Water rusts steel, reactor head is steel, rust goes in water, water goes through filter, filter catches rust, management says it's ok, reactor head gets hole [if allowed to continue - reactor core breach and potential for explosion] - 'Accident Sequence Precursor'.
By examining the trends for LER's and ASP statistically for all nuclear plants the NRC can get an overview of the operational state of all the plants *if* the operators of the plant co-operate and share their operational data (which I also believe to be a legal obligation of the Licensee) with the NRC.
At issue is the characterisation of what sort of events should lead to a LER.
At the Davis Besse plant I believe that it led to criminal charges as management allowed the plant to operate outside of it's "Basis Design" which is a known operational characteristic of the plant.
Filter replacement intervals had been defined and were known about and thus should have characterised the plant as "not operating safely".
I'm not sure if the criminal charges were placed because management should have reported several LERs instead of inspectors finding a hole in the reactor head when it was shutdown.
"Basis Design Issues" (BDI) are also revealed whilst the reactors are operating - they are not all known when the reactor becomes operational due to the complexity of the machine.
Industry wide knowledge of LERs contribute to knowing what BDIs lead to ASPs (and a sentence full of acronyms).
Further information can be found in the NRC document NUREG 1275 - Volume 14 "Causes and Significance of Design Basis Issues at U.S Nuclear Power Plants" [osti.gov]

As often observed in plane crashes it's a combination of insignificant issues that lead to a problem.
The question at hand is whether the leak is indicative of a larger problem for example; lets say our leak has led to filling a concrete void under the reactor core with water.
Together the two events are insignificant, however when combined with a third event like a SCRAM of the reactor that suddenly heats that water in the concrete void you have the potential for a serious explosion.
I'm not saying thats whats happening, just that the water leak my be an indicator (a LER) of a larger issue which is used as part of the determination if the plant should be shut down.
A leak of triated water into the environment is a serious concern.
What is yet to be revealed is if the leak reveals a Basis Design Issue that is serious enough to be a part of an Accident Sequence Precursor.
No matter what the outcome the continued operation of the reactor will probably be determined on *if* they can find the leak.
Anything that affects the cooling capacity of a Nuclear Reactor is not a situation that can be allowed to persist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047896</id>
	<title>Re:to all the nuclear proponents</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265450760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You do realize that cleaning up the acid mine drainage from coal mines is mostly paid by taxes, right?</i></p><p><i>If it's a small leak or a small accident, then yes, the plant should and will pay for it. But in a serious emergency, do you really \_want\_ them to take care of it? The government has more training in disaster management, and they have more resources. Plus I'm not really gonna trust the people that caused the problem to fix it properly. So yes, taxes pay for disaster relief. That's the way it's always been. </i></p><p>And that's why we keep having abuses.</p><p>The trouble is these mines are on so-called 'public' lands.  A 'corporation' is given mining rights and the owners have no personal liability, so they don't bother to do it carefully and they don't get sufficient insurance.</p><p>If they were facing polluting private land and the owners were personally responsible, they'd do it right or get sufficient insurance (which would insist on it being done right or have enough money to hire out competent remediation).</p><p>We get this kind of reckless pollution due to multiple bad government policies stacked upon each other.  Meanwhile, the mining companies pay off the politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that cleaning up the acid mine drainage from coal mines is mostly paid by taxes , right ? If it 's a small leak or a small accident , then yes , the plant should and will pay for it .
But in a serious emergency , do you really \ _want \ _ them to take care of it ?
The government has more training in disaster management , and they have more resources .
Plus I 'm not really gon na trust the people that caused the problem to fix it properly .
So yes , taxes pay for disaster relief .
That 's the way it 's always been .
And that 's why we keep having abuses.The trouble is these mines are on so-called 'public ' lands .
A 'corporation ' is given mining rights and the owners have no personal liability , so they do n't bother to do it carefully and they do n't get sufficient insurance.If they were facing polluting private land and the owners were personally responsible , they 'd do it right or get sufficient insurance ( which would insist on it being done right or have enough money to hire out competent remediation ) .We get this kind of reckless pollution due to multiple bad government policies stacked upon each other .
Meanwhile , the mining companies pay off the politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that cleaning up the acid mine drainage from coal mines is mostly paid by taxes, right?If it's a small leak or a small accident, then yes, the plant should and will pay for it.
But in a serious emergency, do you really \_want\_ them to take care of it?
The government has more training in disaster management, and they have more resources.
Plus I'm not really gonna trust the people that caused the problem to fix it properly.
So yes, taxes pay for disaster relief.
That's the way it's always been.
And that's why we keep having abuses.The trouble is these mines are on so-called 'public' lands.
A 'corporation' is given mining rights and the owners have no personal liability, so they don't bother to do it carefully and they don't get sufficient insurance.If they were facing polluting private land and the owners were personally responsible, they'd do it right or get sufficient insurance (which would insist on it being done right or have enough money to hire out competent remediation).We get this kind of reckless pollution due to multiple bad government policies stacked upon each other.
Meanwhile, the mining companies pay off the politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046322</id>
	<title>Re:2.7 million picocuries</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265479500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That's good. That reading is a sump inside the plant.  It's about the level of the process water, so it's near the leak.  They're getting close.
</p><p>
The hazardous readings are all within the plant perimeter.  Additional monitoring of off-site wells has been started (ten locations are normally monitored by the State of Vermont, but monthly) and those aren't showing any significant radioactivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's good .
That reading is a sump inside the plant .
It 's about the level of the process water , so it 's near the leak .
They 're getting close .
The hazardous readings are all within the plant perimeter .
Additional monitoring of off-site wells has been started ( ten locations are normally monitored by the State of Vermont , but monthly ) and those are n't showing any significant radioactivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That's good.
That reading is a sump inside the plant.
It's about the level of the process water, so it's near the leak.
They're getting close.
The hazardous readings are all within the plant perimeter.
Additional monitoring of off-site wells has been started (ten locations are normally monitored by the State of Vermont, but monthly) and those aren't showing any significant radioactivity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047012</id>
	<title>Re:we do not apply limits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265485380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The limit does not apply because the limit is for drinking water and no tritium has been found in any drinking water. It is supposed to give you perspective, like when a guy gets drunk and commits a crime and the paper says he was 3 times the legal driving limit but he wasn't driving.  I think they need a new way to put this in perspective...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The limit does not apply because the limit is for drinking water and no tritium has been found in any drinking water .
It is supposed to give you perspective , like when a guy gets drunk and commits a crime and the paper says he was 3 times the legal driving limit but he was n't driving .
I think they need a new way to put this in perspective.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The limit does not apply because the limit is for drinking water and no tritium has been found in any drinking water.
It is supposed to give you perspective, like when a guy gets drunk and commits a crime and the paper says he was 3 times the legal driving limit but he wasn't driving.
I think they need a new way to put this in perspective...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046126</id>
	<title>we do not apply limits</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1265477940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have a limit, apparently, but of course we do not act in case we go over it.<br>
Is the limit still a limit in that case?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a limit , apparently , but of course we do not act in case we go over it .
Is the limit still a limit in that case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a limit, apparently, but of course we do not act in case we go over it.
Is the limit still a limit in that case?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31060058</id>
	<title>Re:Now everyone go to your corners and rant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265641020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I was astonished the first time I realized that typical 'environmentalist' groups oppose nuclear power. That blows my mind. To this day I can't figure out how a focus on the environment would lead you *away* from nuclear power, when it is so clearly the safest way to produce abundant electricity with minimal environmental impact.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
How appropriate your user name is.
</p><p>The problem with nuclear power is not the short term pollution problem, as obviously it is cleaner than coal or oil (barring accidents).  It's the long term problem of the disposal of radioactive waste.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was astonished the first time I realized that typical 'environmentalist ' groups oppose nuclear power .
That blows my mind .
To this day I ca n't figure out how a focus on the environment would lead you * away * from nuclear power , when it is so clearly the safest way to produce abundant electricity with minimal environmental impact .
How appropriate your user name is .
The problem with nuclear power is not the short term pollution problem , as obviously it is cleaner than coal or oil ( barring accidents ) .
It 's the long term problem of the disposal of radioactive waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was astonished the first time I realized that typical 'environmentalist' groups oppose nuclear power.
That blows my mind.
To this day I can't figure out how a focus on the environment would lead you *away* from nuclear power, when it is so clearly the safest way to produce abundant electricity with minimal environmental impact.
How appropriate your user name is.
The problem with nuclear power is not the short term pollution problem, as obviously it is cleaner than coal or oil (barring accidents).
It's the long term problem of the disposal of radioactive waste.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048188</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>acey72</author>
	<datestamp>1265453700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tritium lights are great - I bought a couple and taped one to the dog's collar so I don't trip over him at night and one to the toilet seat so I can pee at night without putting the light on. The only thing was I got confused and peed on the dog...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium lights are great - I bought a couple and taped one to the dog 's collar so I do n't trip over him at night and one to the toilet seat so I can pee at night without putting the light on .
The only thing was I got confused and peed on the dog.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium lights are great - I bought a couple and taped one to the dog's collar so I don't trip over him at night and one to the toilet seat so I can pee at night without putting the light on.
The only thing was I got confused and peed on the dog...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048284</id>
	<title>Re:to all the nuclear proponents</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265454780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, TMI wasn't a disaster at all. It was a big scare, but certainly not a disaster. That brings the tally of nuclear disasters in the U.S. to 0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , TMI was n't a disaster at all .
It was a big scare , but certainly not a disaster .
That brings the tally of nuclear disasters in the U.S. to 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, TMI wasn't a disaster at all.
It was a big scare, but certainly not a disaster.
That brings the tally of nuclear disasters in the U.S. to 0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047960</id>
	<title>Wait, there's something wrong here...</title>
	<author>geekprime</author>
	<datestamp>1265451480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't tritium ridiculously valuable?</p><p>As in worth more per measure than gold or platinum?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't tritium ridiculously valuable ? As in worth more per measure than gold or platinum ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't tritium ridiculously valuable?As in worth more per measure than gold or platinum?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31051332</id>
	<title>Re:Now everyone go to your corners and rant.</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1265540820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't claim to know why, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has become far more politicized in the past few years.  It was certainly never perfect, but discussions about any issue included far more information, and far less ranting, yelling and baseless assertions.</p><p>Since you can still find plenty of the later (good) comments around here, I can only conclude the moderation pool has shifted to people who are much more persuaded by arguments rather than information.  And we see both sides getting prominence, oddly enough.  It's a shame the two extremes can't just cancel each other out.</p><p>It could be demographics shifting, it could be editors pandering, or it could just be slashcode or layout change influencing who does and doesn't moderate/metamoderate.  But I'm every bit as tired of it as you are.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. was always much more technical, and much less political than today.  And while it certainly wasn't perfect, particularly as individuals and groups managed to twist the mod system to their advantage and noise was occasionally masking out the signal, I'd still say we're getting the short shrift these days, as this crap is gradually degrading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. into the same cesspool as every other large blog (with comments) on the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't claim to know why , but / .
has become far more politicized in the past few years .
It was certainly never perfect , but discussions about any issue included far more information , and far less ranting , yelling and baseless assertions.Since you can still find plenty of the later ( good ) comments around here , I can only conclude the moderation pool has shifted to people who are much more persuaded by arguments rather than information .
And we see both sides getting prominence , oddly enough .
It 's a shame the two extremes ca n't just cancel each other out.It could be demographics shifting , it could be editors pandering , or it could just be slashcode or layout change influencing who does and does n't moderate/metamoderate .
But I 'm every bit as tired of it as you are .
/. was always much more technical , and much less political than today .
And while it certainly was n't perfect , particularly as individuals and groups managed to twist the mod system to their advantage and noise was occasionally masking out the signal , I 'd still say we 're getting the short shrift these days , as this crap is gradually degrading / .
into the same cesspool as every other large blog ( with comments ) on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't claim to know why, but /.
has become far more politicized in the past few years.
It was certainly never perfect, but discussions about any issue included far more information, and far less ranting, yelling and baseless assertions.Since you can still find plenty of the later (good) comments around here, I can only conclude the moderation pool has shifted to people who are much more persuaded by arguments rather than information.
And we see both sides getting prominence, oddly enough.
It's a shame the two extremes can't just cancel each other out.It could be demographics shifting, it could be editors pandering, or it could just be slashcode or layout change influencing who does and doesn't moderate/metamoderate.
But I'm every bit as tired of it as you are.
/. was always much more technical, and much less political than today.
And while it certainly wasn't perfect, particularly as individuals and groups managed to twist the mod system to their advantage and noise was occasionally masking out the signal, I'd still say we're getting the short shrift these days, as this crap is gradually degrading /.
into the same cesspool as every other large blog (with comments) on the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048518</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, I wonder if they're hiding anything?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265456700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, a couple of 0s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , a couple of 0s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, a couple of 0s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047300</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>zmooc</author>
	<datestamp>1265488140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse</i></p><p>That is not quite true; those acceptable contamination levels are for drinking water, not for ground water in general. So they don't really exceed them. Apart from that I completely agree with you, though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourseThat is not quite true ; those acceptable contamination levels are for drinking water , not for ground water in general .
So they do n't really exceed them .
Apart from that I completely agree with you , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourseThat is not quite true; those acceptable contamination levels are for drinking water, not for ground water in general.
So they don't really exceed them.
Apart from that I completely agree with you, though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047922</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265451180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can order one here:</p><p><a href="http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=product\_info&amp;cPath=2\_76&amp;products\_id=480" title="unitednuclear.com" rel="nofollow">http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=product\_info&amp;cPath=2\_76&amp;products\_id=480</a> [unitednuclear.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can order one here : http : //unitednuclear.com/index.php ? main \ _page = product \ _info&amp;cPath = 2 \ _76&amp;products \ _id = 480 [ unitednuclear.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can order one here:http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=product\_info&amp;cPath=2\_76&amp;products\_id=480 [unitednuclear.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049334</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>moortak</author>
	<datestamp>1265464320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Between this and Davis Besse we're facing a pretty uphill fight on public perception of nuclear safety.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Between this and Davis Besse we 're facing a pretty uphill fight on public perception of nuclear safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between this and Davis Besse we're facing a pretty uphill fight on public perception of nuclear safety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046500</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>rhyder128k</author>
	<datestamp>1265481000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At what level should the NRC shut down the troubled plant?"</p><p>When the projected costs of liability for cancer exceed the projected profits? Oh sorry, you said "At what level should", I read that as "At what level will they". My mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At what level should the NRC shut down the troubled plant ?
" When the projected costs of liability for cancer exceed the projected profits ?
Oh sorry , you said " At what level should " , I read that as " At what level will they " .
My mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At what level should the NRC shut down the troubled plant?
"When the projected costs of liability for cancer exceed the projected profits?
Oh sorry, you said "At what level should", I read that as "At what level will they".
My mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046056</id>
	<title>My watch from 1980s glowed in dark due to tritium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does that mean people in Vermont will glow in the dark too?  Sounds like a win to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean people in Vermont will glow in the dark too ?
Sounds like a win to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean people in Vermont will glow in the dark too?
Sounds like a win to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046882</id>
	<title>Re:Canary in the coal mine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265484120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>Tritanium is formed from HYDROGEN. You know, in the WATER. What else is in the water that gets radioactive? Oxygen?</p><p>http://www.webelements.com/oxygen/isotopes.html</p><p>from this data is OBVIOUS as hell that Oxygen cannot get radioactive. So yeah, RADIOACTIVE HYDROGEN which is part of WATER MOLECULE is the only thing that leaks out of some cooling pipe.</p><p>Was that simple enough explanation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.Tritanium is formed from HYDROGEN .
You know , in the WATER .
What else is in the water that gets radioactive ?
Oxygen ? http : //www.webelements.com/oxygen/isotopes.htmlfrom this data is OBVIOUS as hell that Oxygen can not get radioactive .
So yeah , RADIOACTIVE HYDROGEN which is part of WATER MOLECULE is the only thing that leaks out of some cooling pipe.Was that simple enough explanation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.Tritanium is formed from HYDROGEN.
You know, in the WATER.
What else is in the water that gets radioactive?
Oxygen?http://www.webelements.com/oxygen/isotopes.htmlfrom this data is OBVIOUS as hell that Oxygen cannot get radioactive.
So yeah, RADIOACTIVE HYDROGEN which is part of WATER MOLECULE is the only thing that leaks out of some cooling pipe.Was that simple enough explanation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046678</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1265482440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tritium lights are perfectly legal in the United States.  Do a google search and there are lots of places that sell them in the US - they are quite common for Exit signs.  WalMart was recently fined for improperly disposing of them because they use them in all their stores.</p><p>Your quip about Chalk River is just off-topic flamebait.  There's a lot of screwed-up stuff happening on that reactor, and it can't be summarized in this conversation.  Suffice it to say, I work with someone who has a lot of experience in CANDU reactors and taking that reactor temporarily offline for maintenance is a very smart thing to do.  It it not up to spec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium lights are perfectly legal in the United States .
Do a google search and there are lots of places that sell them in the US - they are quite common for Exit signs .
WalMart was recently fined for improperly disposing of them because they use them in all their stores.Your quip about Chalk River is just off-topic flamebait .
There 's a lot of screwed-up stuff happening on that reactor , and it ca n't be summarized in this conversation .
Suffice it to say , I work with someone who has a lot of experience in CANDU reactors and taking that reactor temporarily offline for maintenance is a very smart thing to do .
It it not up to spec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium lights are perfectly legal in the United States.
Do a google search and there are lots of places that sell them in the US - they are quite common for Exit signs.
WalMart was recently fined for improperly disposing of them because they use them in all their stores.Your quip about Chalk River is just off-topic flamebait.
There's a lot of screwed-up stuff happening on that reactor, and it can't be summarized in this conversation.
Suffice it to say, I work with someone who has a lot of experience in CANDU reactors and taking that reactor temporarily offline for maintenance is a very smart thing to do.
It it not up to spec.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31051662</id>
	<title>If you wanted to connect some dots . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265546820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A December 31st 2009 Time Magazine article, chronicled the movement in Vermont to seceed from the United States because of the endless wars, invasions of liberty, war crimes around the world, and fiscal irresponsiblity.</p><p>A couple of months later: Vermont has deadly levels of radioactive waste in it's water.</p><p>Hmmmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A December 31st 2009 Time Magazine article , chronicled the movement in Vermont to seceed from the United States because of the endless wars , invasions of liberty , war crimes around the world , and fiscal irresponsiblity.A couple of months later : Vermont has deadly levels of radioactive waste in it 's water.Hmmmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A December 31st 2009 Time Magazine article, chronicled the movement in Vermont to seceed from the United States because of the endless wars, invasions of liberty, war crimes around the world, and fiscal irresponsiblity.A couple of months later: Vermont has deadly levels of radioactive waste in it's water.Hmmmmm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048620</id>
	<title>Re:actually, the levels only doubled</title>
	<author>ukemike</author>
	<datestamp>1265457900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that underground plumes of bad stuff spread over time.  If you discover the contamination before it gets dangerous and you stop the leak it may be that the levels in water that is used by people never gets above the regulatory limit.  If you let it sit  it won't be long before people are drinking water with many times the the EPA limit.<br> <br>

One thing that always bothers me about these environmental stories is that when some Chemical X is reported to be floating around, it's never 20\% over the regulatory limit, or even twice the limit, it is always at least one order of magnitude too high.  The regulatory limit may be conservative, but I really doubt it has a safety factor of 37 built in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that underground plumes of bad stuff spread over time .
If you discover the contamination before it gets dangerous and you stop the leak it may be that the levels in water that is used by people never gets above the regulatory limit .
If you let it sit it wo n't be long before people are drinking water with many times the the EPA limit .
One thing that always bothers me about these environmental stories is that when some Chemical X is reported to be floating around , it 's never 20 \ % over the regulatory limit , or even twice the limit , it is always at least one order of magnitude too high .
The regulatory limit may be conservative , but I really doubt it has a safety factor of 37 built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that underground plumes of bad stuff spread over time.
If you discover the contamination before it gets dangerous and you stop the leak it may be that the levels in water that is used by people never gets above the regulatory limit.
If you let it sit  it won't be long before people are drinking water with many times the the EPA limit.
One thing that always bothers me about these environmental stories is that when some Chemical X is reported to be floating around, it's never 20\% over the regulatory limit, or even twice the limit, it is always at least one order of magnitude too high.
The regulatory limit may be conservative, but I really doubt it has a safety factor of 37 built in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046654</id>
	<title>Re:2.7 million picocuries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265482260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did the math on this (looking at wikipedia) - 2.7 million picocuries is 135 times the legal limit of 20000 picocuries, which was set to a level which only incurs about 4 mrem of radiation exposure per year. That means that you get exposed to 135x4=540 mrem, or 0.54 rem... and apparently anything under 100 rem is not dangerous.</p><p>It doesn't hurt that tritium gets eliminated from the body pretty easily, so it doesn't build up and cause cumulative exposure.</p><p>Of course, they probably did all that math themselves, which is why they've been so recklessly lax about fixing it. Bad authorities, no biscuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did the math on this ( looking at wikipedia ) - 2.7 million picocuries is 135 times the legal limit of 20000 picocuries , which was set to a level which only incurs about 4 mrem of radiation exposure per year .
That means that you get exposed to 135x4 = 540 mrem , or 0.54 rem... and apparently anything under 100 rem is not dangerous.It does n't hurt that tritium gets eliminated from the body pretty easily , so it does n't build up and cause cumulative exposure.Of course , they probably did all that math themselves , which is why they 've been so recklessly lax about fixing it .
Bad authorities , no biscuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did the math on this (looking at wikipedia) - 2.7 million picocuries is 135 times the legal limit of 20000 picocuries, which was set to a level which only incurs about 4 mrem of radiation exposure per year.
That means that you get exposed to 135x4=540 mrem, or 0.54 rem... and apparently anything under 100 rem is not dangerous.It doesn't hurt that tritium gets eliminated from the body pretty easily, so it doesn't build up and cause cumulative exposure.Of course, they probably did all that math themselves, which is why they've been so recklessly lax about fixing it.
Bad authorities, no biscuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046168</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265478180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be less skeptical of the Nuclear Industry if they weren't run by people with PhDs in subjects like "Controlling Product Life Cycles". Same as not buying Chinese Baby Food, this is just a groundless prejudice of mine; YMMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be less skeptical of the Nuclear Industry if they were n't run by people with PhDs in subjects like " Controlling Product Life Cycles " .
Same as not buying Chinese Baby Food , this is just a groundless prejudice of mine ; YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be less skeptical of the Nuclear Industry if they weren't run by people with PhDs in subjects like "Controlling Product Life Cycles".
Same as not buying Chinese Baby Food, this is just a groundless prejudice of mine; YMMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047132</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265486580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing wrong with nuclear power from a technological point of view. The dangers of nuclear power are organizational, as this incident shows once more. There are always problems with complex technological systems. If these problems would be dealt with in an adequate manner, we could have safe nuclear energy. Unfortunately there is no form of organization which can ensure the proper handling of problems in nuclear reactors. There are however strong economical incentives to bend the rules. Combine these two and you'll see why nuclear power is a very dangerous power source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing wrong with nuclear power from a technological point of view .
The dangers of nuclear power are organizational , as this incident shows once more .
There are always problems with complex technological systems .
If these problems would be dealt with in an adequate manner , we could have safe nuclear energy .
Unfortunately there is no form of organization which can ensure the proper handling of problems in nuclear reactors .
There are however strong economical incentives to bend the rules .
Combine these two and you 'll see why nuclear power is a very dangerous power source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing wrong with nuclear power from a technological point of view.
The dangers of nuclear power are organizational, as this incident shows once more.
There are always problems with complex technological systems.
If these problems would be dealt with in an adequate manner, we could have safe nuclear energy.
Unfortunately there is no form of organization which can ensure the proper handling of problems in nuclear reactors.
There are however strong economical incentives to bend the rules.
Combine these two and you'll see why nuclear power is a very dangerous power source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047720</id>
	<title>Hey, you!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265448780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop bringing facts into this!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop bringing facts into this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop bringing facts into this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046298</id>
	<title>Canary in the coal mine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265479320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the reactor doesn't produce much tritium, then wouldn't that imply that tritium would be a small proportion of the radioactive material released when a leak occurs... but it is detected early because it IS so mobile and easy to detect.</p><p>That is, the tritium itself is not the direct cause for concern, but rather an indicator that will lead to locating the real problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the reactor does n't produce much tritium , then would n't that imply that tritium would be a small proportion of the radioactive material released when a leak occurs... but it is detected early because it IS so mobile and easy to detect.That is , the tritium itself is not the direct cause for concern , but rather an indicator that will lead to locating the real problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the reactor doesn't produce much tritium, then wouldn't that imply that tritium would be a small proportion of the radioactive material released when a leak occurs... but it is detected early because it IS so mobile and easy to detect.That is, the tritium itself is not the direct cause for concern, but rather an indicator that will lead to locating the real problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048686</id>
	<title>At what level should they shut it down?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1265458500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>RIGHT NOW</b> </p><p>
Some safety may be built into the standard, but it's done that way for a reason.
They <b>need to take action</b> to fix this, and not ignore it on bogus reasoning like <b>safety is built-in to the number</b>.
</p><p>
I would equate this to having a hard drive in your 30,000 transactions per second,  multi-million dollar database system,  and deciding <b>not to do anything right now</b>.
</p><p>
Because your RAID10 array has <b>ample safety</b> built into it, and you don't have a catstrophe yet.   *Yawn*  we can just ignore the problem.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RIGHT NOW Some safety may be built into the standard , but it 's done that way for a reason .
They need to take action to fix this , and not ignore it on bogus reasoning like safety is built-in to the number .
I would equate this to having a hard drive in your 30,000 transactions per second , multi-million dollar database system , and deciding not to do anything right now .
Because your RAID10 array has ample safety built into it , and you do n't have a catstrophe yet .
* Yawn * we can just ignore the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> RIGHT NOW 
Some safety may be built into the standard, but it's done that way for a reason.
They need to take action to fix this, and not ignore it on bogus reasoning like safety is built-in to the number.
I would equate this to having a hard drive in your 30,000 transactions per second,  multi-million dollar database system,  and deciding not to do anything right now.
Because your RAID10 array has ample safety built into it, and you don't have a catstrophe yet.
*Yawn*  we can just ignore the problem.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047146</id>
	<title>Re:Now everyone go to your corners and rant.</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1265486640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear hear. Yes the limits are being exceeded - a lot -, but the limits have not been exceeded outside the plant perimeter (yet). No actual drinking water has been found to be contaminated. The problem is being investigated, and it looks like they are close to finding the leak. Their latest sample well came up at pretty much the concentration of the raw tritium in the plant.</p><p>On the other hand, if they know where tritium \_can\_ come from, they should be able to estimate the size of the leak based on how much is missing. It's alarming that no one has documented those numbers yet.  And regardless of how much leaked out, there's a good chance the ground water for miles around the plant will have to be monitored for decades to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear hear .
Yes the limits are being exceeded - a lot - , but the limits have not been exceeded outside the plant perimeter ( yet ) .
No actual drinking water has been found to be contaminated .
The problem is being investigated , and it looks like they are close to finding the leak .
Their latest sample well came up at pretty much the concentration of the raw tritium in the plant.On the other hand , if they know where tritium \ _can \ _ come from , they should be able to estimate the size of the leak based on how much is missing .
It 's alarming that no one has documented those numbers yet .
And regardless of how much leaked out , there 's a good chance the ground water for miles around the plant will have to be monitored for decades to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear hear.
Yes the limits are being exceeded - a lot -, but the limits have not been exceeded outside the plant perimeter (yet).
No actual drinking water has been found to be contaminated.
The problem is being investigated, and it looks like they are close to finding the leak.
Their latest sample well came up at pretty much the concentration of the raw tritium in the plant.On the other hand, if they know where tritium \_can\_ come from, they should be able to estimate the size of the leak based on how much is missing.
It's alarming that no one has documented those numbers yet.
And regardless of how much leaked out, there's a good chance the ground water for miles around the plant will have to be monitored for decades to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046370</id>
	<title>Re:We have the answer...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265480040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2017 Aliens remake quote: &ldquo;Nuke it from the river water! It&rsquo;s the only way to be sure!&rdquo;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2017 Aliens remake quote :    Nuke it from the river water !
It    s the only way to be sure !   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>2017 Aliens remake quote: “Nuke it from the river water!
It’s the only way to be sure!”
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048036</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>Nicky G</author>
	<datestamp>1265452200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And they even sell death-ray kits!  Oh, I like these guys!  <a href="http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=index&amp;cPath=27\_82" title="unitednuclear.com" rel="nofollow">http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=index&amp;cPath=27\_82</a> [unitednuclear.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they even sell death-ray kits !
Oh , I like these guys !
http : //unitednuclear.com/index.php ? main \ _page = index&amp;cPath = 27 \ _82 [ unitednuclear.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they even sell death-ray kits!
Oh, I like these guys!
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=index&amp;cPath=27\_82 [unitednuclear.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046138</id>
	<title>Tritrium in water? Unacceptable.</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1265478000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do we Americans put up with this kind of nonsense? How can anyone phoo phoo off something as serious as tritrium in drinking water? <p>
As true Americans who cherish tradition, we should always take our raioactive elements in the traditional way. First mine it with coal, then burn it in a furnace, disperse it through smoke and then ingest it via the lungs. That is the American way. One second before you mod me down as a Luddite, remember I do support modern innovations, like mountain top removal and long wall mining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we Americans put up with this kind of nonsense ?
How can anyone phoo phoo off something as serious as tritrium in drinking water ?
As true Americans who cherish tradition , we should always take our raioactive elements in the traditional way .
First mine it with coal , then burn it in a furnace , disperse it through smoke and then ingest it via the lungs .
That is the American way .
One second before you mod me down as a Luddite , remember I do support modern innovations , like mountain top removal and long wall mining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we Americans put up with this kind of nonsense?
How can anyone phoo phoo off something as serious as tritrium in drinking water?
As true Americans who cherish tradition, we should always take our raioactive elements in the traditional way.
First mine it with coal, then burn it in a furnace, disperse it through smoke and then ingest it via the lungs.
That is the American way.
One second before you mod me down as a Luddite, remember I do support modern innovations, like mountain top removal and long wall mining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047122</id>
	<title>Super Powers</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1265486460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they're just waiting for the radioactivity to reach a high enough level that it will give them super-powers. Then they can deal with this and many other injustices in the world...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 're just waiting for the radioactivity to reach a high enough level that it will give them super-powers .
Then they can deal with this and many other injustices in the world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they're just waiting for the radioactivity to reach a high enough level that it will give them super-powers.
Then they can deal with this and many other injustices in the world...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046740</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265483040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any American gun owner can tell you that tritium is NOT banned in the US - tritium makes for great night sights and is a common addition for home defense weapons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any American gun owner can tell you that tritium is NOT banned in the US - tritium makes for great night sights and is a common addition for home defense weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any American gun owner can tell you that tritium is NOT banned in the US - tritium makes for great night sights and is a common addition for home defense weapons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049234</id>
	<title>Worry about Radiation?</title>
	<author>CXM2010</author>
	<datestamp>1265463180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you joking, that much radiation isn't anything to worry about compared to the fact that heavy water such as tritium or deuterium cant be expelled from the body because of the difference in binding energy in the hydrogen bonds the kidneys cant flush it from your body, it's cumulative,so the more it's consumed, more issues other than water retention develop; such as tissue degradation, affects certain cellular processes, notably mitosis, or cell division. It's effects when consumed are far worse than the level of radiation exposure from it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you joking , that much radiation is n't anything to worry about compared to the fact that heavy water such as tritium or deuterium cant be expelled from the body because of the difference in binding energy in the hydrogen bonds the kidneys cant flush it from your body , it 's cumulative,so the more it 's consumed , more issues other than water retention develop ; such as tissue degradation , affects certain cellular processes , notably mitosis , or cell division .
It 's effects when consumed are far worse than the level of radiation exposure from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you joking, that much radiation isn't anything to worry about compared to the fact that heavy water such as tritium or deuterium cant be expelled from the body because of the difference in binding energy in the hydrogen bonds the kidneys cant flush it from your body, it's cumulative,so the more it's consumed, more issues other than water retention develop; such as tissue degradation, affects certain cellular processes, notably mitosis, or cell division.
It's effects when consumed are far worse than the level of radiation exposure from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046686</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1265482500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tritium is not banned in the U.S.; I have one of the tritium keychains, a tritium compass, a gun with tritium sights... I don't know, there might be something else I'm forgetting. I have some old cockpit dials that contain radium. My smoke detectors are all radioactive (americium, I think). If I wanted to, I could buy uranium ore, trinitite, and more.</p><p>Heck, check this place out: <a href="http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=index&amp;cPath=2\_5" title="unitednuclear.com">http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=index&amp;cPath=2\_5</a> [unitednuclear.com]</p><p>Note that they are an american company that sells to americans (and other countries, of course).</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tritium is not banned in the U.S. ; I have one of the tritium keychains , a tritium compass , a gun with tritium sights... I do n't know , there might be something else I 'm forgetting .
I have some old cockpit dials that contain radium .
My smoke detectors are all radioactive ( americium , I think ) .
If I wanted to , I could buy uranium ore , trinitite , and more.Heck , check this place out : http : //unitednuclear.com/index.php ? main \ _page = index&amp;cPath = 2 \ _5 [ unitednuclear.com ] Note that they are an american company that sells to americans ( and other countries , of course ) .-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tritium is not banned in the U.S.; I have one of the tritium keychains, a tritium compass, a gun with tritium sights... I don't know, there might be something else I'm forgetting.
I have some old cockpit dials that contain radium.
My smoke detectors are all radioactive (americium, I think).
If I wanted to, I could buy uranium ore, trinitite, and more.Heck, check this place out: http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main\_page=index&amp;cPath=2\_5 [unitednuclear.com]Note that they are an american company that sells to americans (and other countries, of course).-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31064638</id>
	<title>Re:They need to stop this fast...</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1265622240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Naturally, they're banned in the US, because they're atomic.</p></div></blockquote><p>The <i>keyfobs</i> are banned in the US because they're considered "novelties".  Tritium-powered safety equipment (eg. exit signs) and tools (eg. gunsights) are legal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Naturally , they 're banned in the US , because they 're atomic.The keyfobs are banned in the US because they 're considered " novelties " .
Tritium-powered safety equipment ( eg .
exit signs ) and tools ( eg .
gunsights ) are legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naturally, they're banned in the US, because they're atomic.The keyfobs are banned in the US because they're considered "novelties".
Tritium-powered safety equipment (eg.
exit signs) and tools (eg.
gunsights) are legal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31050398</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Curies= 3.7*10^10 decays per second</p><p>For 775000 picoCuries/L of tritium:<br>775000*10^-12 Curies=28675 atoms decaying a second per liter of H20</p><p>The decay is 4500 days (388800000s) for tritium. To solve for total amount of tritium atoms:</p><p>activity* half life/ Ln[2] =28675*388800000s/Ln[2]=16091470258137 atoms of tritium per liter of H20.</p><p>Percentage Breakup:<br>55.56 mol H20 per L of water<br>6.022*10^23 atoms per mol<br>55.56 mol H20*6.022*10^23 atoms per mol=33459018174000000000000000 atoms H20 per mol</p><p>\% of water that is decaying:<br>8.5701857271718997692068978282028e-20</p><p>\% of water that contains radioactive substance<br>4.8093073665386628568200257076677e-11</p><p>So to answer your question... There is A FUCKING SMALL AS LEAK IN A PIPE SOMEWHERE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Curies = 3.7 * 10 ^ 10 decays per secondFor 775000 picoCuries/L of tritium : 775000 * 10 ^ -12 Curies = 28675 atoms decaying a second per liter of H20The decay is 4500 days ( 388800000s ) for tritium .
To solve for total amount of tritium atoms : activity * half life/ Ln [ 2 ] = 28675 * 388800000s/Ln [ 2 ] = 16091470258137 atoms of tritium per liter of H20.Percentage Breakup : 55.56 mol H20 per L of water6.022 * 10 ^ 23 atoms per mol55.56 mol H20 * 6.022 * 10 ^ 23 atoms per mol = 33459018174000000000000000 atoms H20 per mol \ % of water that is decaying : 8.5701857271718997692068978282028e-20 \ % of water that contains radioactive substance4.8093073665386628568200257076677e-11So to answer your question... There is A FUCKING SMALL AS LEAK IN A PIPE SOMEWHERE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curies= 3.7*10^10 decays per secondFor 775000 picoCuries/L of tritium:775000*10^-12 Curies=28675 atoms decaying a second per liter of H20The decay is 4500 days (388800000s) for tritium.
To solve for total amount of tritium atoms:activity* half life/ Ln[2] =28675*388800000s/Ln[2]=16091470258137 atoms of tritium per liter of H20.Percentage Breakup:55.56 mol H20 per L of water6.022*10^23 atoms per mol55.56 mol H20*6.022*10^23 atoms per mol=33459018174000000000000000 atoms H20 per mol\% of water that is decaying:8.5701857271718997692068978282028e-20\% of water that contains radioactive substance4.8093073665386628568200257076677e-11So to answer your question... There is A FUCKING SMALL AS LEAK IN A PIPE SOMEWHERE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>poena.dare</author>
	<datestamp>1265477400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"On Jan. 7, it was reported that radioactive tritium was leaking from the Vernon reactor into groundwater; the source of the leak has not been found. The following week, it was revealed that Entergy officials had misled state regulators and lawmakers several times in 2008 and 2009 by saying Vermont Yankee did not have the type of underground pipes that could carry tritium."</p><p>I very pro-Nuke power... Well regulated, well maintained nuke power, that is. What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse.</p><p>Not being able to find the leak after a month makes it sound like Entergy doesn't even know how their own plant works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" On Jan. 7 , it was reported that radioactive tritium was leaking from the Vernon reactor into groundwater ; the source of the leak has not been found .
The following week , it was revealed that Entergy officials had misled state regulators and lawmakers several times in 2008 and 2009 by saying Vermont Yankee did not have the type of underground pipes that could carry tritium .
" I very pro-Nuke power... Well regulated , well maintained nuke power , that is .
What I do n't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse.Not being able to find the leak after a month makes it sound like Entergy does n't even know how their own plant works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"On Jan. 7, it was reported that radioactive tritium was leaking from the Vernon reactor into groundwater; the source of the leak has not been found.
The following week, it was revealed that Entergy officials had misled state regulators and lawmakers several times in 2008 and 2009 by saying Vermont Yankee did not have the type of underground pipes that could carry tritium.
"I very pro-Nuke power... Well regulated, well maintained nuke power, that is.
What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse.Not being able to find the leak after a month makes it sound like Entergy doesn't even know how their own plant works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048554</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1265457060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Diane Screnci is a liar;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Diane Screnci is a liar ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diane Screnci is a liar;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046044</id>
	<title>We have the answer...</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1265477160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuke it from high orbit<p>
Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuke it from high orbit Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuke it from high orbit
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046564</id>
	<title>Re:Now everyone go to your corners and rant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265481480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an old leftie and a fan of nuclear power, so you can't categorise it like that. However, you are right about extreme reactions. There is Tritium in the groundwater. This is bad, needs to be handled, and isn't in any way shape or form a reason not to use nuclear power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an old leftie and a fan of nuclear power , so you ca n't categorise it like that .
However , you are right about extreme reactions .
There is Tritium in the groundwater .
This is bad , needs to be handled , and is n't in any way shape or form a reason not to use nuclear power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an old leftie and a fan of nuclear power, so you can't categorise it like that.
However, you are right about extreme reactions.
There is Tritium in the groundwater.
This is bad, needs to be handled, and isn't in any way shape or form a reason not to use nuclear power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047064</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1265485800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree about the need for \_well-regulated\_ nuclear power. If the plant is exceeding the legal limit, especially by a factor of 37 or so and even more-so with the stone-walling that appears to have taken place, it's time to shut it down.  If the legal limit is set too low, that is a separate matter from the fact that they are violating the current law.  If I'm going 90 in a 65 MPH zone, I can't defend myself by saying that 90 is a safe speed on that road, even if my analysis is correct that the road is safe at that speed.</p><p>Or if we accept for the sake of argument the idea that the 20,000 picocurie limit is too low, and the factor of 37 by which they are exceeding the radiation limit, the analogy is more like going 370 MPH in a 10 MPH speed zone. Which is a pretty stark reminder of just how badly they are breaking the law, and endangering the water supply.</p><p>Besides, I'm sure they have plenty of money to lobby congress and/or the EPA to modify the limits for the future. So no excuses. Take care of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree about the need for \ _well-regulated \ _ nuclear power .
If the plant is exceeding the legal limit , especially by a factor of 37 or so and even more-so with the stone-walling that appears to have taken place , it 's time to shut it down .
If the legal limit is set too low , that is a separate matter from the fact that they are violating the current law .
If I 'm going 90 in a 65 MPH zone , I ca n't defend myself by saying that 90 is a safe speed on that road , even if my analysis is correct that the road is safe at that speed.Or if we accept for the sake of argument the idea that the 20,000 picocurie limit is too low , and the factor of 37 by which they are exceeding the radiation limit , the analogy is more like going 370 MPH in a 10 MPH speed zone .
Which is a pretty stark reminder of just how badly they are breaking the law , and endangering the water supply.Besides , I 'm sure they have plenty of money to lobby congress and/or the EPA to modify the limits for the future .
So no excuses .
Take care of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree about the need for \_well-regulated\_ nuclear power.
If the plant is exceeding the legal limit, especially by a factor of 37 or so and even more-so with the stone-walling that appears to have taken place, it's time to shut it down.
If the legal limit is set too low, that is a separate matter from the fact that they are violating the current law.
If I'm going 90 in a 65 MPH zone, I can't defend myself by saying that 90 is a safe speed on that road, even if my analysis is correct that the road is safe at that speed.Or if we accept for the sake of argument the idea that the 20,000 picocurie limit is too low, and the factor of 37 by which they are exceeding the radiation limit, the analogy is more like going 370 MPH in a 10 MPH speed zone.
Which is a pretty stark reminder of just how badly they are breaking the law, and endangering the water supply.Besides, I'm sure they have plenty of money to lobby congress and/or the EPA to modify the limits for the future.
So no excuses.
Take care of the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31051032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31050398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31097152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31065590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31051332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31064638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31050114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31060058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_156236_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31050114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31050398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046660
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31065590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31097152
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31051032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047480
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31064638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31049474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31051332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31060058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_156236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31046552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31048264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_156236.31047248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
