<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_17_1324213</id>
	<title>US To Build Nuclear Power Plants</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266414660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"President Barack Obama has announced more than $8bn in federal loan guarantees to begin <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-loan.html">building the first US nuclear power stations in 30 years</a>.  Two new plants are to be constructed in the state of Georgia by US electricity firm Southern Company."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " President Barack Obama has announced more than $ 8bn in federal loan guarantees to begin building the first US nuclear power stations in 30 years .
Two new plants are to be constructed in the state of Georgia by US electricity firm Southern Company .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "President Barack Obama has announced more than $8bn in federal loan guarantees to begin building the first US nuclear power stations in 30 years.
Two new plants are to be constructed in the state of Georgia by US electricity firm Southern Company.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174962</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What should we be doing with the waste? Reprocessing it like everyone else in the civilized world already does.</p></div></blockquote><p>yes, lets all just dump it in the irish sea. thats what civilised nations do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What should we be doing with the waste ?
Reprocessing it like everyone else in the civilized world already does.yes , lets all just dump it in the irish sea .
thats what civilised nations do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What should we be doing with the waste?
Reprocessing it like everyone else in the civilized world already does.yes, lets all just dump it in the irish sea.
thats what civilised nations do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171836</id>
	<title>Re:What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we know where the hell it is. With coal plants, we just let the wastes into the air to be literally blown away on the winds.</p><p>I can't stand environmentalists who get all pissy over where to store nuclear waste, when they're perfectly ok with all other types of power generation waste just being dumped into the air or water. Opposing nuclear plants keeps coal plants on-line. As long as coal plants are on-line, they're spewing waste all over... not in nicely bundled packages in a single location.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we know where the hell it is .
With coal plants , we just let the wastes into the air to be literally blown away on the winds.I ca n't stand environmentalists who get all pissy over where to store nuclear waste , when they 're perfectly ok with all other types of power generation waste just being dumped into the air or water .
Opposing nuclear plants keeps coal plants on-line .
As long as coal plants are on-line , they 're spewing waste all over... not in nicely bundled packages in a single location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we know where the hell it is.
With coal plants, we just let the wastes into the air to be literally blown away on the winds.I can't stand environmentalists who get all pissy over where to store nuclear waste, when they're perfectly ok with all other types of power generation waste just being dumped into the air or water.
Opposing nuclear plants keeps coal plants on-line.
As long as coal plants are on-line, they're spewing waste all over... not in nicely bundled packages in a single location.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169748</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for nuclear power, because the storage of the waste products will take up less space and be less dangerous than the storage of the waste of coal power.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly\_ash</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for nuclear power , because the storage of the waste products will take up less space and be less dangerous than the storage of the waste of coal power.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly \ _ash</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for nuclear power, because the storage of the waste products will take up less space and be less dangerous than the storage of the waste of coal power.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly\_ash</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176580</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>TClevenger</author>
	<datestamp>1265020980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Breeder reactors?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Breeder reactors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breeder reactors?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173594</id>
	<title>Re:Article is a complete fabrication</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265053920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patently not true.  In fact they are on the verge of being able to convert kinetic luger energy into electricity which will supply them with plentiful, cheap and humorous energy for years to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patently not true .
In fact they are on the verge of being able to convert kinetic luger energy into electricity which will supply them with plentiful , cheap and humorous energy for years to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patently not true.
In fact they are on the verge of being able to convert kinetic luger energy into electricity which will supply them with plentiful, cheap and humorous energy for years to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175532</id>
	<title>Re:What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1265017260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hopefully when he's kicked out of office shortly they'll go back to it."</p><p>Which would be incredibly stupid.  Yucca mountain is a very poor site for a storage facility.  It was chosen for political reasons (Nevada had the least political clout).  Rather fitting it should be eliminated for the same.</p><p>The best place (geological and technical) for a long term storage site would be the stable shield area of the continent.  Wisconsin or Michigan, for instance.  Not likely to happen for political reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hopefully when he 's kicked out of office shortly they 'll go back to it .
" Which would be incredibly stupid .
Yucca mountain is a very poor site for a storage facility .
It was chosen for political reasons ( Nevada had the least political clout ) .
Rather fitting it should be eliminated for the same.The best place ( geological and technical ) for a long term storage site would be the stable shield area of the continent .
Wisconsin or Michigan , for instance .
Not likely to happen for political reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hopefully when he's kicked out of office shortly they'll go back to it.
"Which would be incredibly stupid.
Yucca mountain is a very poor site for a storage facility.
It was chosen for political reasons (Nevada had the least political clout).
Rather fitting it should be eliminated for the same.The best place (geological and technical) for a long term storage site would be the stable shield area of the continent.
Wisconsin or Michigan, for instance.
Not likely to happen for political reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422</id>
	<title>Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not an Obama fan, but when he does something right he deserves credit for it, so good job Mr. President.  I just hope this doesn't get bogged down in too much bureaucracy and lawsuits by "environmentalists."  Note how "environmentalists" is in quotes because anyone rational who claims to care about air pollution, global warming, deforestation, etc. etc. should <b>love</b> the idea of new, very safe nuclear power plants.  A back of the napkin calculation means a 1.1 Gigawatt reactor can put out the <b>peak</b> energy of 110 of the big 10 Megawatt wind turbine... and the wind turbine can't output at peak energy all the time.  Take into account the fact that the land footprint for a nuclear power plant is tiny compared to wind or solar and you have a solution that is a very good thing for the environment.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; As for nuclear waste, it's a political problem not a technological problem.  Despite the fear-mongering you hear about "10,000 years of waste" the truly nasty stuff actually has a much shorter half-life, and the stuff that is radioactive for 10,000 years is dangerous... but not any more dangerous than the chemicals that get spewed from Coal-fired plants or the chemicals that are used in manufacturing photo-voltaic solar panels.  One other thing.. if reprocessing were actually used in the US the amount of this nasty waste would be much much lower to boot.  Once again, politics trumps technology in preventing solutions to problems from actually being implemented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not an Obama fan , but when he does something right he deserves credit for it , so good job Mr. President. I just hope this does n't get bogged down in too much bureaucracy and lawsuits by " environmentalists .
" Note how " environmentalists " is in quotes because anyone rational who claims to care about air pollution , global warming , deforestation , etc .
etc. should love the idea of new , very safe nuclear power plants .
A back of the napkin calculation means a 1.1 Gigawatt reactor can put out the peak energy of 110 of the big 10 Megawatt wind turbine... and the wind turbine ca n't output at peak energy all the time .
Take into account the fact that the land footprint for a nuclear power plant is tiny compared to wind or solar and you have a solution that is a very good thing for the environment .
    As for nuclear waste , it 's a political problem not a technological problem .
Despite the fear-mongering you hear about " 10,000 years of waste " the truly nasty stuff actually has a much shorter half-life , and the stuff that is radioactive for 10,000 years is dangerous... but not any more dangerous than the chemicals that get spewed from Coal-fired plants or the chemicals that are used in manufacturing photo-voltaic solar panels .
One other thing.. if reprocessing were actually used in the US the amount of this nasty waste would be much much lower to boot .
Once again , politics trumps technology in preventing solutions to problems from actually being implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not an Obama fan, but when he does something right he deserves credit for it, so good job Mr. President.  I just hope this doesn't get bogged down in too much bureaucracy and lawsuits by "environmentalists.
"  Note how "environmentalists" is in quotes because anyone rational who claims to care about air pollution, global warming, deforestation, etc.
etc. should love the idea of new, very safe nuclear power plants.
A back of the napkin calculation means a 1.1 Gigawatt reactor can put out the peak energy of 110 of the big 10 Megawatt wind turbine... and the wind turbine can't output at peak energy all the time.
Take into account the fact that the land footprint for a nuclear power plant is tiny compared to wind or solar and you have a solution that is a very good thing for the environment.
    As for nuclear waste, it's a political problem not a technological problem.
Despite the fear-mongering you hear about "10,000 years of waste" the truly nasty stuff actually has a much shorter half-life, and the stuff that is radioactive for 10,000 years is dangerous... but not any more dangerous than the chemicals that get spewed from Coal-fired plants or the chemicals that are used in manufacturing photo-voltaic solar panels.
One other thing.. if reprocessing were actually used in the US the amount of this nasty waste would be much much lower to boot.
Once again, politics trumps technology in preventing solutions to problems from actually being implemented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1265037840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be stunned, stunned if every industry with the word "nuclear" in its name, even the nuclear weapons industry(including the crapfest that was the soviet unions nuclear program) has caused more cancers deaths, injuries and poisonings than the worldwide coal industry.</p><p>But coal isn't sexy.<br>Coal isn't scary.</p><p>If tomorrow we swapped every coal plant in the world for modern nuclear plants it would do vastly more good for the environment than every single accomplishment of every Greenpeace like organisation the world over combined has ever accomplished.</p><p>But no.<br>Atoms are scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be stunned , stunned if every industry with the word " nuclear " in its name , even the nuclear weapons industry ( including the crapfest that was the soviet unions nuclear program ) has caused more cancers deaths , injuries and poisonings than the worldwide coal industry.But coal is n't sexy.Coal is n't scary.If tomorrow we swapped every coal plant in the world for modern nuclear plants it would do vastly more good for the environment than every single accomplishment of every Greenpeace like organisation the world over combined has ever accomplished.But no.Atoms are scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be stunned, stunned if every industry with the word "nuclear" in its name, even the nuclear weapons industry(including the crapfest that was the soviet unions nuclear program) has caused more cancers deaths, injuries and poisonings than the worldwide coal industry.But coal isn't sexy.Coal isn't scary.If tomorrow we swapped every coal plant in the world for modern nuclear plants it would do vastly more good for the environment than every single accomplishment of every Greenpeace like organisation the world over combined has ever accomplished.But no.Atoms are scary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168594</id>
	<title>South Texas Project</title>
	<author>Luyseyal</author>
	<datestamp>1265037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.stpnoc.com/New\%20Units.htm" title="stpnoc.com">South Texas Project</a> [stpnoc.com] is building two new units at its existing facilities near Matagorda Bay.</p><p>-l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The South Texas Project [ stpnoc.com ] is building two new units at its existing facilities near Matagorda Bay.-l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The South Texas Project [stpnoc.com] is building two new units at its existing facilities near Matagorda Bay.-l</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169608</id>
	<title>Power of the atom unleashed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ok, I want you to go there and take two pictures, one of the atom before, and one after it has split."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ok , I want you to go there and take two pictures , one of the atom before , and one after it has split .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ok, I want you to go there and take two pictures, one of the atom before, and one after it has split.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174764</id>
	<title>Re:What plant design?</title>
	<author>jra</author>
	<datestamp>1265057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, one can hope for LFTR, but I'm not betting on it...</p><p>Pebble Bed or CANDU, maybe?</p><p>Naw; probably another frickin PWR</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , one can hope for LFTR , but I 'm not betting on it...Pebble Bed or CANDU , maybe ? Naw ; probably another frickin PWR</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, one can hope for LFTR, but I'm not betting on it...Pebble Bed or CANDU, maybe?Naw; probably another frickin PWR</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169580</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here we sit neglecting the fact that Chinese PV (installed without subsidy from the US government) is cheaper than reactors. Why are we doing this again? Or right, we are slaves to our institutions and our institutions refuse to change for the better. Nuke plants it is! Yay for the American future. Our country is collectively one giant douche bag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here we sit neglecting the fact that Chinese PV ( installed without subsidy from the US government ) is cheaper than reactors .
Why are we doing this again ?
Or right , we are slaves to our institutions and our institutions refuse to change for the better .
Nuke plants it is !
Yay for the American future .
Our country is collectively one giant douche bag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here we sit neglecting the fact that Chinese PV (installed without subsidy from the US government) is cheaper than reactors.
Why are we doing this again?
Or right, we are slaves to our institutions and our institutions refuse to change for the better.
Nuke plants it is!
Yay for the American future.
Our country is collectively one giant douche bag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173120</id>
	<title>Re:Article is a complete fabrication</title>
	<author>m85476585</author>
	<datestamp>1265052300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True. I can only post to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. by carrier pigeon.  Sometimes my comments get lost and are accidentally posted to Digg instead, where they are usually buried for actually making sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
I can only post to / .
by carrier pigeon .
Sometimes my comments get lost and are accidentally posted to Digg instead , where they are usually buried for actually making sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
I can only post to /.
by carrier pigeon.
Sometimes my comments get lost and are accidentally posted to Digg instead, where they are usually buried for actually making sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172956</id>
	<title>Two New Plants?</title>
	<author>rally2xs</author>
	<datestamp>1265051700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The nation needs 2000 new nuke plants, not 2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The nation needs 2000 new nuke plants , not 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nation needs 2000 new nuke plants, not 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174878</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>jra</author>
	<datestamp>1265015100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No they're not:</p><p>If you figure in everything that can reasonably be called "nuclear medicine", and cume for the entire planet, "nuclear" has *saved* more lives over the last 50 years than it's killed -- even if you add in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, *and* Cherynobl.  (I believe I'm remembering the assertion properly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they 're not : If you figure in everything that can reasonably be called " nuclear medicine " , and cume for the entire planet , " nuclear " has * saved * more lives over the last 50 years than it 's killed -- even if you add in Hiroshima , Nagasaki , * and * Cherynobl .
( I believe I 'm remembering the assertion properly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they're not:If you figure in everything that can reasonably be called "nuclear medicine", and cume for the entire planet, "nuclear" has *saved* more lives over the last 50 years than it's killed -- even if you add in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, *and* Cherynobl.
(I believe I'm remembering the assertion properly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170328</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear waste</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1265043780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone take into account the speed at which science accelerates? Isn't it likely that in 20-50 years we'll have tech that can just deal with the waste?</p></div><p>We already have the tech to deal with this issue. It can be handled in two ways. One is to reprocess it into new fuel rods which can then be used in the reactor from which it came. Two, it can be used as is in fast breeder-type reactor where it becomes enriched and then consumed as fuel. The combination means, rather than attempting to dispose of rods which contain 90\%-97\% usable fuel (aka, huge waste), something like 3\% winds up needing disposal and much of that has a very short half life compared to what would have otherwise been thrown out.</p><p>Sadly, US law forbids reprocessing of fuel on US soil. So option one is out. Option two is not possible as I'm not aware of any certified fast breeder reactors. Certification alone, thanks to the massive red tape forced on us all by loony environmentalist, costs billions of dollars. As a result, perfectly safe designs are simply not certifiable because no one has the years to spend billions of dollars with yet another decade of more red tape and construction before they can even hope to reclaim their investment.</p><p>Its a really great example of why laws need to be changed and environmentalist need to be shot. Buses and cliffs are also an acceptable substitute; though it may be difficult to find room because of the large number of lawyers already in line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone take into account the speed at which science accelerates ?
Is n't it likely that in 20-50 years we 'll have tech that can just deal with the waste ? We already have the tech to deal with this issue .
It can be handled in two ways .
One is to reprocess it into new fuel rods which can then be used in the reactor from which it came .
Two , it can be used as is in fast breeder-type reactor where it becomes enriched and then consumed as fuel .
The combination means , rather than attempting to dispose of rods which contain 90 \ % -97 \ % usable fuel ( aka , huge waste ) , something like 3 \ % winds up needing disposal and much of that has a very short half life compared to what would have otherwise been thrown out.Sadly , US law forbids reprocessing of fuel on US soil .
So option one is out .
Option two is not possible as I 'm not aware of any certified fast breeder reactors .
Certification alone , thanks to the massive red tape forced on us all by loony environmentalist , costs billions of dollars .
As a result , perfectly safe designs are simply not certifiable because no one has the years to spend billions of dollars with yet another decade of more red tape and construction before they can even hope to reclaim their investment.Its a really great example of why laws need to be changed and environmentalist need to be shot .
Buses and cliffs are also an acceptable substitute ; though it may be difficult to find room because of the large number of lawyers already in line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone take into account the speed at which science accelerates?
Isn't it likely that in 20-50 years we'll have tech that can just deal with the waste?We already have the tech to deal with this issue.
It can be handled in two ways.
One is to reprocess it into new fuel rods which can then be used in the reactor from which it came.
Two, it can be used as is in fast breeder-type reactor where it becomes enriched and then consumed as fuel.
The combination means, rather than attempting to dispose of rods which contain 90\%-97\% usable fuel (aka, huge waste), something like 3\% winds up needing disposal and much of that has a very short half life compared to what would have otherwise been thrown out.Sadly, US law forbids reprocessing of fuel on US soil.
So option one is out.
Option two is not possible as I'm not aware of any certified fast breeder reactors.
Certification alone, thanks to the massive red tape forced on us all by loony environmentalist, costs billions of dollars.
As a result, perfectly safe designs are simply not certifiable because no one has the years to spend billions of dollars with yet another decade of more red tape and construction before they can even hope to reclaim their investment.Its a really great example of why laws need to be changed and environmentalist need to be shot.
Buses and cliffs are also an acceptable substitute; though it may be difficult to find room because of the large number of lawyers already in line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172382</id>
	<title>US is the new IRAN.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the US is beginning some sort of uranium enrichment program. This must mean they are thinking of building a nuclear bomb to get political leverage against the western world!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the US is beginning some sort of uranium enrichment program .
This must mean they are thinking of building a nuclear bomb to get political leverage against the western world !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the US is beginning some sort of uranium enrichment program.
This must mean they are thinking of building a nuclear bomb to get political leverage against the western world!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176630</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265021220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't work.  Barrels rust and microorganism and food chains rapidly spread the waste into shallower depths.  Your backyard would be preferable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't work .
Barrels rust and microorganism and food chains rapidly spread the waste into shallower depths .
Your backyard would be preferable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't work.
Barrels rust and microorganism and food chains rapidly spread the waste into shallower depths.
Your backyard would be preferable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175936</id>
	<title>Current nuclear reactors are only 1\% efficient</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1265018520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Single pass through designs. Then of course the process of making use of the resulting energy itself is only 35\% efficient. So really, our nuclear reactors are only around 0.3\% efficient.</p><p>There are proposed designs which will burn all the waste as well almost eliminating the waste problem and giving up to about 30\% efficiency. And if the "waste" heat was pumped into a large district heating network as well, you might even reach 70-80\% overall efficiency. 250 times more energy out of the same amount of nuclear fuel. Now that would be world changing.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Single pass through designs .
Then of course the process of making use of the resulting energy itself is only 35 \ % efficient .
So really , our nuclear reactors are only around 0.3 \ % efficient.There are proposed designs which will burn all the waste as well almost eliminating the waste problem and giving up to about 30 \ % efficiency .
And if the " waste " heat was pumped into a large district heating network as well , you might even reach 70-80 \ % overall efficiency .
250 times more energy out of the same amount of nuclear fuel .
Now that would be world changing .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Single pass through designs.
Then of course the process of making use of the resulting energy itself is only 35\% efficient.
So really, our nuclear reactors are only around 0.3\% efficient.There are proposed designs which will burn all the waste as well almost eliminating the waste problem and giving up to about 30\% efficiency.
And if the "waste" heat was pumped into a large district heating network as well, you might even reach 70-80\% overall efficiency.
250 times more energy out of the same amount of nuclear fuel.
Now that would be world changing.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174638</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Its about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But very confusing. Anti-nuke people tend to be liberals who casually assume that Obama's on their side on everything. Pro-nuke people tend to be conservatives who casually assume that Obama's against everything they hold dear. This is yet another case of Obama doing exactly the opposite of what people expect him to do. I think he does it on purpose!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But very confusing .
Anti-nuke people tend to be liberals who casually assume that Obama 's on their side on everything .
Pro-nuke people tend to be conservatives who casually assume that Obama 's against everything they hold dear .
This is yet another case of Obama doing exactly the opposite of what people expect him to do .
I think he does it on purpose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But very confusing.
Anti-nuke people tend to be liberals who casually assume that Obama's on their side on everything.
Pro-nuke people tend to be conservatives who casually assume that Obama's against everything they hold dear.
This is yet another case of Obama doing exactly the opposite of what people expect him to do.
I think he does it on purpose!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168466</id>
	<title>Real solutions to foreign energy dependence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a pragmatic solution to the problems of global warming and foreign energy dependence.  There's nothing magically evil about nuclear power.  Environmentalists should applaud this move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a pragmatic solution to the problems of global warming and foreign energy dependence .
There 's nothing magically evil about nuclear power .
Environmentalists should applaud this move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a pragmatic solution to the problems of global warming and foreign energy dependence.
There's nothing magically evil about nuclear power.
Environmentalists should applaud this move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168906</id>
	<title>Made in Japan. . ?</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1265038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He did not give details on how Southern planned to divide its 30 percent share between debt and equity but said his company was not looking for financial backing from Japan. <b>Toshiba of Japan is majority owner of Westinghouse, whose AP1000 reactor has been selected for the Vogtle plant's expansion and is under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.</b></p> </div><p>Okay.  That's just pathetic.</p><p>You know the U.S. is a fading empire when they need to turn to Japan to build their own infrastructure.  What's next?  The automotive industry?</p><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He did not give details on how Southern planned to divide its 30 percent share between debt and equity but said his company was not looking for financial backing from Japan .
Toshiba of Japan is majority owner of Westinghouse , whose AP1000 reactor has been selected for the Vogtle plant 's expansion and is under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
Okay. That 's just pathetic.You know the U.S. is a fading empire when they need to turn to Japan to build their own infrastructure .
What 's next ?
The automotive industry ? -FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He did not give details on how Southern planned to divide its 30 percent share between debt and equity but said his company was not looking for financial backing from Japan.
Toshiba of Japan is majority owner of Westinghouse, whose AP1000 reactor has been selected for the Vogtle plant's expansion and is under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Okay.  That's just pathetic.You know the U.S. is a fading empire when they need to turn to Japan to build their own infrastructure.
What's next?
The automotive industry?-FL
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31186664</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Its about time</title>
	<author>cekander</author>
	<datestamp>1266517380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wind/solar are not as reliable as nuclear because you only have wind when the wind blows, and solar when the sun is shining.</p></div><p>Is that it? Sounds pretty reliable and reasonable to me. If there's ever an extended period of time where no wind or sun is available, I would say we're screwed anyway. Not being advanced enough to harness all our energy needs from wind and sun is different than saying it's not as reliable as another form of energy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind/solar are not as reliable as nuclear because you only have wind when the wind blows , and solar when the sun is shining.Is that it ?
Sounds pretty reliable and reasonable to me .
If there 's ever an extended period of time where no wind or sun is available , I would say we 're screwed anyway .
Not being advanced enough to harness all our energy needs from wind and sun is different than saying it 's not as reliable as another form of energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind/solar are not as reliable as nuclear because you only have wind when the wind blows, and solar when the sun is shining.Is that it?
Sounds pretty reliable and reasonable to me.
If there's ever an extended period of time where no wind or sun is available, I would say we're screwed anyway.
Not being advanced enough to harness all our energy needs from wind and sun is different than saying it's not as reliable as another form of energy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171726</id>
	<title>To be fair ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1265048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The boogey man that is "nuclear energy" is really more about the fear that it MIGHT hurt a *lot* of people simultaneously, in ugly ways.  All the injuries and deaths from coal mining don't really bother people much, because they're limited to people who volunteered to accept that job.  (And we've all long been told that it's a dangerous one.)</p><p>A nuclear reactor massively failing conjures up visions of people dying horrible deaths from radiation poisoning and kids being born with 6 fingers, and a food supply that's rendered unsafe for use for decades....  It certainly would be expected to spread to many people beyond just the employees of said power plant.</p><p>All that being said, though?  I have no problems with nuclear power.  I think it's really our future for clean energy, and as others have said -- "nuclear waste" is really just left-over energy we've chosen not to harness and use.  Eventually, one would hope they'd address that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The boogey man that is " nuclear energy " is really more about the fear that it MIGHT hurt a * lot * of people simultaneously , in ugly ways .
All the injuries and deaths from coal mining do n't really bother people much , because they 're limited to people who volunteered to accept that job .
( And we 've all long been told that it 's a dangerous one .
) A nuclear reactor massively failing conjures up visions of people dying horrible deaths from radiation poisoning and kids being born with 6 fingers , and a food supply that 's rendered unsafe for use for decades.... It certainly would be expected to spread to many people beyond just the employees of said power plant.All that being said , though ?
I have no problems with nuclear power .
I think it 's really our future for clean energy , and as others have said -- " nuclear waste " is really just left-over energy we 've chosen not to harness and use .
Eventually , one would hope they 'd address that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The boogey man that is "nuclear energy" is really more about the fear that it MIGHT hurt a *lot* of people simultaneously, in ugly ways.
All the injuries and deaths from coal mining don't really bother people much, because they're limited to people who volunteered to accept that job.
(And we've all long been told that it's a dangerous one.
)A nuclear reactor massively failing conjures up visions of people dying horrible deaths from radiation poisoning and kids being born with 6 fingers, and a food supply that's rendered unsafe for use for decades....  It certainly would be expected to spread to many people beyond just the employees of said power plant.All that being said, though?
I have no problems with nuclear power.
I think it's really our future for clean energy, and as others have said -- "nuclear waste" is really just left-over energy we've chosen not to harness and use.
Eventually, one would hope they'd address that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171302</id>
	<title>Re:What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>Entropius</author>
	<datestamp>1265046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post indicates that you have no clue.</p><p>It's not uranium that's dangerous in Yucca Mountain -- it's the decay products. Uranium is very safe (from a radioactivity standpoint -- it's still a heavy metal, etc.) They used to make fucking *dinnerware* out of it. I've got a uranium-glaze teacup. No, it doesn't keep the tea warm, but it's pretty.</p><p>Go read about how waste storage actually works -- it's not green goo stored in leaking barrels, for fuck's sake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post indicates that you have no clue.It 's not uranium that 's dangerous in Yucca Mountain -- it 's the decay products .
Uranium is very safe ( from a radioactivity standpoint -- it 's still a heavy metal , etc .
) They used to make fucking * dinnerware * out of it .
I 've got a uranium-glaze teacup .
No , it does n't keep the tea warm , but it 's pretty.Go read about how waste storage actually works -- it 's not green goo stored in leaking barrels , for fuck 's sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post indicates that you have no clue.It's not uranium that's dangerous in Yucca Mountain -- it's the decay products.
Uranium is very safe (from a radioactivity standpoint -- it's still a heavy metal, etc.
) They used to make fucking *dinnerware* out of it.
I've got a uranium-glaze teacup.
No, it doesn't keep the tea warm, but it's pretty.Go read about how waste storage actually works -- it's not green goo stored in leaking barrels, for fuck's sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172796</id>
	<title>A bit misleading...</title>
	<author>Gazoogleheimer</author>
	<datestamp>1265051220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firstly, these two new reactors are joining two others at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. Southern Company is a co-owner in the project, and their web site is a decent resource for learning about it. These have been in planning for years--several years, in fact. It is interesting that they only gain national attention when the President supports loan guarantees, and the idea for these plants has been around for a long time. (There are currently two nuclear plants in Georgia: Vogtle and Hatch.) Southern Company only is funding/owning about 45\% of the plant, whereas Georgia, a co-op, and Ogelthorpe Power own the rest of the project.

Despite the excellent gain, I do wish we would build Integral Fast Reactor designs and finally get over pressurized water--then we could stop worrying so much about waste and enriched fuel.

(I am a resident of Georgia.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , these two new reactors are joining two others at Plant Vogtle in Georgia .
Southern Company is a co-owner in the project , and their web site is a decent resource for learning about it .
These have been in planning for years--several years , in fact .
It is interesting that they only gain national attention when the President supports loan guarantees , and the idea for these plants has been around for a long time .
( There are currently two nuclear plants in Georgia : Vogtle and Hatch .
) Southern Company only is funding/owning about 45 \ % of the plant , whereas Georgia , a co-op , and Ogelthorpe Power own the rest of the project .
Despite the excellent gain , I do wish we would build Integral Fast Reactor designs and finally get over pressurized water--then we could stop worrying so much about waste and enriched fuel .
( I am a resident of Georgia .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, these two new reactors are joining two others at Plant Vogtle in Georgia.
Southern Company is a co-owner in the project, and their web site is a decent resource for learning about it.
These have been in planning for years--several years, in fact.
It is interesting that they only gain national attention when the President supports loan guarantees, and the idea for these plants has been around for a long time.
(There are currently two nuclear plants in Georgia: Vogtle and Hatch.
) Southern Company only is funding/owning about 45\% of the plant, whereas Georgia, a co-op, and Ogelthorpe Power own the rest of the project.
Despite the excellent gain, I do wish we would build Integral Fast Reactor designs and finally get over pressurized water--then we could stop worrying so much about waste and enriched fuel.
(I am a resident of Georgia.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171770</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1265048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shoot it to the moon.  Moon's free now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shoot it to the moon .
Moon 's free now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shoot it to the moon.
Moon's free now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170402</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1265044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Note how "environmentalists" is in quotes because anyone rational who claims to care about air pollution, global warming, deforestation, etc. etc. should love the idea of new, very safe nuclear power plants.</p></div><p>I'm a fan of nuclear power and I think it is one of the least objectionable and most practical options we have for making a real difference. That said, nuclear waste is a significant concern depending upon what rules are in place for generation, reprocessing, and disposal when these plants go online. Also, the potential link with childhood leukemia is a very real concern for environmentalists as well. The best data we have to date (<a href="http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi\%2F10.1289\%2Fehp.117-a437" title="nih.gov">http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi\%2F10.1289\%2Fehp.117-a437</a> [nih.gov]) seems to indicate there is likely a real link between rates of childhood leukemia and proximity to nuclear plants. Revamping our laws to reduce waste is important, but likewise is further research into this topic with strict and accurate methodology; and making sure these plants are located in relatively remote areas away from zoned residential areas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note how " environmentalists " is in quotes because anyone rational who claims to care about air pollution , global warming , deforestation , etc .
etc. should love the idea of new , very safe nuclear power plants.I 'm a fan of nuclear power and I think it is one of the least objectionable and most practical options we have for making a real difference .
That said , nuclear waste is a significant concern depending upon what rules are in place for generation , reprocessing , and disposal when these plants go online .
Also , the potential link with childhood leukemia is a very real concern for environmentalists as well .
The best data we have to date ( http : //ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info : doi \ % 2F10.1289 \ % 2Fehp.117-a437 [ nih.gov ] ) seems to indicate there is likely a real link between rates of childhood leukemia and proximity to nuclear plants .
Revamping our laws to reduce waste is important , but likewise is further research into this topic with strict and accurate methodology ; and making sure these plants are located in relatively remote areas away from zoned residential areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note how "environmentalists" is in quotes because anyone rational who claims to care about air pollution, global warming, deforestation, etc.
etc. should love the idea of new, very safe nuclear power plants.I'm a fan of nuclear power and I think it is one of the least objectionable and most practical options we have for making a real difference.
That said, nuclear waste is a significant concern depending upon what rules are in place for generation, reprocessing, and disposal when these plants go online.
Also, the potential link with childhood leukemia is a very real concern for environmentalists as well.
The best data we have to date (http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi\%2F10.1289\%2Fehp.117-a437 [nih.gov]) seems to indicate there is likely a real link between rates of childhood leukemia and proximity to nuclear plants.
Revamping our laws to reduce waste is important, but likewise is further research into this topic with strict and accurate methodology; and making sure these plants are located in relatively remote areas away from zoned residential areas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175368</id>
	<title>Re:What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>DuckDodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1265016660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US burns 2 trillion pounds of coal per year for electricity.   We should be able to find underground storage room for nuclear waste pretty easily when we burn the equivalent of one quarter of a mountain in excavated coal per year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US burns 2 trillion pounds of coal per year for electricity .
We should be able to find underground storage room for nuclear waste pretty easily when we burn the equivalent of one quarter of a mountain in excavated coal per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US burns 2 trillion pounds of coal per year for electricity.
We should be able to find underground storage room for nuclear waste pretty easily when we burn the equivalent of one quarter of a mountain in excavated coal per year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168380</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1265036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an acre here in Arkansas, I don't mind storing it in my back yard.  Its on a hill, and not really very usable for me anyhow.  Where do I sign up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an acre here in Arkansas , I do n't mind storing it in my back yard .
Its on a hill , and not really very usable for me anyhow .
Where do I sign up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an acre here in Arkansas, I don't mind storing it in my back yard.
Its on a hill, and not really very usable for me anyhow.
Where do I sign up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31197706</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear waste</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1266583380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was around thirty years ago, it was called synrock, and the research has only been applied recently because of the utterly braindead complacency in the nuclear lobby which insisted everything was "clean" so there was no need to work on waste and didn't fund it.  The US nuclear lobby should be left to die and instead the technology should be sourced from places that actually put in some R&amp;D work.  Westinghouse will try to sell you something twenty-five years behind even South African technology!<br>Of course there are a mountain of other problems that still make it an expensive way to boil water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was around thirty years ago , it was called synrock , and the research has only been applied recently because of the utterly braindead complacency in the nuclear lobby which insisted everything was " clean " so there was no need to work on waste and did n't fund it .
The US nuclear lobby should be left to die and instead the technology should be sourced from places that actually put in some R&amp;D work .
Westinghouse will try to sell you something twenty-five years behind even South African technology ! Of course there are a mountain of other problems that still make it an expensive way to boil water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was around thirty years ago, it was called synrock, and the research has only been applied recently because of the utterly braindead complacency in the nuclear lobby which insisted everything was "clean" so there was no need to work on waste and didn't fund it.
The US nuclear lobby should be left to die and instead the technology should be sourced from places that actually put in some R&amp;D work.
Westinghouse will try to sell you something twenty-five years behind even South African technology!Of course there are a mountain of other problems that still make it an expensive way to boil water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176058</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. If you only look at the construction of the plant. It makes perfect economic sense if you look out over 50 years, and can even be cheaper than coal.</p></div><p>You forget time value of money. In today's world, a nuclear plant needs to make sense over a twenty year period.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
If you only look at the construction of the plant .
It makes perfect economic sense if you look out over 50 years , and can even be cheaper than coal.You forget time value of money .
In today 's world , a nuclear plant needs to make sense over a twenty year period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
If you only look at the construction of the plant.
It makes perfect economic sense if you look out over 50 years, and can even be cheaper than coal.You forget time value of money.
In today's world, a nuclear plant needs to make sense over a twenty year period.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171960</id>
	<title>Re:what kind of reactor?</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1265048760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None (zero) of the planned US reactors are significantly different than existing reactors in the US. They will be PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors) and BWR (Bolining Water Reactors).  They will have a fewer failure modes due to reduced component count, better passive safety, and many failure scenarios are better than existing plants.</p><p>As someone who has worked for two decades for companies supplying primarily to this industry, I am disappointed that thorium molten salt and pebble bed reactors are not planned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None ( zero ) of the planned US reactors are significantly different than existing reactors in the US .
They will be PWRs ( Pressurized Water Reactors ) and BWR ( Bolining Water Reactors ) .
They will have a fewer failure modes due to reduced component count , better passive safety , and many failure scenarios are better than existing plants.As someone who has worked for two decades for companies supplying primarily to this industry , I am disappointed that thorium molten salt and pebble bed reactors are not planned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None (zero) of the planned US reactors are significantly different than existing reactors in the US.
They will be PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors) and BWR (Bolining Water Reactors).
They will have a fewer failure modes due to reduced component count, better passive safety, and many failure scenarios are better than existing plants.As someone who has worked for two decades for companies supplying primarily to this industry, I am disappointed that thorium molten salt and pebble bed reactors are not planned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169964</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1265042580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only two per cent of primary energy are produced by nuclear power. These two new reactors will be just a drop on a hot stone.<br>What we really need is cutting our consumption.</p><p>And comparing real accomplishments of some organisations to the hypothetical replacement of all coal plants is... well, let's just say, hypocritical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only two per cent of primary energy are produced by nuclear power .
These two new reactors will be just a drop on a hot stone.What we really need is cutting our consumption.And comparing real accomplishments of some organisations to the hypothetical replacement of all coal plants is... well , let 's just say , hypocritical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only two per cent of primary energy are produced by nuclear power.
These two new reactors will be just a drop on a hot stone.What we really need is cutting our consumption.And comparing real accomplishments of some organisations to the hypothetical replacement of all coal plants is... well, let's just say, hypocritical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175512</id>
	<title>Re:It's a pity ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone with mod points, please mod this person up. Thorium reactors are definitely the future of nuclear - they produce less nasty waste, thorium is more abundant than uranium, and they can be designed to be passively safe.</p><p>The trouble is, they don't require expensive (and very profitable for the companies that make them) fuel assemblies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone with mod points , please mod this person up .
Thorium reactors are definitely the future of nuclear - they produce less nasty waste , thorium is more abundant than uranium , and they can be designed to be passively safe.The trouble is , they do n't require expensive ( and very profitable for the companies that make them ) fuel assemblies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone with mod points, please mod this person up.
Thorium reactors are definitely the future of nuclear - they produce less nasty waste, thorium is more abundant than uranium, and they can be designed to be passively safe.The trouble is, they don't require expensive (and very profitable for the companies that make them) fuel assemblies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174460</id>
	<title>Re:Who will build them?</title>
	<author>slick7</author>
	<datestamp>1265056800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>GE and Westinghouse have been building reactors and new reactors for years. Every sub in the Navy has one and every Aircraft carrier has two.</p></div><p> I hate to burst your bubble, but the USS Enterprise has eight reactors. Two per engine room. With a combined power of ***CLASSIFIED*** Mw with an enrichment of ***CLASSIFIED*** per cent. Capable of approximately TWENTY YEARS between refuelings.<br> <br>Top that with your civilian reactors that have to be refueled every three to five years.

<br> <br>Pray to the Infinite All that Combustion Engineering DOES NOT get back into the reactor building monkey business.<br> <br> On Youtube.com, there is a video of the SL-1 accident. Check iit out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GE and Westinghouse have been building reactors and new reactors for years .
Every sub in the Navy has one and every Aircraft carrier has two .
I hate to burst your bubble , but the USS Enterprise has eight reactors .
Two per engine room .
With a combined power of * * * CLASSIFIED * * * Mw with an enrichment of * * * CLASSIFIED * * * per cent .
Capable of approximately TWENTY YEARS between refuelings .
Top that with your civilian reactors that have to be refueled every three to five years .
Pray to the Infinite All that Combustion Engineering DOES NOT get back into the reactor building monkey business .
On Youtube.com , there is a video of the SL-1 accident .
Check iit out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GE and Westinghouse have been building reactors and new reactors for years.
Every sub in the Navy has one and every Aircraft carrier has two.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the USS Enterprise has eight reactors.
Two per engine room.
With a combined power of ***CLASSIFIED*** Mw with an enrichment of ***CLASSIFIED*** per cent.
Capable of approximately TWENTY YEARS between refuelings.
Top that with your civilian reactors that have to be refueled every three to five years.
Pray to the Infinite All that Combustion Engineering DOES NOT get back into the reactor building monkey business.
On Youtube.com, there is a video of the SL-1 accident.
Check iit out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169042</id>
	<title>Re:What plant design?</title>
	<author>corcoranp</author>
	<datestamp>1265039460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technically they are not talking about building a nuclear power PLANT. They are talking about building 2 nuclear power UNITS</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically they are not talking about building a nuclear power PLANT .
They are talking about building 2 nuclear power UNITS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically they are not talking about building a nuclear power PLANT.
They are talking about building 2 nuclear power UNITS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170536</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>FlyingHuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265044560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah no shyte... nobody wants nuclear waste in their back yard.  Oh wait... Yucca Mountain ISN'T in anyone's back yard, and the flaming communist hippies squealed about that one too.

When I become Energy Secretary of the United States I am going to do the only sensible thing and require an exponential increase in the use of pixie dust to meet our energy demands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah no shyte... nobody wants nuclear waste in their back yard .
Oh wait... Yucca Mountain IS N'T in anyone 's back yard , and the flaming communist hippies squealed about that one too .
When I become Energy Secretary of the United States I am going to do the only sensible thing and require an exponential increase in the use of pixie dust to meet our energy demands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah no shyte... nobody wants nuclear waste in their back yard.
Oh wait... Yucca Mountain ISN'T in anyone's back yard, and the flaming communist hippies squealed about that one too.
When I become Energy Secretary of the United States I am going to do the only sensible thing and require an exponential increase in the use of pixie dust to meet our energy demands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168750</id>
	<title>$7/Watt for Now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The apparent cost of the project is $7/Watt <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/17/17climatewire-doe-delivers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/17/17climatewire-doe-delivers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html</a> [nytimes.com] with Japan providing other loan guarantees.  Since Japan has been escalating pricing for the South Texas project, we can guess the same will happen in this case.  I'd guess that $14/Watt is about where this will end up, completely uneconomical.  The loans will default and the taxpayers will pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The apparent cost of the project is $ 7/Watt http : //www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/17/17climatewire-doe-delivers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html [ nytimes.com ] with Japan providing other loan guarantees .
Since Japan has been escalating pricing for the South Texas project , we can guess the same will happen in this case .
I 'd guess that $ 14/Watt is about where this will end up , completely uneconomical .
The loans will default and the taxpayers will pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The apparent cost of the project is $7/Watt http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/17/17climatewire-doe-delivers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html [nytimes.com] with Japan providing other loan guarantees.
Since Japan has been escalating pricing for the South Texas project, we can guess the same will happen in this case.
I'd guess that $14/Watt is about where this will end up, completely uneconomical.
The loans will default and the taxpayers will pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168944</id>
	<title>Who will build them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There's a critical shortage of nuclear engineers.  Very few engineers have joined the industry in recent decades, and those who joined during the industry's heyday are retiring.
</p><p>
Schools including MIT are spinning up their programs, but however talented the students, they'll be inexperienced. These fine young men and women may know how to optimize a reaction, but will they know that valve X in location Y needs to be easily replaceable because it tends to corrode after 5 years? Do you want the plant in your town to be designed by a recent grad?  Likewise, even the experienced engineers have been maintaining old plants, not designing new ones using the latest technology.
</p><p>
Add in time for siting battles and regulatory approvals, and I wouldn't expect to see too many new plants open until 10-20 years from now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a critical shortage of nuclear engineers .
Very few engineers have joined the industry in recent decades , and those who joined during the industry 's heyday are retiring .
Schools including MIT are spinning up their programs , but however talented the students , they 'll be inexperienced .
These fine young men and women may know how to optimize a reaction , but will they know that valve X in location Y needs to be easily replaceable because it tends to corrode after 5 years ?
Do you want the plant in your town to be designed by a recent grad ?
Likewise , even the experienced engineers have been maintaining old plants , not designing new ones using the latest technology .
Add in time for siting battles and regulatory approvals , and I would n't expect to see too many new plants open until 10-20 years from now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There's a critical shortage of nuclear engineers.
Very few engineers have joined the industry in recent decades, and those who joined during the industry's heyday are retiring.
Schools including MIT are spinning up their programs, but however talented the students, they'll be inexperienced.
These fine young men and women may know how to optimize a reaction, but will they know that valve X in location Y needs to be easily replaceable because it tends to corrode after 5 years?
Do you want the plant in your town to be designed by a recent grad?
Likewise, even the experienced engineers have been maintaining old plants, not designing new ones using the latest technology.
Add in time for siting battles and regulatory approvals, and I wouldn't expect to see too many new plants open until 10-20 years from now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31177314</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265024100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know of anybody who thinks waste is "not a problem". But the fact is that waste would be far <b>less</b> of a problem with thorium reactors. Considering that (A) there is enough thorium right here in the U.S. to deliver our electrical needs for thousands of years, even given projected increases in population and so on, and (B) that there is vastly less waste than with uranium or plutonium, and (C) the half-life of the waste products is orders of magnitude shorter than the half-lives of waste from uranium and plutonium, thorium reactors should be the only kind of power-generating nuclear reactors built here from now on.
<br> <br>
There still remains a small bit of technology to work out (and it is small), but this should be a slam-dunk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know of anybody who thinks waste is " not a problem " .
But the fact is that waste would be far less of a problem with thorium reactors .
Considering that ( A ) there is enough thorium right here in the U.S. to deliver our electrical needs for thousands of years , even given projected increases in population and so on , and ( B ) that there is vastly less waste than with uranium or plutonium , and ( C ) the half-life of the waste products is orders of magnitude shorter than the half-lives of waste from uranium and plutonium , thorium reactors should be the only kind of power-generating nuclear reactors built here from now on .
There still remains a small bit of technology to work out ( and it is small ) , but this should be a slam-dunk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know of anybody who thinks waste is "not a problem".
But the fact is that waste would be far less of a problem with thorium reactors.
Considering that (A) there is enough thorium right here in the U.S. to deliver our electrical needs for thousands of years, even given projected increases in population and so on, and (B) that there is vastly less waste than with uranium or plutonium, and (C) the half-life of the waste products is orders of magnitude shorter than the half-lives of waste from uranium and plutonium, thorium reactors should be the only kind of power-generating nuclear reactors built here from now on.
There still remains a small bit of technology to work out (and it is small), but this should be a slam-dunk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171846</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Its about time</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1265048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the big problem here is that they most likely did not learn from the earlier go at it. they will once again build super duper massive plants and each one will be uniquely designed. So, not only will they cost massive amounts just for designing and building, but they will also cost massive amounts to upgrade. Each plant will have to go through the painstaking steps required to validate upgrades and changes.<br><br>everyone always points to France as an example of how nuclear power can work but they never mention how they standardized on the design and why that might be the reason it worked out so well for them.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>the big problem here is that they most likely did not learn from the earlier go at it .
they will once again build super duper massive plants and each one will be uniquely designed .
So , not only will they cost massive amounts just for designing and building , but they will also cost massive amounts to upgrade .
Each plant will have to go through the painstaking steps required to validate upgrades and changes.everyone always points to France as an example of how nuclear power can work but they never mention how they standardized on the design and why that might be the reason it worked out so well for them.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the big problem here is that they most likely did not learn from the earlier go at it.
they will once again build super duper massive plants and each one will be uniquely designed.
So, not only will they cost massive amounts just for designing and building, but they will also cost massive amounts to upgrade.
Each plant will have to go through the painstaking steps required to validate upgrades and changes.everyone always points to France as an example of how nuclear power can work but they never mention how they standardized on the design and why that might be the reason it worked out so well for them.LoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169498</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>s2theg</author>
	<datestamp>1265041080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But no. Tech we don't own stock in making money is scary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But no .
Tech we do n't own stock in making money is scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no.
Tech we don't own stock in making money is scary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173522</id>
	<title>wow, the /. crowd agrees on something.</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1265053680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just read 20 posts all saying how great this was.</p><p>Mostly I find it interesting that the same group that doesn't trust Evil Corporate America to track their web viewing habits because of the possible misuse of the information will trust the Actual Evil Corporate America not to cut corners wherever possible with something that could physically destroy large chunks of the population if mismanaged to the same degree.</p><p>I don't really have anything against this actually, I'm kind of for it, but I'm just fascinated by the mutual love-fest from this particular group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read 20 posts all saying how great this was.Mostly I find it interesting that the same group that does n't trust Evil Corporate America to track their web viewing habits because of the possible misuse of the information will trust the Actual Evil Corporate America not to cut corners wherever possible with something that could physically destroy large chunks of the population if mismanaged to the same degree.I do n't really have anything against this actually , I 'm kind of for it , but I 'm just fascinated by the mutual love-fest from this particular group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read 20 posts all saying how great this was.Mostly I find it interesting that the same group that doesn't trust Evil Corporate America to track their web viewing habits because of the possible misuse of the information will trust the Actual Evil Corporate America not to cut corners wherever possible with something that could physically destroy large chunks of the population if mismanaged to the same degree.I don't really have anything against this actually, I'm kind of for it, but I'm just fascinated by the mutual love-fest from this particular group.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170364</id>
	<title>Re:Made in Japan. . ?</title>
	<author>Diagoras</author>
	<datestamp>1265043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or a successful hegemony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a successful hegemony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a successful hegemony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174332</id>
	<title>Re:Real solutions to foreign energy dependence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think many of us here agree that most anti-nuclear sentiment is simple minded pitchfork-wielding technophobia, and nuclear is a real solution to our energy needs and lots of our environmental problems.  But I wouldn't want to discount all the concerns as B-movie induced hysteria.</p><p>If modern corporations have taught us nothing else, it's that a ceo / board of directors will do \_anything\_ to maximize short term profits and bonuses.  No corner-cutting is too flagrant, no setup for a future catastrophe too obvious that they won't pocket a few extra dollars of profit right now.</p><p>And on top of that, over the past couple years we've learned that most govt regulators have proven to be more interested in protecting the interests of the companies they supposedly regulate.</p><p>The above hopefully doesn't apply to the nuclear industry, but do we have enough extra safeguards in place to keep the standard capatilist greed we're so proud of in this country from trading the safety that our plants are definitely capable of for short term profits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think many of us here agree that most anti-nuclear sentiment is simple minded pitchfork-wielding technophobia , and nuclear is a real solution to our energy needs and lots of our environmental problems .
But I would n't want to discount all the concerns as B-movie induced hysteria.If modern corporations have taught us nothing else , it 's that a ceo / board of directors will do \ _anything \ _ to maximize short term profits and bonuses .
No corner-cutting is too flagrant , no setup for a future catastrophe too obvious that they wo n't pocket a few extra dollars of profit right now.And on top of that , over the past couple years we 've learned that most govt regulators have proven to be more interested in protecting the interests of the companies they supposedly regulate.The above hopefully does n't apply to the nuclear industry , but do we have enough extra safeguards in place to keep the standard capatilist greed we 're so proud of in this country from trading the safety that our plants are definitely capable of for short term profits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think many of us here agree that most anti-nuclear sentiment is simple minded pitchfork-wielding technophobia, and nuclear is a real solution to our energy needs and lots of our environmental problems.
But I wouldn't want to discount all the concerns as B-movie induced hysteria.If modern corporations have taught us nothing else, it's that a ceo / board of directors will do \_anything\_ to maximize short term profits and bonuses.
No corner-cutting is too flagrant, no setup for a future catastrophe too obvious that they won't pocket a few extra dollars of profit right now.And on top of that, over the past couple years we've learned that most govt regulators have proven to be more interested in protecting the interests of the companies they supposedly regulate.The above hopefully doesn't apply to the nuclear industry, but do we have enough extra safeguards in place to keep the standard capatilist greed we're so proud of in this country from trading the safety that our plants are definitely capable of for short term profits?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175814</id>
	<title>Re:It's a pity ...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265018160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/CANDU\_fuel\_cycles.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/CANDU\_fuel\_cycles.jpg</a> [wikimedia.org] <br> <br>As humans are to the food chain, CANDU is to the nuclear fuel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... chain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/CANDU \ _fuel \ _cycles.jpg [ wikimedia.org ] As humans are to the food chain , CANDU is to the nuclear fuel ... chain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/CANDU\_fuel\_cycles.jpg [wikimedia.org]  As humans are to the food chain, CANDU is to the nuclear fuel ... chain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172718</id>
	<title>Anyone asked the people in Georgia?</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1265051100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, they are going to plan to build a power plant.  Sure.</p><p>This will get to the "environmental impact statement" level and some public comment.  The company contracted to build it will discover it will take five years to get through the multiple environmental impact studies, neighborhood meetings and protests.  They will forget about the project at that point.</p><p>Unless some comprehensive federal regulations were put in force, I don't see the US building a lot of new power plants any time soon.  Are they needed?  Sure, we are running out of base capacity.  But are the average people convinced they need to have new power plants?  No, they aren't.  And they are perfectly willing to let environmental activists control the entire process, supposedly in their name.</p><p>If the current situation doesn't change, we are going to just have to cut back on electricity usage.  So much for the idea of plug-in hybrid cars.  Where, exactly are you going to plug them in?  Certainly nowhere during the day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , they are going to plan to build a power plant .
Sure.This will get to the " environmental impact statement " level and some public comment .
The company contracted to build it will discover it will take five years to get through the multiple environmental impact studies , neighborhood meetings and protests .
They will forget about the project at that point.Unless some comprehensive federal regulations were put in force , I do n't see the US building a lot of new power plants any time soon .
Are they needed ?
Sure , we are running out of base capacity .
But are the average people convinced they need to have new power plants ?
No , they are n't .
And they are perfectly willing to let environmental activists control the entire process , supposedly in their name.If the current situation does n't change , we are going to just have to cut back on electricity usage .
So much for the idea of plug-in hybrid cars .
Where , exactly are you going to plug them in ?
Certainly nowhere during the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, they are going to plan to build a power plant.
Sure.This will get to the "environmental impact statement" level and some public comment.
The company contracted to build it will discover it will take five years to get through the multiple environmental impact studies, neighborhood meetings and protests.
They will forget about the project at that point.Unless some comprehensive federal regulations were put in force, I don't see the US building a lot of new power plants any time soon.
Are they needed?
Sure, we are running out of base capacity.
But are the average people convinced they need to have new power plants?
No, they aren't.
And they are perfectly willing to let environmental activists control the entire process, supposedly in their name.If the current situation doesn't change, we are going to just have to cut back on electricity usage.
So much for the idea of plug-in hybrid cars.
Where, exactly are you going to plug them in?
Certainly nowhere during the day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170374</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>Loki\_1929</author>
	<datestamp>1265044020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Generally I agree, but the image problem isn't just perception; it is reality. When there is a problem at a nuclear facility, it dwarfs those at any coal mine. Remember Chernobyl?</p></div><p>I honestly am not being mean when I say you really have no idea what you're talking about. Whenever there's a discussion about nuclear power plants, someone always brings up Chernobyl.</p><p>Anyone who brings up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear power plant safety quite honestly hasn't the slightest idea <i>why</i> Chernobyl happened or why it's physically impossible for it to happen in any nuclear power plant ever designed or built in any western nation, let alone a modern reactor design anywhere on Earth. Start with the fact that Chernobyl's design was backwards. If you don't understand what I mean by that, please read up on nuclear reactor design before commenting further on the topic of nuclear power plants.</p><p>Whether you realize it or not, your comment is the purest form of FUD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally I agree , but the image problem is n't just perception ; it is reality .
When there is a problem at a nuclear facility , it dwarfs those at any coal mine .
Remember Chernobyl ? I honestly am not being mean when I say you really have no idea what you 're talking about .
Whenever there 's a discussion about nuclear power plants , someone always brings up Chernobyl.Anyone who brings up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear power plant safety quite honestly has n't the slightest idea why Chernobyl happened or why it 's physically impossible for it to happen in any nuclear power plant ever designed or built in any western nation , let alone a modern reactor design anywhere on Earth .
Start with the fact that Chernobyl 's design was backwards .
If you do n't understand what I mean by that , please read up on nuclear reactor design before commenting further on the topic of nuclear power plants.Whether you realize it or not , your comment is the purest form of FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally I agree, but the image problem isn't just perception; it is reality.
When there is a problem at a nuclear facility, it dwarfs those at any coal mine.
Remember Chernobyl?I honestly am not being mean when I say you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Whenever there's a discussion about nuclear power plants, someone always brings up Chernobyl.Anyone who brings up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear power plant safety quite honestly hasn't the slightest idea why Chernobyl happened or why it's physically impossible for it to happen in any nuclear power plant ever designed or built in any western nation, let alone a modern reactor design anywhere on Earth.
Start with the fact that Chernobyl's design was backwards.
If you don't understand what I mean by that, please read up on nuclear reactor design before commenting further on the topic of nuclear power plants.Whether you realize it or not, your comment is the purest form of FUD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168872</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But where are we going to store the waste? </p></div><p>I would like to suggest my neighbor's front lawn. Since he isn't talking to me, <i>technically</i> he wouldn't reject the idea if I asked him, and that's good enough for me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But where are we going to store the waste ?
I would like to suggest my neighbor 's front lawn .
Since he is n't talking to me , technically he would n't reject the idea if I asked him , and that 's good enough for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But where are we going to store the waste?
I would like to suggest my neighbor's front lawn.
Since he isn't talking to me, technically he wouldn't reject the idea if I asked him, and that's good enough for me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171136</id>
	<title>Re:Made in Japan. . ?</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1265046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because we effectively killed our nuclear industry decades ago.  The Japanese and the French bought out the remains and now provide the bulk of the support for our infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because we effectively killed our nuclear industry decades ago .
The Japanese and the French bought out the remains and now provide the bulk of the support for our infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because we effectively killed our nuclear industry decades ago.
The Japanese and the French bought out the remains and now provide the bulk of the support for our infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31178398</id>
	<title>Nuclear waste is NOT a "problem"!!!</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265028960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I subscribe to a slightly modified version of the "Pournelle Method" of nuclear waste disposal, as described in "Yet Another Modest Proposal", by Larry Niven. The process is very simple in principle and execution, and should be at least as effective as any other method yet proposed, but a lot cheaper. Here's how it works:
<br> <br>
(1) Find a suitable circular piece of arid desert, 100 miles in radius. That really should be no problem.
<br> <br>
(2) In the center of this area, construct a large shallow pit, and line it after the fashion of modern landfills (that last part is my own addition).
<br> <br>
(3) Around the perimeter of the area, construct a 12-foot-high chain-link fence. It should be sturdy but not ridiculously so.
<br> <br>
(4) At regular intervals around the fence, place large signs that say, in 10 of the world's core languages: "If you pass this fence, you will die."
<br> <br>
(5) Place your radioactive waste in the center pit described in (2).
<br> <br>
(6) Problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I subscribe to a slightly modified version of the " Pournelle Method " of nuclear waste disposal , as described in " Yet Another Modest Proposal " , by Larry Niven .
The process is very simple in principle and execution , and should be at least as effective as any other method yet proposed , but a lot cheaper .
Here 's how it works : ( 1 ) Find a suitable circular piece of arid desert , 100 miles in radius .
That really should be no problem .
( 2 ) In the center of this area , construct a large shallow pit , and line it after the fashion of modern landfills ( that last part is my own addition ) .
( 3 ) Around the perimeter of the area , construct a 12-foot-high chain-link fence .
It should be sturdy but not ridiculously so .
( 4 ) At regular intervals around the fence , place large signs that say , in 10 of the world 's core languages : " If you pass this fence , you will die .
" ( 5 ) Place your radioactive waste in the center pit described in ( 2 ) .
( 6 ) Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I subscribe to a slightly modified version of the "Pournelle Method" of nuclear waste disposal, as described in "Yet Another Modest Proposal", by Larry Niven.
The process is very simple in principle and execution, and should be at least as effective as any other method yet proposed, but a lot cheaper.
Here's how it works:
 
(1) Find a suitable circular piece of arid desert, 100 miles in radius.
That really should be no problem.
(2) In the center of this area, construct a large shallow pit, and line it after the fashion of modern landfills (that last part is my own addition).
(3) Around the perimeter of the area, construct a 12-foot-high chain-link fence.
It should be sturdy but not ridiculously so.
(4) At regular intervals around the fence, place large signs that say, in 10 of the world's core languages: "If you pass this fence, you will die.
"
 
(5) Place your radioactive waste in the center pit described in (2).
(6) Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171966</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear waste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about now?  We have the tech to deal with waste NOW, we lack the political will to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about now ?
We have the tech to deal with waste NOW , we lack the political will to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about now?
We have the tech to deal with waste NOW, we lack the political will to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176894</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>jolly\_rancher36</author>
	<datestamp>1265022240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are no companies left to recycle the waste. They were burned during the Carter administration and lost $billions. It's not an industry you just fire up over night. Besides, after the US nuclear weapons program, how will you find workers for a nuclear waste recycling program? US workers were lied to for years about the dangers of nuclear waste and peripheral exposure and finally minimally compensated, if at all. Nuclear power believers live in a fantasy land. The best way to approach the energy problem is through conservation. Modern society is awash with waste, such as senseless architectural design, blatantly wasteful consumables, and gross over-eating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no companies left to recycle the waste .
They were burned during the Carter administration and lost $ billions .
It 's not an industry you just fire up over night .
Besides , after the US nuclear weapons program , how will you find workers for a nuclear waste recycling program ?
US workers were lied to for years about the dangers of nuclear waste and peripheral exposure and finally minimally compensated , if at all .
Nuclear power believers live in a fantasy land .
The best way to approach the energy problem is through conservation .
Modern society is awash with waste , such as senseless architectural design , blatantly wasteful consumables , and gross over-eating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no companies left to recycle the waste.
They were burned during the Carter administration and lost $billions.
It's not an industry you just fire up over night.
Besides, after the US nuclear weapons program, how will you find workers for a nuclear waste recycling program?
US workers were lied to for years about the dangers of nuclear waste and peripheral exposure and finally minimally compensated, if at all.
Nuclear power believers live in a fantasy land.
The best way to approach the energy problem is through conservation.
Modern society is awash with waste, such as senseless architectural design, blatantly wasteful consumables, and gross over-eating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169070</id>
	<title>China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because China is building 22. lol, USA is afraid of China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because China is building 22. lol , USA is afraid of China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because China is building 22. lol, USA is afraid of China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169194</id>
	<title>It's burning a hole in my pocket anyways...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay!!   Obama is going to loan someone else even more of my money!  First, give billions of dollars to the auto manufacturers, out of my pocket, now lets loan another industry money that will never be paid back!!!  WOOHOO!!!!<br>I don't know about all you guys, but I LOOOOOOOOOOOVE THE THOUGHT OF HIGHER TAXES!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay ! !
Obama is going to loan someone else even more of my money !
First , give billions of dollars to the auto manufacturers , out of my pocket , now lets loan another industry money that will never be paid back ! ! !
WOOHOO ! ! ! ! I do n't know about all you guys , but I LOOOOOOOOOOOVE THE THOUGHT OF HIGHER TAXES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay!!
Obama is going to loan someone else even more of my money!
First, give billions of dollars to the auto manufacturers, out of my pocket, now lets loan another industry money that will never be paid back!!!
WOOHOO!!!!I don't know about all you guys, but I LOOOOOOOOOOOVE THE THOUGHT OF HIGHER TAXES!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173814</id>
	<title>Let them build it!</title>
	<author>frankxcid</author>
	<datestamp>1265054640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm as far away from a "Greenie" as you can be.  Still I would have to agree that nuclear makes more sense than coal.  It is a good idea. However, Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says to build more nuclear plants but also closes Yucca mountain. As always, he wants his cake and want to eat it too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm as far away from a " Greenie " as you can be .
Still I would have to agree that nuclear makes more sense than coal .
It is a good idea .
However , Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth .
He says to build more nuclear plants but also closes Yucca mountain .
As always , he wants his cake and want to eat it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm as far away from a "Greenie" as you can be.
Still I would have to agree that nuclear makes more sense than coal.
It is a good idea.
However, Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
He says to build more nuclear plants but also closes Yucca mountain.
As always, he wants his cake and want to eat it too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398</id>
	<title>Article is a complete fabrication</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265036820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't <em>have</em> electricity in Georgia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have electricity in Georgia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't have electricity in Georgia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171092</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear waste</title>
	<author>extrasolar</author>
	<datestamp>1265046360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell yeah.</p><p>And if technology progress at the speed it has been (and it always does), we won't even *need* bodies, so what the hell are we even worried about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell yeah.And if technology progress at the speed it has been ( and it always does ) , we wo n't even * need * bodies , so what the hell are we even worried about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell yeah.And if technology progress at the speed it has been (and it always does), we won't even *need* bodies, so what the hell are we even worried about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168938</id>
	<title>Rut Roh</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1265039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aww man, I know how this plays out. First they build the nuclear power plants, then they start enriching uranium and making crazy statements to the rest of the world. Next thing you know we'll have to deal with some fucking insane nuclear-armed state!
<p>
Oh... wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aww man , I know how this plays out .
First they build the nuclear power plants , then they start enriching uranium and making crazy statements to the rest of the world .
Next thing you know we 'll have to deal with some fucking insane nuclear-armed state !
Oh... wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aww man, I know how this plays out.
First they build the nuclear power plants, then they start enriching uranium and making crazy statements to the rest of the world.
Next thing you know we'll have to deal with some fucking insane nuclear-armed state!
Oh... wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170230</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear waste</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1265043480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like the nuclear fusion projects which should have been here about 1990?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>Effectively, you are putting this problem on your children and just think "it's going to work out".  It's not really like the only alternative is using coal. Reducing consumption and increasing wind and geothermal and others will go a long way.<br>As far as I remember, the Chinese manage to produce some commercially viable solar solutions as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like the nuclear fusion projects which should have been here about 1990 ?
: ) Effectively , you are putting this problem on your children and just think " it 's going to work out " .
It 's not really like the only alternative is using coal .
Reducing consumption and increasing wind and geothermal and others will go a long way.As far as I remember , the Chinese manage to produce some commercially viable solar solutions as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like the nuclear fusion projects which should have been here about 1990?
:)Effectively, you are putting this problem on your children and just think "it's going to work out".
It's not really like the only alternative is using coal.
Reducing consumption and increasing wind and geothermal and others will go a long way.As far as I remember, the Chinese manage to produce some commercially viable solar solutions as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169112</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1265039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, even worse than nuclear and coal is DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide). Thousands of deaths per year and millions if not billions of damage per year (including in developed countries), used in major chemical processes, even by farmers (and not totally removed by rinsing fruits).</p><p>Taken from <a href="http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS" title="dhmo.org">http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS</a> [dhmo.org] :</p><p>What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?<br>Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:</p><p>as an industrial solvent and coolant,<br>in nuclear power plants,<br>by elite athletes to improve performance,<br>in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,<br>in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,<br>as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,<br>as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,<br>historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,<br>n animal research laboratories, and<br>in pesticide production and distribution.</p><p>Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:<br>Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.<br>Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.<br>Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.<br>DHMO is a major component of acid rain.<br>Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.<br>Contributes to soil erosion.<br>Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.<br>Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.<br>Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.<br>Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.<br>Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.<br>Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.<br>Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , even worse than nuclear and coal is DHMO ( dihydrogen monoxide ) .
Thousands of deaths per year and millions if not billions of damage per year ( including in developed countries ) , used in major chemical processes , even by farmers ( and not totally removed by rinsing fruits ) .Taken from http : //www.dhmo.org/facts.html # DANGERS [ dhmo.org ] : What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide ? Despite the known dangers of DHMO , it continues to be used daily by industry , government , and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide .
Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are : as an industrial solvent and coolant,in nuclear power plants,by elite athletes to improve performance,in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,historically , in Hitler 's death camps in Nazi Germany , and in prisons in Turkey , Serbia , Croatia , Libya , Iraq and Iran,n animal research laboratories , andin pesticide production and distribution.Each year , Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment .
Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are : Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO , even in small quantities.Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.DHMO is a major component of acid rain.Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.Contributes to soil erosion.Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere , and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida , New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, even worse than nuclear and coal is DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide).
Thousands of deaths per year and millions if not billions of damage per year (including in developed countries), used in major chemical processes, even by farmers (and not totally removed by rinsing fruits).Taken from http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS [dhmo.org] :What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide.
Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:as an industrial solvent and coolant,in nuclear power plants,by elite athletes to improve performance,in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,n animal research laboratories, andin pesticide production and distribution.Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment.
Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.DHMO is a major component of acid rain.Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.Contributes to soil erosion.Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169712</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Orne</author>
	<datestamp>1265041740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree.  The reason that nuclear waste is a problem at all is self-imposed, thanks to the <a href="http://www.ctbto.org/" title="ctbto.org">Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty</a> [ctbto.org].  Unfortunately, the process that takes "waste" and removes the spent material is the same proces that could be used to refine material for nuclear weaponry.  If we can get society to move past the weaponization issue, and frame the spent fuel processing on "recycling", "renewable fuel" or some such, we might be able to get nuclear energy out of its rut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
The reason that nuclear waste is a problem at all is self-imposed , thanks to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty [ ctbto.org ] .
Unfortunately , the process that takes " waste " and removes the spent material is the same proces that could be used to refine material for nuclear weaponry .
If we can get society to move past the weaponization issue , and frame the spent fuel processing on " recycling " , " renewable fuel " or some such , we might be able to get nuclear energy out of its rut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
The reason that nuclear waste is a problem at all is self-imposed, thanks to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty [ctbto.org].
Unfortunately, the process that takes "waste" and removes the spent material is the same proces that could be used to refine material for nuclear weaponry.
If we can get society to move past the weaponization issue, and frame the spent fuel processing on "recycling", "renewable fuel" or some such, we might be able to get nuclear energy out of its rut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172800</id>
	<title>Iran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps Obama should offer to help build Iran's while he's on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Obama should offer to help build Iran 's while he 's on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Obama should offer to help build Iran's while he's on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31179848</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>bitbucketeer</author>
	<datestamp>1265040960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you noobs read <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel?art\_pos=1</a> [slashdot.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you noobs read http : //science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel ? art \ _pos = 1 [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you noobs read http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel?art\_pos=1 [slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174912</id>
	<title>Re:Are we making viable power plants?</title>
	<author>e3m4n</author>
	<datestamp>1265015220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess the hope is that with government backing in the name of ending dependence on foreign oil, the cost of legal costs will drop drastically. The single biggest cost to these things is the lawyers to fight the bullshit hippie pro-bono lawyers that file injunction after injunction. Its just like what the telecoms do when they can win on principles... they bankrupt the opponent with legal processes. Its hard to believe these people were educated enough to make it through law school considering the amount of made-up, uneducated, bullshit that spews out of their mouths. Maybe now that half their tree-hugging buddies working at the white house actually promoting this crap, they might back off. Maybe a few well placed IRS audits of those legal firms doing the pro-bono, bankrupt-the-other-guy, tactics would be a great shoe-on-the-other-foot approach that would have them spending money in their own audit defense (remember a lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client, so this time it actually costs them something).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the hope is that with government backing in the name of ending dependence on foreign oil , the cost of legal costs will drop drastically .
The single biggest cost to these things is the lawyers to fight the bullshit hippie pro-bono lawyers that file injunction after injunction .
Its just like what the telecoms do when they can win on principles... they bankrupt the opponent with legal processes .
Its hard to believe these people were educated enough to make it through law school considering the amount of made-up , uneducated , bullshit that spews out of their mouths .
Maybe now that half their tree-hugging buddies working at the white house actually promoting this crap , they might back off .
Maybe a few well placed IRS audits of those legal firms doing the pro-bono , bankrupt-the-other-guy , tactics would be a great shoe-on-the-other-foot approach that would have them spending money in their own audit defense ( remember a lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client , so this time it actually costs them something ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the hope is that with government backing in the name of ending dependence on foreign oil, the cost of legal costs will drop drastically.
The single biggest cost to these things is the lawyers to fight the bullshit hippie pro-bono lawyers that file injunction after injunction.
Its just like what the telecoms do when they can win on principles... they bankrupt the opponent with legal processes.
Its hard to believe these people were educated enough to make it through law school considering the amount of made-up, uneducated, bullshit that spews out of their mouths.
Maybe now that half their tree-hugging buddies working at the white house actually promoting this crap, they might back off.
Maybe a few well placed IRS audits of those legal firms doing the pro-bono, bankrupt-the-other-guy, tactics would be a great shoe-on-the-other-foot approach that would have them spending money in their own audit defense (remember a lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client, so this time it actually costs them something).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169290</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear waste</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1265040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have the technology already. The US just doesn't use it because it tends to enrich the waste into weapons grade material. And we gotta watch out fer ter'ists. It's FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have the technology already .
The US just does n't use it because it tends to enrich the waste into weapons grade material .
And we got ta watch out fer ter'ists .
It 's FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have the technology already.
The US just doesn't use it because it tends to enrich the waste into weapons grade material.
And we gotta watch out fer ter'ists.
It's FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169918</id>
	<title>Re:Who will build them?</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1265042400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GE and Westinghouse have been building reactors and new reactors for years. Every sub in the Navy has one and every Aircraft carrier has two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GE and Westinghouse have been building reactors and new reactors for years .
Every sub in the Navy has one and every Aircraft carrier has two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GE and Westinghouse have been building reactors and new reactors for years.
Every sub in the Navy has one and every Aircraft carrier has two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168492</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1265037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's still radioactive enough to be dangerous. It's still radioactive enough to be used for electricity.</p><p>We just have retarded 'recycling laws'. Imagine if the US outlawed Aluminum recycling because at some point in the process you could use it as Thermite. That's how stupid our nuclear rules are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's still radioactive enough to be dangerous .
It 's still radioactive enough to be used for electricity.We just have retarded 'recycling laws' .
Imagine if the US outlawed Aluminum recycling because at some point in the process you could use it as Thermite .
That 's how stupid our nuclear rules are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's still radioactive enough to be dangerous.
It's still radioactive enough to be used for electricity.We just have retarded 'recycling laws'.
Imagine if the US outlawed Aluminum recycling because at some point in the process you could use it as Thermite.
That's how stupid our nuclear rules are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174768</id>
	<title>Here we go again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh here we go, environmentalists are getting bashed again for being hippie liberals in the way of progress.</p><p>the fact of the matter is that there are several technological advances for solar panel that will make it efficient enough to provide the entire planet.</p><p>isnt it logical have true renewable power instead of power that relies on finite resources?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh here we go , environmentalists are getting bashed again for being hippie liberals in the way of progress.the fact of the matter is that there are several technological advances for solar panel that will make it efficient enough to provide the entire planet.isnt it logical have true renewable power instead of power that relies on finite resources ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh here we go, environmentalists are getting bashed again for being hippie liberals in the way of progress.the fact of the matter is that there are several technological advances for solar panel that will make it efficient enough to provide the entire planet.isnt it logical have true renewable power instead of power that relies on finite resources?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169814</id>
	<title>you can taste the snark</title>
	<author>Thud457</author>
	<datestamp>1265042100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>oh, I dunno, how about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting\_Super\_Collider" title="wikipedia.org">Texas</a> [wikipedia.org]?!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>oh , I dunno , how about Texas [ wikipedia.org ] ? ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh, I dunno, how about Texas [wikipedia.org]?!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168854</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They need to be Thorium reactors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to be Thorium reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to be Thorium reactors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168930</id>
	<title>Nuclear Power  Uranium</title>
	<author>kyuubiunl</author>
	<datestamp>1265039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>100000 year half life?  You're assuming uranium.  There are others, books are a good thing.  Thorium is your friend</htmltext>
<tokenext>100000 year half life ?
You 're assuming uranium .
There are others , books are a good thing .
Thorium is your friend</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100000 year half life?
You're assuming uranium.
There are others, books are a good thing.
Thorium is your friend</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169562</id>
	<title>Re:Article is a complete fabrication</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually GA has plenty of power, but it is running out of water (or so they say).   Southern Company *sells* power, just because they generate it in GA it doesn't mean they have to use it in GA.  (Electrical Distribution 101)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually GA has plenty of power , but it is running out of water ( or so they say ) .
Southern Company * sells * power , just because they generate it in GA it does n't mean they have to use it in GA. ( Electrical Distribution 101 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually GA has plenty of power, but it is running out of water (or so they say).
Southern Company *sells* power, just because they generate it in GA it doesn't mean they have to use it in GA.  (Electrical Distribution 101)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170580</id>
	<title>Re:Who will build them?</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265044740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Nuclear energy wasn't regulated to death by the Government, I would have chosen it as a career field.</p><p>This administration wants to build two more reactors. What happens when the next administration wants to tear down 6?</p><p>Getting a degree in Nuclear science is about as useful as getting a degree in winning blackjack in Vegas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Nuclear energy was n't regulated to death by the Government , I would have chosen it as a career field.This administration wants to build two more reactors .
What happens when the next administration wants to tear down 6 ? Getting a degree in Nuclear science is about as useful as getting a degree in winning blackjack in Vegas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Nuclear energy wasn't regulated to death by the Government, I would have chosen it as a career field.This administration wants to build two more reactors.
What happens when the next administration wants to tear down 6?Getting a degree in Nuclear science is about as useful as getting a degree in winning blackjack in Vegas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168718</id>
	<title>Re:What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yucca Mountain is in Harry Reid's home state.  Guess we now know why that was scrapped.  Hopefully when he's kicked out of office shortly they'll go back to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yucca Mountain is in Harry Reid 's home state .
Guess we now know why that was scrapped .
Hopefully when he 's kicked out of office shortly they 'll go back to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yucca Mountain is in Harry Reid's home state.
Guess we now know why that was scrapped.
Hopefully when he's kicked out of office shortly they'll go back to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170206</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Its about time</title>
	<author>inviolet</author>
	<datestamp>1265043360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What a great thing -- lots of reliably generated power that is greener than burning fossil fuels. The only bad thing about this is that it has taken 30 years for more people to realize that safe nuclear power generation is possible.</p></div></blockquote><p>That realization was never lacking.  The problem all along has been $/KWH.
</p><p>The onerous regulations and protests and Jane Fondas simply added to the $/KWH.  Government loan guarantees lower the $/KWH back down by increasing the plants' bond ratings (which lowers their cost of financing).
</p><p>It would've been better to just reduce the regulatory burden, rather than cripple the industry with regulations and then prop it back up with subsidies... but such is the democratic method of inculcating dependence on the State.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a great thing -- lots of reliably generated power that is greener than burning fossil fuels .
The only bad thing about this is that it has taken 30 years for more people to realize that safe nuclear power generation is possible.That realization was never lacking .
The problem all along has been $ /KWH .
The onerous regulations and protests and Jane Fondas simply added to the $ /KWH .
Government loan guarantees lower the $ /KWH back down by increasing the plants ' bond ratings ( which lowers their cost of financing ) .
It would 've been better to just reduce the regulatory burden , rather than cripple the industry with regulations and then prop it back up with subsidies... but such is the democratic method of inculcating dependence on the State .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a great thing -- lots of reliably generated power that is greener than burning fossil fuels.
The only bad thing about this is that it has taken 30 years for more people to realize that safe nuclear power generation is possible.That realization was never lacking.
The problem all along has been $/KWH.
The onerous regulations and protests and Jane Fondas simply added to the $/KWH.
Government loan guarantees lower the $/KWH back down by increasing the plants' bond ratings (which lowers their cost of financing).
It would've been better to just reduce the regulatory burden, rather than cripple the industry with regulations and then prop it back up with subsidies... but such is the democratic method of inculcating dependence on the State.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169516</id>
	<title>So now can I use my degree?</title>
	<author>charleste</author>
	<datestamp>1265041140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got a graduate degree in Health Physics (Nuclear Janitor - a relative of Unclear Physics) back in the early 90's - and ended up in IT because there were NO jobs.  So does that mean I can actually work in the field for which I was trained?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a graduate degree in Health Physics ( Nuclear Janitor - a relative of Unclear Physics ) back in the early 90 's - and ended up in IT because there were NO jobs .
So does that mean I can actually work in the field for which I was trained ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a graduate degree in Health Physics (Nuclear Janitor - a relative of Unclear Physics) back in the early 90's - and ended up in IT because there were NO jobs.
So does that mean I can actually work in the field for which I was trained?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168808</id>
	<title>Re:What plant design?</title>
	<author>Smidge207</author>
	<datestamp>1265038620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear <b>fusion</b>, anyone? I was promised this by the Omni Future Almanac (pub. 1982) no later than 2010. Should I ask for my money back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear fusion , anyone ?
I was promised this by the Omni Future Almanac ( pub .
1982 ) no later than 2010 .
Should I ask for my money back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear fusion, anyone?
I was promised this by the Omni Future Almanac (pub.
1982) no later than 2010.
Should I ask for my money back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169572</id>
	<title>Abyssal plains are better</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1265041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subduction zones have the inconvenient that they are potentially like shredders that may crunch your waste and spread it over. A better alternative is to bury it at the bottom of abyssal plains, some of which have been stable for a billion years or more.</p><p>Waste enclosed in a glass or ceramic cylinder buried a hundred meters deep in mud that's under 5000 meters of water is as safe as it can get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subduction zones have the inconvenient that they are potentially like shredders that may crunch your waste and spread it over .
A better alternative is to bury it at the bottom of abyssal plains , some of which have been stable for a billion years or more.Waste enclosed in a glass or ceramic cylinder buried a hundred meters deep in mud that 's under 5000 meters of water is as safe as it can get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subduction zones have the inconvenient that they are potentially like shredders that may crunch your waste and spread it over.
A better alternative is to bury it at the bottom of abyssal plains, some of which have been stable for a billion years or more.Waste enclosed in a glass or ceramic cylinder buried a hundred meters deep in mud that's under 5000 meters of water is as safe as it can get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169332</id>
	<title>Re:What plant design?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than us</p></div><p>people seem to forget about the US Navy and their nuclear fleet<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_navy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">from wikepedia:</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.</p></div><p>(admittedly, naval reactors and power reactors are not identical, but to say the US hasn't invested in nuclear is wrong)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact is , they 've been doing nuclear power a lot , and doing it much more recently than uspeople seem to forget about the US Navy and their nuclear fleetfrom wikepedia : [ wikipedia.org ] The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 " reactor years " of accident-free experience , and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships .
( admittedly , naval reactors and power reactors are not identical , but to say the US has n't invested in nuclear is wrong )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than uspeople seem to forget about the US Navy and their nuclear fleetfrom wikepedia: [wikipedia.org] The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.
(admittedly, naval reactors and power reactors are not identical, but to say the US hasn't invested in nuclear is wrong)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31184012</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266506880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First if you don't think nuclear waste is a problem.  Where do you live?  They can bury it in <strong>your</strong> back yard.   Second if you think this is such a good idea to give the Southern Company this money maybe you need to look at the cost of the last plant they built.  The cost over runs were over <strong>Three Times</strong> over the projected costs.  So if they say the cost is 8bn be ready to pay out over 24bn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First if you do n't think nuclear waste is a problem .
Where do you live ?
They can bury it in your back yard .
Second if you think this is such a good idea to give the Southern Company this money maybe you need to look at the cost of the last plant they built .
The cost over runs were over Three Times over the projected costs .
So if they say the cost is 8bn be ready to pay out over 24bn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First if you don't think nuclear waste is a problem.
Where do you live?
They can bury it in your back yard.
Second if you think this is such a good idea to give the Southern Company this money maybe you need to look at the cost of the last plant they built.
The cost over runs were over Three Times over the projected costs.
So if they say the cost is 8bn be ready to pay out over 24bn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171182</id>
	<title>Economics should decide energy's generator</title>
	<author>Jameson Burt</author>
	<datestamp>1265046540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If our laws allow all forms of energy generation,<br>the method should be determined by economics.<br>Economics would account for externalities: pollution from coal, long-term storage from nuclear, noise from windmills,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>No matter what your political affiliation,<br>you probably must stretch reason to conclude that<br>government should subsidize nuclear power plants<br>or any power plants.</p><p>Build any power plants, fine;<br>but why must taxpayers fund their creation?<br>The response: because the risks are high.<br>Hmmm. High risks for capitalists<br>are also high risks for government.<br>If the risks are so high that capitalists would rather fund wind energy generation or coal energy generation,<br>why would government build nuclear power plants?</p><p>Can't government say "yea, nuclear power plants",<br>rather than<br>"yea, nuclear power plants, and here's $6 billion".</p><p>When government pays for (guarantees loans on) 90\% of a nuclear power plant, any of us would gladly put up a negligible 10\%.<br>This is not private enterprise, this is government enterprise.<br>Any of us would gladly run a company funded by government dollars -- what a deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If our laws allow all forms of energy generation,the method should be determined by economics.Economics would account for externalities : pollution from coal , long-term storage from nuclear , noise from windmills , ...No matter what your political affiliation,you probably must stretch reason to conclude thatgovernment should subsidize nuclear power plantsor any power plants.Build any power plants , fine ; but why must taxpayers fund their creation ? The response : because the risks are high.Hmmm .
High risks for capitalistsare also high risks for government.If the risks are so high that capitalists would rather fund wind energy generation or coal energy generation,why would government build nuclear power plants ? Ca n't government say " yea , nuclear power plants " ,rather than " yea , nuclear power plants , and here 's $ 6 billion " .When government pays for ( guarantees loans on ) 90 \ % of a nuclear power plant , any of us would gladly put up a negligible 10 \ % .This is not private enterprise , this is government enterprise.Any of us would gladly run a company funded by government dollars -- what a deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If our laws allow all forms of energy generation,the method should be determined by economics.Economics would account for externalities: pollution from coal, long-term storage from nuclear, noise from windmills, ...No matter what your political affiliation,you probably must stretch reason to conclude thatgovernment should subsidize nuclear power plantsor any power plants.Build any power plants, fine;but why must taxpayers fund their creation?The response: because the risks are high.Hmmm.
High risks for capitalistsare also high risks for government.If the risks are so high that capitalists would rather fund wind energy generation or coal energy generation,why would government build nuclear power plants?Can't government say "yea, nuclear power plants",rather than"yea, nuclear power plants, and here's $6 billion".When government pays for (guarantees loans on) 90\% of a nuclear power plant, any of us would gladly put up a negligible 10\%.This is not private enterprise, this is government enterprise.Any of us would gladly run a company funded by government dollars -- what a deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770</id>
	<title>Nuclear waste</title>
	<author>adenied</author>
	<datestamp>1265038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the anti-nuke people make claims of thousands of years of nuclear waste storage blah blah.  Does anyone take into account the speed at which science accelerates? Isn't it likely that in 20-50 years we'll have tech that can just deal with the waste? Or hell, even 200 years if you want to take a pessimistic view of tech growth.  Even if it was 1000 years I'd be pretty happy to have nuclear power than nasty coal that is actively poisoning things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the anti-nuke people make claims of thousands of years of nuclear waste storage blah blah .
Does anyone take into account the speed at which science accelerates ?
Is n't it likely that in 20-50 years we 'll have tech that can just deal with the waste ?
Or hell , even 200 years if you want to take a pessimistic view of tech growth .
Even if it was 1000 years I 'd be pretty happy to have nuclear power than nasty coal that is actively poisoning things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the anti-nuke people make claims of thousands of years of nuclear waste storage blah blah.
Does anyone take into account the speed at which science accelerates?
Isn't it likely that in 20-50 years we'll have tech that can just deal with the waste?
Or hell, even 200 years if you want to take a pessimistic view of tech growth.
Even if it was 1000 years I'd be pretty happy to have nuclear power than nasty coal that is actively poisoning things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168610</id>
	<title>It's a pity ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that we aren't pumping money into thorium reactors.  Their advantages are enormous.  Waste storage time is reduced and you can use one to "burn" old nuclear waste.  They cannot suffer from China Syndrome, since they need a sustained beam of neutrons to keep the reaction at critical.  And in terms of proliferation, they don't lend themselves easily to building nuclear weapons, whereas conventional uranium reactor technology isn't too hard to adapt to building of simple atomic weapons ("enrich more and build a donut and plug bomb.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that we are n't pumping money into thorium reactors .
Their advantages are enormous .
Waste storage time is reduced and you can use one to " burn " old nuclear waste .
They can not suffer from China Syndrome , since they need a sustained beam of neutrons to keep the reaction at critical .
And in terms of proliferation , they do n't lend themselves easily to building nuclear weapons , whereas conventional uranium reactor technology is n't too hard to adapt to building of simple atomic weapons ( " enrich more and build a donut and plug bomb .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that we aren't pumping money into thorium reactors.
Their advantages are enormous.
Waste storage time is reduced and you can use one to "burn" old nuclear waste.
They cannot suffer from China Syndrome, since they need a sustained beam of neutrons to keep the reaction at critical.
And in terms of proliferation, they don't lend themselves easily to building nuclear weapons, whereas conventional uranium reactor technology isn't too hard to adapt to building of simple atomic weapons ("enrich more and build a donut and plug bomb.
")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168886</id>
	<title>Georgia's in Florida</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully these are not the plants foretold of in Idiocracy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully these are not the plants foretold of in Idiocracy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully these are not the plants foretold of in Idiocracy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173610</id>
	<title>Re: Where are we going to store the waste?</title>
	<author>RareButSeriousSideEf</author>
	<datestamp>1265053920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Space, via railgun.

The Journal of Aerospace Engineering has a recent abstract for a <a href="http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&amp;id=JAEEXX000001000001000020000001&amp;idtype=cvips&amp;gifs=yes&amp;ref=no" title="aip.org">space rail gun</a> [aip.org].<p><div class="quote"><p>[...]The estimations and computations show the possibility of making this project a reality in a short period of time (for payloads which can tolerate high g-forces). The launch will be very cheap at a projected cost of $3 - $5 per pound.</p></div><p>If we could send it into the sun, that might quiet the critics who would otherwise say, "but you're polluting <i>space</i>!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Space , via railgun .
The Journal of Aerospace Engineering has a recent abstract for a space rail gun [ aip.org ] . [ .. .
] The estimations and computations show the possibility of making this project a reality in a short period of time ( for payloads which can tolerate high g-forces ) .
The launch will be very cheap at a projected cost of $ 3 - $ 5 per pound.If we could send it into the sun , that might quiet the critics who would otherwise say , " but you 're polluting space !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space, via railgun.
The Journal of Aerospace Engineering has a recent abstract for a space rail gun [aip.org].[...
]The estimations and computations show the possibility of making this project a reality in a short period of time (for payloads which can tolerate high g-forces).
The launch will be very cheap at a projected cost of $3 - $5 per pound.If we could send it into the sun, that might quiet the critics who would otherwise say, "but you're polluting space!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168468</id>
	<title>Suggested tag... (2)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1551156&amp;cid=31153084" title="slashdot.org">also</a> [slashdot.org] tag this story "what-could-possibly-go-wrong" ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I also [ slashdot.org ] tag this story " what-could-possibly-go-wrong " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I also [slashdot.org] tag this story "what-could-possibly-go-wrong" ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169856</id>
	<title>Re:What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where is all the waste going?</p></div><p>Middle East, I presume?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is all the waste going ? Middle East , I presume ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is all the waste going?Middle East, I presume?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170938</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Its about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is something that will depend strongly on location, but I can say that in the UK, most of the planned wind farm projects will actually be more reliable than our crappy old aging gas/coal burners. I was surprised to find this out. It's because they are spread out over such a wide area that there's just a very low probability of there being no wind at all. With a well designed turbine fleet, the rate of an outage due to poor wind conditions is actually lower than the breakdown rate of fossil fuel powerplants. Wind turbines are apparently cheap enough to run that you can just build vastly more than you need for use on low wind days.</p><p>Conversely, nuclear isn't an attractive option over here because it's too reliable. You can't shut it down easily to stop generating overnight, and unless somebody is buying power from it, it's losing money. This is why France has so many reactors but Britain has only a few, they have land borders to export power over at night and we don't, so our nuke plants just cover base load.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something that will depend strongly on location , but I can say that in the UK , most of the planned wind farm projects will actually be more reliable than our crappy old aging gas/coal burners .
I was surprised to find this out .
It 's because they are spread out over such a wide area that there 's just a very low probability of there being no wind at all .
With a well designed turbine fleet , the rate of an outage due to poor wind conditions is actually lower than the breakdown rate of fossil fuel powerplants .
Wind turbines are apparently cheap enough to run that you can just build vastly more than you need for use on low wind days.Conversely , nuclear is n't an attractive option over here because it 's too reliable .
You ca n't shut it down easily to stop generating overnight , and unless somebody is buying power from it , it 's losing money .
This is why France has so many reactors but Britain has only a few , they have land borders to export power over at night and we do n't , so our nuke plants just cover base load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something that will depend strongly on location, but I can say that in the UK, most of the planned wind farm projects will actually be more reliable than our crappy old aging gas/coal burners.
I was surprised to find this out.
It's because they are spread out over such a wide area that there's just a very low probability of there being no wind at all.
With a well designed turbine fleet, the rate of an outage due to poor wind conditions is actually lower than the breakdown rate of fossil fuel powerplants.
Wind turbines are apparently cheap enough to run that you can just build vastly more than you need for use on low wind days.Conversely, nuclear isn't an attractive option over here because it's too reliable.
You can't shut it down easily to stop generating overnight, and unless somebody is buying power from it, it's losing money.
This is why France has so many reactors but Britain has only a few, they have land borders to export power over at night and we don't, so our nuke plants just cover base load.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169180</id>
	<title>Re:It's a pity ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>++ on this.  India is building a thorium reactor (at least one, IIRC).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ + on this .
India is building a thorium reactor ( at least one , IIRC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>++ on this.
India is building a thorium reactor (at least one, IIRC).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175608</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Zot Quixote</author>
	<datestamp>1265017500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm pro-nuclear, but if you think waste isn't a problem, either because of reprocessing, Thorium reactors, or other reasons, you really need to stop talking and do more research.

Part of the problem seems to be on the right where they overreact to any good news about nuclear and say, "SEE, WE CAN BUILD A GAZILLION REACTORS RIGHT NOW, NO PROBLEM."

In short, take it slowly with nuclear. There have been some useful advances. And the environment and foreign oil are pressing concerns. Let's not make things worse by botching stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing .
I 'm pro-nuclear , but if you think waste is n't a problem , either because of reprocessing , Thorium reactors , or other reasons , you really need to stop talking and do more research .
Part of the problem seems to be on the right where they overreact to any good news about nuclear and say , " SEE , WE CAN BUILD A GAZILLION REACTORS RIGHT NOW , NO PROBLEM .
" In short , take it slowly with nuclear .
There have been some useful advances .
And the environment and foreign oil are pressing concerns .
Let 's not make things worse by botching stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I'm pro-nuclear, but if you think waste isn't a problem, either because of reprocessing, Thorium reactors, or other reasons, you really need to stop talking and do more research.
Part of the problem seems to be on the right where they overreact to any good news about nuclear and say, "SEE, WE CAN BUILD A GAZILLION REACTORS RIGHT NOW, NO PROBLEM.
"

In short, take it slowly with nuclear.
There have been some useful advances.
And the environment and foreign oil are pressing concerns.
Let's not make things worse by botching stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170776</id>
	<title>Re:What plant design?</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1265045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, not really. A nuclear powered ship is really not very much like a nuclear power station. You might as well compare to aeroplanes, because they both have a sort of spinny turbine thing. <br>
Your design constraints are so very different that you'd be starting from scratch anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not really .
A nuclear powered ship is really not very much like a nuclear power station .
You might as well compare to aeroplanes , because they both have a sort of spinny turbine thing .
Your design constraints are so very different that you 'd be starting from scratch anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not really.
A nuclear powered ship is really not very much like a nuclear power station.
You might as well compare to aeroplanes, because they both have a sort of spinny turbine thing.
Your design constraints are so very different that you'd be starting from scratch anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170258</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265043600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we reprocess it, 95\% goes back into a nuclear reactor. The remainder does have to be stored, but isn't nearly the problem it's claimed to be.</p><p>All the junk about 10,000 year storage is just a massive FUD campaign based on the assumption that we freely choose to bury that 95\% valuable fuel and ignores that the fuel is low-level waste once the shorter lived elements decay.</p><p>Bonus points if we use the remaining 5\% for thermal power generators. Tell people "FREE ELECTRICITY" and they'll be lining up to get one for their basement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we reprocess it , 95 \ % goes back into a nuclear reactor .
The remainder does have to be stored , but is n't nearly the problem it 's claimed to be.All the junk about 10,000 year storage is just a massive FUD campaign based on the assumption that we freely choose to bury that 95 \ % valuable fuel and ignores that the fuel is low-level waste once the shorter lived elements decay.Bonus points if we use the remaining 5 \ % for thermal power generators .
Tell people " FREE ELECTRICITY " and they 'll be lining up to get one for their basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we reprocess it, 95\% goes back into a nuclear reactor.
The remainder does have to be stored, but isn't nearly the problem it's claimed to be.All the junk about 10,000 year storage is just a massive FUD campaign based on the assumption that we freely choose to bury that 95\% valuable fuel and ignores that the fuel is low-level waste once the shorter lived elements decay.Bonus points if we use the remaining 5\% for thermal power generators.
Tell people "FREE ELECTRICITY" and they'll be lining up to get one for their basement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169966</id>
	<title>End the Insanity</title>
	<author>Conzar</author>
	<datestamp>1265042580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now It is important to point out that tidal, wave, solar and wind power requires virtually no preliminary energy to harness, unlike coal, oil, gas, biomass, hydrogen and all the others.<br> <br>

In combination, these four mediums alone, if efficiently harnessed through technology, could power the world forever.<br> <br>

That being said, there happens to be another form of clean, renewable energy, which trumps them all- Geothermal Power.<br> <br>

Geothermal energy utilizes what is called heat mining, which, though a simple process using water, is able to generate massive amounts of clean energy. In 2006, an MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13,000 zettajoules of power are currently available in the earth, with the possibility of 2000 zj being easily tap-able with improved technology. The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about half of a zettajoule a year. This means about 4000 years of planetary power could be harnessed in this medium alone. And when we understand that the earth's heat generation is constantly renewed, this energy is really limitless and could be used forever.
These energy sources are only a few of the clean, renewable mediums available, and as time goes on, we will find more.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript\_add.htm" title="zeitgeistmovie.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript\_add.htm</a> [zeitgeistmovie.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now It is important to point out that tidal , wave , solar and wind power requires virtually no preliminary energy to harness , unlike coal , oil , gas , biomass , hydrogen and all the others .
In combination , these four mediums alone , if efficiently harnessed through technology , could power the world forever .
That being said , there happens to be another form of clean , renewable energy , which trumps them all- Geothermal Power .
Geothermal energy utilizes what is called heat mining , which , though a simple process using water , is able to generate massive amounts of clean energy .
In 2006 , an MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13,000 zettajoules of power are currently available in the earth , with the possibility of 2000 zj being easily tap-able with improved technology .
The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about half of a zettajoule a year .
This means about 4000 years of planetary power could be harnessed in this medium alone .
And when we understand that the earth 's heat generation is constantly renewed , this energy is really limitless and could be used forever .
These energy sources are only a few of the clean , renewable mediums available , and as time goes on , we will find more .
http : //www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript \ _add.htm [ zeitgeistmovie.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now It is important to point out that tidal, wave, solar and wind power requires virtually no preliminary energy to harness, unlike coal, oil, gas, biomass, hydrogen and all the others.
In combination, these four mediums alone, if efficiently harnessed through technology, could power the world forever.
That being said, there happens to be another form of clean, renewable energy, which trumps them all- Geothermal Power.
Geothermal energy utilizes what is called heat mining, which, though a simple process using water, is able to generate massive amounts of clean energy.
In 2006, an MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13,000 zettajoules of power are currently available in the earth, with the possibility of 2000 zj being easily tap-able with improved technology.
The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about half of a zettajoule a year.
This means about 4000 years of planetary power could be harnessed in this medium alone.
And when we understand that the earth's heat generation is constantly renewed, this energy is really limitless and could be used forever.
These energy sources are only a few of the clean, renewable mediums available, and as time goes on, we will find more.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript\_add.htm [zeitgeistmovie.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170244</id>
	<title>uh oh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems alot liek that show 24 i think it was 2nd season that and the african president and the terrorists attacked the nuclear power plants. i dont remember the correct season for sure but it happened and regardless im calling Jack Bauer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems alot liek that show 24 i think it was 2nd season that and the african president and the terrorists attacked the nuclear power plants .
i dont remember the correct season for sure but it happened and regardless im calling Jack Bauer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems alot liek that show 24 i think it was 2nd season that and the african president and the terrorists attacked the nuclear power plants.
i dont remember the correct season for sure but it happened and regardless im calling Jack Bauer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171130</id>
	<title>Re:Article is a complete fabrication</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1265046420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really think those refrigerators on the front porch are just for show?  Are you some kind of Imbeeecile?</p><p>Save your Dixie Cups the South will rise again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think those refrigerators on the front porch are just for show ?
Are you some kind of Imbeeecile ? Save your Dixie Cups the South will rise again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think those refrigerators on the front porch are just for show?
Are you some kind of Imbeeecile?Save your Dixie Cups the South will rise again!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174192</id>
	<title>Re:Made in Japan. . ?</title>
	<author>e3m4n</author>
	<datestamp>1265055900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the irony is amazing.. I was a nuclear engineer in the navy for 6 years and we were not able to have port visits in japan because we were nuclear powered. Its interesting to learn that they know own most of westinghouse, whom as you pointed out, is a big player in nulear power. The W of the D2W cores of the 150MW plants I operated stood for westinghouse. It's understandable why they where 'shell shocked' about nuclear power, but the irony is still not lost. It's my understanding that as a whole they're still pretty anti-nuclear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the irony is amazing.. I was a nuclear engineer in the navy for 6 years and we were not able to have port visits in japan because we were nuclear powered .
Its interesting to learn that they know own most of westinghouse , whom as you pointed out , is a big player in nulear power .
The W of the D2W cores of the 150MW plants I operated stood for westinghouse .
It 's understandable why they where 'shell shocked ' about nuclear power , but the irony is still not lost .
It 's my understanding that as a whole they 're still pretty anti-nuclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the irony is amazing.. I was a nuclear engineer in the navy for 6 years and we were not able to have port visits in japan because we were nuclear powered.
Its interesting to learn that they know own most of westinghouse, whom as you pointed out, is a big player in nulear power.
The W of the D2W cores of the 150MW plants I operated stood for westinghouse.
It's understandable why they where 'shell shocked' about nuclear power, but the irony is still not lost.
It's my understanding that as a whole they're still pretty anti-nuclear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234</id>
	<title>some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1265035980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some <i>facts</i> about nuclear energy.<br>1/Nuclear energy does not make economic sense. <a href="http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308" title="ipsnews.net" rel="nofollow">http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308</a> [ipsnews.net]  (translation: it is expensive)<br>2/Having to store waste for over 100000 years is not what someone with any common sense would call 'green'.<br>3/limited liability. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price\%E2\%80\%93Anderson\_Nuclear\_Industries\_Indemnity\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price\%E2\%80\%93Anderson\_Nuclear\_Industries\_Indemnity\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>4/fuel-dependency</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some facts about nuclear energy.1/Nuclear energy does not make economic sense .
http : //ipsnews.net/news.asp ? idnews = 50308 [ ipsnews.net ] ( translation : it is expensive ) 2/Having to store waste for over 100000 years is not what someone with any common sense would call 'green'.3/limited liability .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % 93Anderson \ _Nuclear \ _Industries \ _Indemnity \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ] 4/fuel-dependency</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some facts about nuclear energy.1/Nuclear energy does not make economic sense.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308 [ipsnews.net]  (translation: it is expensive)2/Having to store waste for over 100000 years is not what someone with any common sense would call 'green'.3/limited liability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price\%E2\%80\%93Anderson\_Nuclear\_Industries\_Indemnity\_Act [wikipedia.org]4/fuel-dependency</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170268</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>SkeeZerD</author>
	<datestamp>1265043600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Generally I agree, but the image problem isn't just perception; it is reality.  When there is a problem at a nuclear facility, it dwarfs those at any coal mine.  Remember Chernobyl?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally I agree , but the image problem is n't just perception ; it is reality .
When there is a problem at a nuclear facility , it dwarfs those at any coal mine .
Remember Chernobyl ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally I agree, but the image problem isn't just perception; it is reality.
When there is a problem at a nuclear facility, it dwarfs those at any coal mine.
Remember Chernobyl?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31181572</id>
	<title>shoot environmentalists ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266486060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and you, dipshit, are fucking nuts too for advocating murder - how can you be so stupid as to hate on people simply because they have a desire to save YOUR environment? you fucking retard.<br>many environmentalists are funded covertly to maintain the petro/coal industry - they mean well - bring them on board, don't alienate them with your ignorance and arrogance - they want quality of life like you claim you do - only they generally don't advocate shooting people to do so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you prick !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and you , dipshit , are fucking nuts too for advocating murder - how can you be so stupid as to hate on people simply because they have a desire to save YOUR environment ?
you fucking retard.many environmentalists are funded covertly to maintain the petro/coal industry - they mean well - bring them on board , do n't alienate them with your ignorance and arrogance - they want quality of life like you claim you do - only they generally do n't advocate shooting people to do so ... you prick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and you, dipshit, are fucking nuts too for advocating murder - how can you be so stupid as to hate on people simply because they have a desire to save YOUR environment?
you fucking retard.many environmentalists are funded covertly to maintain the petro/coal industry - they mean well - bring them on board, don't alienate them with your ignorance and arrogance - they want quality of life like you claim you do - only they generally don't advocate shooting people to do so ... you prick !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171892</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>e3m4n</author>
	<datestamp>1265048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>its not specifically 'waste'. Its unspent uranium where the yield is too low to sustain criticality. Just like biofuel and solar cells were not efficent enough at one time to be viable; reprocessing the spent fuel to make new disperision clusters in order to re-cycle the unspent uranium is a possibility. Its just that not enough research has been spent doing so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>its not specifically 'waste' .
Its unspent uranium where the yield is too low to sustain criticality .
Just like biofuel and solar cells were not efficent enough at one time to be viable ; reprocessing the spent fuel to make new disperision clusters in order to re-cycle the unspent uranium is a possibility .
Its just that not enough research has been spent doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its not specifically 'waste'.
Its unspent uranium where the yield is too low to sustain criticality.
Just like biofuel and solar cells were not efficent enough at one time to be viable; reprocessing the spent fuel to make new disperision clusters in order to re-cycle the unspent uranium is a possibility.
Its just that not enough research has been spent doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</id>
	<title>Good.  Its about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a great thing -- lots of reliably generated power that is greener than burning fossil fuels.  The only bad thing about this is that it has taken 30 years for more people to realize that safe nuclear power generation is possible.<br> <br>

This is one step closer towards reducing the amount of our dollars that go to the middle east while also stimulating the US economy.  This also moves us closer to our goal of having electric vehicles that really are green.  Wind/solar are not as reliable as nuclear because you only have wind when the wind blows, and solar when the sun is shining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a great thing -- lots of reliably generated power that is greener than burning fossil fuels .
The only bad thing about this is that it has taken 30 years for more people to realize that safe nuclear power generation is possible .
This is one step closer towards reducing the amount of our dollars that go to the middle east while also stimulating the US economy .
This also moves us closer to our goal of having electric vehicles that really are green .
Wind/solar are not as reliable as nuclear because you only have wind when the wind blows , and solar when the sun is shining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a great thing -- lots of reliably generated power that is greener than burning fossil fuels.
The only bad thing about this is that it has taken 30 years for more people to realize that safe nuclear power generation is possible.
This is one step closer towards reducing the amount of our dollars that go to the middle east while also stimulating the US economy.
This also moves us closer to our goal of having electric vehicles that really are green.
Wind/solar are not as reliable as nuclear because you only have wind when the wind blows, and solar when the sun is shining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169068</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Mr\_Miagi</author>
	<datestamp>1265039580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>       "The Managing Director of the first Nuclear Power Plant in the state of Georgia has already been handed his assignment by Southern Company CEO David Ratcliffe. Little is known on the knowledge or prior industrial experience of the man, other than his name, one Montgomery Burns."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Managing Director of the first Nuclear Power Plant in the state of Georgia has already been handed his assignment by Southern Company CEO David Ratcliffe .
Little is known on the knowledge or prior industrial experience of the man , other than his name , one Montgomery Burns .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       "The Managing Director of the first Nuclear Power Plant in the state of Georgia has already been handed his assignment by Southern Company CEO David Ratcliffe.
Little is known on the knowledge or prior industrial experience of the man, other than his name, one Montgomery Burns.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168526</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Afghanistan.</p><p>The rule is; if we can't dig valuable stuff out of landscape, we should be able to dump dangerous stuff in the landscape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Afghanistan.The rule is ; if we ca n't dig valuable stuff out of landscape , we should be able to dump dangerous stuff in the landscape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Afghanistan.The rule is; if we can't dig valuable stuff out of landscape, we should be able to dump dangerous stuff in the landscape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31180516</id>
	<title>way to go Hussein</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1265047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand you can't afford to lag behind on nuclear waste production in the cold war with Iran but i see one good thing in this. This way you Yankees will HAVE to go back to the moon, if only to get rid of the toxic waste. I sincerely hope you're not planning on dumping that shit into our seas. Save the space program, build a nuke ! Nice one Bama...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand you ca n't afford to lag behind on nuclear waste production in the cold war with Iran but i see one good thing in this .
This way you Yankees will HAVE to go back to the moon , if only to get rid of the toxic waste .
I sincerely hope you 're not planning on dumping that shit into our seas .
Save the space program , build a nuke !
Nice one Bama.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand you can't afford to lag behind on nuclear waste production in the cold war with Iran but i see one good thing in this.
This way you Yankees will HAVE to go back to the moon, if only to get rid of the toxic waste.
I sincerely hope you're not planning on dumping that shit into our seas.
Save the space program, build a nuke !
Nice one Bama...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169390</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1265040720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are your plans to deal with the massive quantities of waste produced in the process of mining the metal for enough wind turbines to be really useful?<br>How about the various chemicals and waste materials from processing the cells for the billion and billions of solar panels you'd need to power the world?</p><p>Until I hear a good answer to that question, Solar and wind power just doesn't cut it from my standpoint.<br>It is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are your plans to deal with the massive quantities of waste produced in the process of mining the metal for enough wind turbines to be really useful ? How about the various chemicals and waste materials from processing the cells for the billion and billions of solar panels you 'd need to power the world ? Until I hear a good answer to that question , Solar and wind power just does n't cut it from my standpoint.It is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are your plans to deal with the massive quantities of waste produced in the process of mining the metal for enough wind turbines to be really useful?How about the various chemicals and waste materials from processing the cells for the billion and billions of solar panels you'd need to power the world?Until I hear a good answer to that question, Solar and wind power just doesn't cut it from my standpoint.It is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31181036</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call myself a hippie but many other people would and I think nuclear energy is way better than almost any other option we currently have... Just throwing that out there for ya...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call myself a hippie but many other people would and I think nuclear energy is way better than almost any other option we currently have... Just throwing that out there for ya.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call myself a hippie but many other people would and I think nuclear energy is way better than almost any other option we currently have... Just throwing that out there for ya...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175236</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1265016360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> every single accomplishment of every Greenpeace like organisation the world over combined has ever accomplished.</p></div></blockquote><p>I disagree.  It would be healthier, I'll agree with that.</p><p>My disagreement however, that it would not best any Greenpeace demonstration that resulted in one of those morons driving their little rubber dingy under a naval destroyer.  Those events are great days for humanity, and those are bigger accomplishments than anything Greenpeace has done intentionally and are for better for the world than switching to nuclear plants right now, if you look at it from a long term perspective.</p><p>Lets face it, ignorance and political fighting in organizations like Greenpeace result in them fighting things that would help their cause long term and if they weren't such ignorant fucks who have to have a 'cause to fight' without knowing what 'the cause' actaully is they'd be able to figure that part out.</p><p>Most 'peace', 'animal protection' and 'green' political and activist groups do FAR more damage for their own cause than good because they've been blinded.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>every single accomplishment of every Greenpeace like organisation the world over combined has ever accomplished.I disagree .
It would be healthier , I 'll agree with that.My disagreement however , that it would not best any Greenpeace demonstration that resulted in one of those morons driving their little rubber dingy under a naval destroyer .
Those events are great days for humanity , and those are bigger accomplishments than anything Greenpeace has done intentionally and are for better for the world than switching to nuclear plants right now , if you look at it from a long term perspective.Lets face it , ignorance and political fighting in organizations like Greenpeace result in them fighting things that would help their cause long term and if they were n't such ignorant fucks who have to have a 'cause to fight ' without knowing what 'the cause ' actaully is they 'd be able to figure that part out.Most 'peace ' , 'animal protection ' and 'green ' political and activist groups do FAR more damage for their own cause than good because they 've been blinded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> every single accomplishment of every Greenpeace like organisation the world over combined has ever accomplished.I disagree.
It would be healthier, I'll agree with that.My disagreement however, that it would not best any Greenpeace demonstration that resulted in one of those morons driving their little rubber dingy under a naval destroyer.
Those events are great days for humanity, and those are bigger accomplishments than anything Greenpeace has done intentionally and are for better for the world than switching to nuclear plants right now, if you look at it from a long term perspective.Lets face it, ignorance and political fighting in organizations like Greenpeace result in them fighting things that would help their cause long term and if they weren't such ignorant fucks who have to have a 'cause to fight' without knowing what 'the cause' actaully is they'd be able to figure that part out.Most 'peace', 'animal protection' and 'green' political and activist groups do FAR more damage for their own cause than good because they've been blinded.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170308</id>
	<title>Re:What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about having everyone drinking from the sources that are fed by that mountain becoming uranium-enriched as a consequence?</p><p>Is anyone doing the math?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about having everyone drinking from the sources that are fed by that mountain becoming uranium-enriched as a consequence ? Is anyone doing the math ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about having everyone drinking from the sources that are fed by that mountain becoming uranium-enriched as a consequence?Is anyone doing the math?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172662</id>
	<title>coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste</title>
	<author>swimsaturn</author>
	<datestamp>1265050920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just less concentrated.  Interesting <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste" title="scientificamerican.com" rel="nofollow">SciAm article</a> [scientificamerican.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>just less concentrated .
Interesting SciAm article [ scientificamerican.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just less concentrated.
Interesting SciAm article [scientificamerican.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172676</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1265050980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stuff you can't reprocess put at bottom of an oceanic trench. Subduction zones are MomNature's ultimate recycle bin.</p></div><p>We all know this leads to Godzilla problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stuff you ca n't reprocess put at bottom of an oceanic trench .
Subduction zones are MomNature 's ultimate recycle bin.We all know this leads to Godzilla problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stuff you can't reprocess put at bottom of an oceanic trench.
Subduction zones are MomNature's ultimate recycle bin.We all know this leads to Godzilla problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168850</id>
	<title>Thorium</title>
	<author>Theswager</author>
	<datestamp>1265038800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff\_new\_nukes/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff\_new\_nukes/</a> [wired.com]
Thorium.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff \ _new \ _nukes/ [ wired.com ] Thorium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff\_new\_nukes/ [wired.com]
Thorium.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31182526</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1266496560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are newer types of reactors than the old "breeder reactors" which we used because the end product was plutonium used in weapons production.
Ge II and Gen III are in use now in much of the world, and although Gen IV reactors are in the offing, they may be a bit far off.
<p> Thorium reactors (discussed on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. here <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel</a> [slashdot.org] ) are also a distinct possibility.
</p><p> the ONLY drawback to nuclear energy being widely used is the luddite  NIMBY mentality. where Reactor = Bad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are newer types of reactors than the old " breeder reactors " which we used because the end product was plutonium used in weapons production .
Ge II and Gen III are in use now in much of the world , and although Gen IV reactors are in the offing , they may be a bit far off .
Thorium reactors ( discussed on / .
here http : //science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel [ slashdot.org ] ) are also a distinct possibility .
the ONLY drawback to nuclear energy being widely used is the luddite NIMBY mentality .
where Reactor = Bad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are newer types of reactors than the old "breeder reactors" which we used because the end product was plutonium used in weapons production.
Ge II and Gen III are in use now in much of the world, and although Gen IV reactors are in the offing, they may be a bit far off.
Thorium reactors (discussed on /.
here http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel [slashdot.org] ) are also a distinct possibility.
the ONLY drawback to nuclear energy being widely used is the luddite  NIMBY mentality.
where Reactor = Bad</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171288</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1265046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, there is no climate crisis in the global warming sense. The predictions were pretty suspect to begin with. Grown even more suspect now that the Sun is back in the low end of the solar cycle. Enjoy your global warming blizzards. I am anxiously waiting for the ice age doom and gloom scenario to be back in fashion soon.
<p>
Second, some environmentalists, spoon fed with the global warming crapola, have indeed started supporting nuclear power generation which is basically CO2 free. James Lovelock is one example. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is another. The solution to the waste is simple. Reuse as much as possible and bury the rest. The amount of waste per unit of energy generated is quite small. Which is why you keep hearing about how they need some place to store the waste for 20 years, do nothing about it, and its ok. If the waste really piled up fast, a place to bury it would have already been found and used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , there is no climate crisis in the global warming sense .
The predictions were pretty suspect to begin with .
Grown even more suspect now that the Sun is back in the low end of the solar cycle .
Enjoy your global warming blizzards .
I am anxiously waiting for the ice age doom and gloom scenario to be back in fashion soon .
Second , some environmentalists , spoon fed with the global warming crapola , have indeed started supporting nuclear power generation which is basically CO2 free .
James Lovelock is one example .
Patrick Moore , co-founder of Greenpeace , is another .
The solution to the waste is simple .
Reuse as much as possible and bury the rest .
The amount of waste per unit of energy generated is quite small .
Which is why you keep hearing about how they need some place to store the waste for 20 years , do nothing about it , and its ok. If the waste really piled up fast , a place to bury it would have already been found and used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, there is no climate crisis in the global warming sense.
The predictions were pretty suspect to begin with.
Grown even more suspect now that the Sun is back in the low end of the solar cycle.
Enjoy your global warming blizzards.
I am anxiously waiting for the ice age doom and gloom scenario to be back in fashion soon.
Second, some environmentalists, spoon fed with the global warming crapola, have indeed started supporting nuclear power generation which is basically CO2 free.
James Lovelock is one example.
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is another.
The solution to the waste is simple.
Reuse as much as possible and bury the rest.
The amount of waste per unit of energy generated is quite small.
Which is why you keep hearing about how they need some place to store the waste for 20 years, do nothing about it, and its ok. If the waste really piled up fast, a place to bury it would have already been found and used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171520</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Its about time</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1265047500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the optimistic side of me thinks of it another way, though.  In the last 30 years, we've learned a lot about how to safely and efficiently build nuclear reactors.  Hopefully one that starts out being built today will be magnitudes better than ones we'd have in operation now, if we were in a rush to build them earlier.</p><p>Obviously, you can't just wait around forever with the excuse that "we'll have a better one developed next year"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but at the same time, our other energy sources have held out for us this long, and it doesn't look like we're going to deplete them within 10 years or less.  So perhaps now is a great time to start building one, so it can go online right when it starts really being needed the most?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the optimistic side of me thinks of it another way , though .
In the last 30 years , we 've learned a lot about how to safely and efficiently build nuclear reactors .
Hopefully one that starts out being built today will be magnitudes better than ones we 'd have in operation now , if we were in a rush to build them earlier.Obviously , you ca n't just wait around forever with the excuse that " we 'll have a better one developed next year " ... but at the same time , our other energy sources have held out for us this long , and it does n't look like we 're going to deplete them within 10 years or less .
So perhaps now is a great time to start building one , so it can go online right when it starts really being needed the most ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the optimistic side of me thinks of it another way, though.
In the last 30 years, we've learned a lot about how to safely and efficiently build nuclear reactors.
Hopefully one that starts out being built today will be magnitudes better than ones we'd have in operation now, if we were in a rush to build them earlier.Obviously, you can't just wait around forever with the excuse that "we'll have a better one developed next year" ... but at the same time, our other energy sources have held out for us this long, and it doesn't look like we're going to deplete them within 10 years or less.
So perhaps now is a great time to start building one, so it can go online right when it starts really being needed the most?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265037900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope the administration really makes a PR push on nuclear energy. With Obama being a darling of the left and environmental types, his advocacy could go a long way in dispelling some of the hippie anti-nuclear horseshit and hysteria that has put us so far behind Europe in the last several decades. It might also finally get enough public support to break the Yucca Mountain logjam and finally implement a sensible storage solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope the administration really makes a PR push on nuclear energy .
With Obama being a darling of the left and environmental types , his advocacy could go a long way in dispelling some of the hippie anti-nuclear horseshit and hysteria that has put us so far behind Europe in the last several decades .
It might also finally get enough public support to break the Yucca Mountain logjam and finally implement a sensible storage solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope the administration really makes a PR push on nuclear energy.
With Obama being a darling of the left and environmental types, his advocacy could go a long way in dispelling some of the hippie anti-nuclear horseshit and hysteria that has put us so far behind Europe in the last several decades.
It might also finally get enough public support to break the Yucca Mountain logjam and finally implement a sensible storage solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31192782</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>bhiestand</author>
	<datestamp>1266495420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone who brings up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear power plant safety quite honestly hasn't the slightest idea <i>why</i> Chernobyl happened or why it's physically impossible for it to happen in any nuclear power plant ever designed or built in any western nation...</p></div><p>I submit to you the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa\_Susana\_Field\_Laboratory#Accidents\_and\_Site\_contamination" title="wikipedia.org">Santa Susana Field Laboratory</a> [wikipedia.org].  Granted it was not as large scale as Chernobyl, but multiple meltdowns occurred and were intentionally covered up by the government.  It not only could have happened in the US, it did--and the cover-up is ongoing.</p><p>With that said I agree with the rest of your points.  With properly enforced regulations nuclear power can be adequately safe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who brings up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear power plant safety quite honestly has n't the slightest idea why Chernobyl happened or why it 's physically impossible for it to happen in any nuclear power plant ever designed or built in any western nation...I submit to you the Santa Susana Field Laboratory [ wikipedia.org ] .
Granted it was not as large scale as Chernobyl , but multiple meltdowns occurred and were intentionally covered up by the government .
It not only could have happened in the US , it did--and the cover-up is ongoing.With that said I agree with the rest of your points .
With properly enforced regulations nuclear power can be adequately safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who brings up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear power plant safety quite honestly hasn't the slightest idea why Chernobyl happened or why it's physically impossible for it to happen in any nuclear power plant ever designed or built in any western nation...I submit to you the Santa Susana Field Laboratory [wikipedia.org].
Granted it was not as large scale as Chernobyl, but multiple meltdowns occurred and were intentionally covered up by the government.
It not only could have happened in the US, it did--and the cover-up is ongoing.With that said I agree with the rest of your points.
With properly enforced regulations nuclear power can be adequately safe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</id>
	<title>That's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But where are we going to store the waste?  I'm all for nuclear power.  It's clean and not nearly as dangerous as a lot of people think, but the waste is a big political deal.  No one wants the storage facilities in their back yard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But where are we going to store the waste ?
I 'm all for nuclear power .
It 's clean and not nearly as dangerous as a lot of people think , but the waste is a big political deal .
No one wants the storage facilities in their back yard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But where are we going to store the waste?
I'm all for nuclear power.
It's clean and not nearly as dangerous as a lot of people think, but the waste is a big political deal.
No one wants the storage facilities in their back yard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169342</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Xelios</author>
	<datestamp>1265040480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I've noticed that if you throw something into a water body like a lake or an ocean that the next day you come back and it's gone, so somehow it takes it away and filters it through and it just cleans it up like a garbage compacter or whatever. So it's not really littering if you ask me."<br>
- Ricky, Trailer Park Boys</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've noticed that if you throw something into a water body like a lake or an ocean that the next day you come back and it 's gone , so somehow it takes it away and filters it through and it just cleans it up like a garbage compacter or whatever .
So it 's not really littering if you ask me .
" - Ricky , Trailer Park Boys</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've noticed that if you throw something into a water body like a lake or an ocean that the next day you come back and it's gone, so somehow it takes it away and filters it through and it just cleans it up like a garbage compacter or whatever.
So it's not really littering if you ask me.
"
- Ricky, Trailer Park Boys</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1265036340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If by facts you mean falsehoods.</p><p>The facts:</p><p>1. If you only look at the construction of the plant. It makes perfect economic sense if you look out over 50 years, and can even be cheaper than coal.<br>2. Most of the waste we have could be used as fuel, but we're refusing to do so, partially because of the ban on new plants, partially because several of the methods create a lot of weapons-grade Plutonium. But we are making far more nuclear waste than necessary.<br>3. Repeal it. Anyway, coal plants have caused more health damage than nuclear, at least in the US.<br>4. That's not a fact. That's not even an opinion. You just said "fuel dependency."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If by facts you mean falsehoods.The facts : 1 .
If you only look at the construction of the plant .
It makes perfect economic sense if you look out over 50 years , and can even be cheaper than coal.2 .
Most of the waste we have could be used as fuel , but we 're refusing to do so , partially because of the ban on new plants , partially because several of the methods create a lot of weapons-grade Plutonium .
But we are making far more nuclear waste than necessary.3 .
Repeal it .
Anyway , coal plants have caused more health damage than nuclear , at least in the US.4 .
That 's not a fact .
That 's not even an opinion .
You just said " fuel dependency .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by facts you mean falsehoods.The facts:1.
If you only look at the construction of the plant.
It makes perfect economic sense if you look out over 50 years, and can even be cheaper than coal.2.
Most of the waste we have could be used as fuel, but we're refusing to do so, partially because of the ban on new plants, partially because several of the methods create a lot of weapons-grade Plutonium.
But we are making far more nuclear waste than necessary.3.
Repeal it.
Anyway, coal plants have caused more health damage than nuclear, at least in the US.4.
That's not a fact.
That's not even an opinion.
You just said "fuel dependency.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1265039280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."</p><p>"We're getting a little tired hearing nuclear industry lobbyists and pro-nuclear politicians allege that environmentalists are now supporting nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis. We know that's not true, and we're sure you do too. In fact, using nuclear power would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions. As Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute points out, "every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar..."</p><p><a href="http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php?r=sb" title="nirs.org">http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php?r=sb</a> [nirs.org]</p><p>What are we going to do with the waste? Until I hear a good answer to that question, nuclear power just doesn't cut it from my standpoint. Obama's nuclear plan, just like the rest of his policy, and US government policy in general, is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids. If we put 8bln into real solutions, we'd be able to build one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis .
Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster , cheaper , safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power .
" " We 're getting a little tired hearing nuclear industry lobbyists and pro-nuclear politicians allege that environmentalists are now supporting nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis .
We know that 's not true , and we 're sure you do too .
In fact , using nuclear power would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions .
As Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute points out , " every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar... " http : //www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php ? r = sb [ nirs.org ] What are we going to do with the waste ?
Until I hear a good answer to that question , nuclear power just does n't cut it from my standpoint .
Obama 's nuclear plan , just like the rest of his policy , and US government policy in general , is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids .
If we put 8bln into real solutions , we 'd be able to build one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis.
Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.
""We're getting a little tired hearing nuclear industry lobbyists and pro-nuclear politicians allege that environmentalists are now supporting nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis.
We know that's not true, and we're sure you do too.
In fact, using nuclear power would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions.
As Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute points out, "every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar..."http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php?r=sb [nirs.org]What are we going to do with the waste?
Until I hear a good answer to that question, nuclear power just doesn't cut it from my standpoint.
Obama's nuclear plan, just like the rest of his policy, and US government policy in general, is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids.
If we put 8bln into real solutions, we'd be able to build one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31268484</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Its about time</title>
	<author>AzuMao</author>
	<datestamp>1265131440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you WANT to stop generating power? Most countries use power 24/7.

You might want to decrease the power generated during times when less power is needed.. with nuclear reactors that can be done automatically by inserting more control rods. 100\% reliability with no wasted power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you WANT to stop generating power ?
Most countries use power 24/7 .
You might want to decrease the power generated during times when less power is needed.. with nuclear reactors that can be done automatically by inserting more control rods .
100 \ % reliability with no wasted power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you WANT to stop generating power?
Most countries use power 24/7.
You might want to decrease the power generated during times when less power is needed.. with nuclear reactors that can be done automatically by inserting more control rods.
100\% reliability with no wasted power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169352</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1265040540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup.  Too bad the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) program was killed.  If I recall correctly, the half-life of its longest-lived waste was something on the order of 50-100 years, and it extracted on the order of 70-90\% of the energy available in its input uranium, instead of something like 5-20\% (what typical LWRs are capable of).  (Again, this is *if* I recall correctly, it has been a while since I read the IFR literature.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Too bad the IFR ( Integral Fast Reactor ) program was killed .
If I recall correctly , the half-life of its longest-lived waste was something on the order of 50-100 years , and it extracted on the order of 70-90 \ % of the energy available in its input uranium , instead of something like 5-20 \ % ( what typical LWRs are capable of ) .
( Again , this is * if * I recall correctly , it has been a while since I read the IFR literature .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Too bad the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) program was killed.
If I recall correctly, the half-life of its longest-lived waste was something on the order of 50-100 years, and it extracted on the order of 70-90\% of the energy available in its input uranium, instead of something like 5-20\% (what typical LWRs are capable of).
(Again, this is *if* I recall correctly, it has been a while since I read the IFR literature.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31199750</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>Loki\_1929</author>
	<datestamp>1266597480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Santa Susana Field Laboratory isn't a fair comparison at all. We're talking about operational nuclear power plants. The problems and accidents at Santa Susana were with experimental reactors being pushed to their limits (far beyond, as it turned out). The major accidents happened in the 1950s and '60s and they only happened because the entire facility played fast and loose with <i>everything</i> it did. Sort of like when a couple scientists died because they were illegal burning dangerous chemicals in open pits.</p><p>So yes, if you're running uncontrolled experiments on untested and unsafe designs, [n] power solution can be extremely dangerous. The difference with nuclear is that in every commercial setting where it's ever been used in any western nation through history, it's proven <i>vastly</i> safer than coal fire plants, oil plants, and evern hydro plants. The same is true for nearly all other applications as well. Even if every plant were designed and run as piss-poorly and dangerously as the Chernobyl plant, nuclear power would still be safer and less harmful to the environment than coal fire plants. As it happens, every nuclear plant operating today (of which I'm aware) couldn't possibly repeat anything like the Chernobyl incident and all have outstanding safety records.</p><p>It's pretty telling that the worst nuclear power plant accident in US history resulted in 0 deaths, 0 serious injuries, and virtually no contamination of the environment. When you compare that to the deaths, injuries, and environmental obliteration happening all the time at coal fire plants around the US (and the world), it very quickly becomes crystal clear that we should be working as fast as we can to replace every coal fire plant in the world with nuclear power plants. They're cleaner, safer, more reliable, and just as cheap over the life of the plant due to ridiculously low operations costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Santa Susana Field Laboratory is n't a fair comparison at all .
We 're talking about operational nuclear power plants .
The problems and accidents at Santa Susana were with experimental reactors being pushed to their limits ( far beyond , as it turned out ) .
The major accidents happened in the 1950s and '60s and they only happened because the entire facility played fast and loose with everything it did .
Sort of like when a couple scientists died because they were illegal burning dangerous chemicals in open pits.So yes , if you 're running uncontrolled experiments on untested and unsafe designs , [ n ] power solution can be extremely dangerous .
The difference with nuclear is that in every commercial setting where it 's ever been used in any western nation through history , it 's proven vastly safer than coal fire plants , oil plants , and evern hydro plants .
The same is true for nearly all other applications as well .
Even if every plant were designed and run as piss-poorly and dangerously as the Chernobyl plant , nuclear power would still be safer and less harmful to the environment than coal fire plants .
As it happens , every nuclear plant operating today ( of which I 'm aware ) could n't possibly repeat anything like the Chernobyl incident and all have outstanding safety records.It 's pretty telling that the worst nuclear power plant accident in US history resulted in 0 deaths , 0 serious injuries , and virtually no contamination of the environment .
When you compare that to the deaths , injuries , and environmental obliteration happening all the time at coal fire plants around the US ( and the world ) , it very quickly becomes crystal clear that we should be working as fast as we can to replace every coal fire plant in the world with nuclear power plants .
They 're cleaner , safer , more reliable , and just as cheap over the life of the plant due to ridiculously low operations costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Santa Susana Field Laboratory isn't a fair comparison at all.
We're talking about operational nuclear power plants.
The problems and accidents at Santa Susana were with experimental reactors being pushed to their limits (far beyond, as it turned out).
The major accidents happened in the 1950s and '60s and they only happened because the entire facility played fast and loose with everything it did.
Sort of like when a couple scientists died because they were illegal burning dangerous chemicals in open pits.So yes, if you're running uncontrolled experiments on untested and unsafe designs, [n] power solution can be extremely dangerous.
The difference with nuclear is that in every commercial setting where it's ever been used in any western nation through history, it's proven vastly safer than coal fire plants, oil plants, and evern hydro plants.
The same is true for nearly all other applications as well.
Even if every plant were designed and run as piss-poorly and dangerously as the Chernobyl plant, nuclear power would still be safer and less harmful to the environment than coal fire plants.
As it happens, every nuclear plant operating today (of which I'm aware) couldn't possibly repeat anything like the Chernobyl incident and all have outstanding safety records.It's pretty telling that the worst nuclear power plant accident in US history resulted in 0 deaths, 0 serious injuries, and virtually no contamination of the environment.
When you compare that to the deaths, injuries, and environmental obliteration happening all the time at coal fire plants around the US (and the world), it very quickly becomes crystal clear that we should be working as fast as we can to replace every coal fire plant in the world with nuclear power plants.
They're cleaner, safer, more reliable, and just as cheap over the life of the plant due to ridiculously low operations costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31192782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169362</id>
	<title>What about the other side?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a single anti-nuclear power point of view has been modded up.  What a fucked-up place Slashdot has become.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a single anti-nuclear power point of view has been modded up .
What a fucked-up place Slashdot has become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a single anti-nuclear power point of view has been modded up.
What a fucked-up place Slashdot has become.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176352</id>
	<title>Water usage?</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265020080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What a great thing -- lots of reliably generated power that is greener than burning fossil fuels.</p></div></blockquote><p>If, by greener, you mean, less polluting, yes, Nuclear is better than Fossil fuels... however, in terms of water usage, Nuclear and Fossil Fuel plants are <a href="http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue\_detail.cfm?issue\_id=5" title="powerscorecard.org">very thirsty</a> [powerscorecard.org] power-generation solutions. Do we have any idea of the water usage of these new plants?  As we keep hearing these days, fresh water will be the <a href="http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/freshwater\_supply/freshwater.html" title="umich.edu">next scarce resource</a> [umich.edu] (one of the primary reasons China needs Tibet).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a great thing -- lots of reliably generated power that is greener than burning fossil fuels.If , by greener , you mean , less polluting , yes , Nuclear is better than Fossil fuels... however , in terms of water usage , Nuclear and Fossil Fuel plants are very thirsty [ powerscorecard.org ] power-generation solutions .
Do we have any idea of the water usage of these new plants ?
As we keep hearing these days , fresh water will be the next scarce resource [ umich.edu ] ( one of the primary reasons China needs Tibet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a great thing -- lots of reliably generated power that is greener than burning fossil fuels.If, by greener, you mean, less polluting, yes, Nuclear is better than Fossil fuels... however, in terms of water usage, Nuclear and Fossil Fuel plants are very thirsty [powerscorecard.org] power-generation solutions.
Do we have any idea of the water usage of these new plants?
As we keep hearing these days, fresh water will be the next scarce resource [umich.edu] (one of the primary reasons China needs Tibet).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450</id>
	<title>What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1265037000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is all the waste going?  The political horse trading by the Obama administration promised to shut down Yucca Mountain, toileting over $9 billion.</p><p>Is anyone doing the math??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is all the waste going ?
The political horse trading by the Obama administration promised to shut down Yucca Mountain , toileting over $ 9 billion.Is anyone doing the math ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is all the waste going?
The political horse trading by the Obama administration promised to shut down Yucca Mountain, toileting over $9 billion.Is anyone doing the math?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171690</id>
	<title>Re:What plant design?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265048040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than us),</i></p><p>Our Navy runs tons of nuclear reactors with very few incidents. Or in other words, there are plenty of people in the US qualified to safely build and run nuclear reactors. The only advantage France has is in permanently-sited, domestic reactors-- which frankly should be *easier* to build than one being installed onto a moving vessel in a very limited amount of space.</p><p>On an unrelated note, I'm constantly amazed at how many people simply forget that our Navy is nuclear powered. That's actually a good thing: it's so safe and unremarkable, it's never mentioned on the news, so people don't think of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact is , they 've been doing nuclear power a lot , and doing it much more recently than us ) ,Our Navy runs tons of nuclear reactors with very few incidents .
Or in other words , there are plenty of people in the US qualified to safely build and run nuclear reactors .
The only advantage France has is in permanently-sited , domestic reactors-- which frankly should be * easier * to build than one being installed onto a moving vessel in a very limited amount of space.On an unrelated note , I 'm constantly amazed at how many people simply forget that our Navy is nuclear powered .
That 's actually a good thing : it 's so safe and unremarkable , it 's never mentioned on the news , so people do n't think of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than us),Our Navy runs tons of nuclear reactors with very few incidents.
Or in other words, there are plenty of people in the US qualified to safely build and run nuclear reactors.
The only advantage France has is in permanently-sited, domestic reactors-- which frankly should be *easier* to build than one being installed onto a moving vessel in a very limited amount of space.On an unrelated note, I'm constantly amazed at how many people simply forget that our Navy is nuclear powered.
That's actually a good thing: it's so safe and unremarkable, it's never mentioned on the news, so people don't think of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174306</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>coredog64</author>
	<datestamp>1265056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The logjam has already been broken.  The budget that was submitted to Congress assumed Yucca Mountain would be closed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The logjam has already been broken .
The budget that was submitted to Congress assumed Yucca Mountain would be closed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logjam has already been broken.
The budget that was submitted to Congress assumed Yucca Mountain would be closed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31178166</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>Loki\_1929</author>
	<datestamp>1265027700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't just a positive reactivity coefficient; it was a <b>massively</b> high positive reactivity coefficient. Between its design and its operation, it's truly a wonder the Chernobyl plant accident didn't do significantly higher damage to nearby populations and environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't just a positive reactivity coefficient ; it was a massively high positive reactivity coefficient .
Between its design and its operation , it 's truly a wonder the Chernobyl plant accident did n't do significantly higher damage to nearby populations and environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't just a positive reactivity coefficient; it was a massively high positive reactivity coefficient.
Between its design and its operation, it's truly a wonder the Chernobyl plant accident didn't do significantly higher damage to nearby populations and environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169804</id>
	<title>Are we making viable power plants?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265042040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing that bugs me here, is that aside from the government loan guarantees, what has changed? As far as I can tell (and I may have missed something important somewhere), nothing serious. That means that people are building with government backed loans, projects that they couldn't have built some other way. After all, if nuclear plants were that great a deal, then they could have borrowed the money some time ago like in 2007 when capital was plentiful and cheap.<br> <br>

So my suspicion here is that government is funding a bunch of failures and that most of these loans will end up defaulting a little while after the capital is consumed (which might not even leave the plants in a usable state). After all, there's a lot of good money in spending a billion dollars of taxpayer money to create five hundred million dollars worth of nuclear power plant. Just make sure you're not liable for the loans when they default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that bugs me here , is that aside from the government loan guarantees , what has changed ?
As far as I can tell ( and I may have missed something important somewhere ) , nothing serious .
That means that people are building with government backed loans , projects that they could n't have built some other way .
After all , if nuclear plants were that great a deal , then they could have borrowed the money some time ago like in 2007 when capital was plentiful and cheap .
So my suspicion here is that government is funding a bunch of failures and that most of these loans will end up defaulting a little while after the capital is consumed ( which might not even leave the plants in a usable state ) .
After all , there 's a lot of good money in spending a billion dollars of taxpayer money to create five hundred million dollars worth of nuclear power plant .
Just make sure you 're not liable for the loans when they default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that bugs me here, is that aside from the government loan guarantees, what has changed?
As far as I can tell (and I may have missed something important somewhere), nothing serious.
That means that people are building with government backed loans, projects that they couldn't have built some other way.
After all, if nuclear plants were that great a deal, then they could have borrowed the money some time ago like in 2007 when capital was plentiful and cheap.
So my suspicion here is that government is funding a bunch of failures and that most of these loans will end up defaulting a little while after the capital is consumed (which might not even leave the plants in a usable state).
After all, there's a lot of good money in spending a billion dollars of taxpayer money to create five hundred million dollars worth of nuclear power plant.
Just make sure you're not liable for the loans when they default.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168846</id>
	<title>what kind of reactor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>is it  breeder reactor?  liquid thorium blanket?  what generation reactor?   the article say nothing on that. i'd like to see some progress in reactor tech being implemented by the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is it breeder reactor ?
liquid thorium blanket ?
what generation reactor ?
the article say nothing on that .
i 'd like to see some progress in reactor tech being implemented by the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it  breeder reactor?
liquid thorium blanket?
what generation reactor?
the article say nothing on that.
i'd like to see some progress in reactor tech being implemented by the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169200</id>
	<title>Re:What plant design?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than us</p></div><p>people seem to forget about our nuclear powered submarine and aircraft carrier fleet</p><p>from wp: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>today, nuclear energy powers all of U.S. active aircraft carriers and submarines.</p></div><p>(admittedly, the two aren't identical, but to say the US hasn't been investing in nuclear power is wrong)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact is , they 've been doing nuclear power a lot , and doing it much more recently than uspeople seem to forget about our nuclear powered submarine and aircraft carrier fleetfrom wp : today , nuclear energy powers all of U.S. active aircraft carriers and submarines .
( admittedly , the two are n't identical , but to say the US has n't been investing in nuclear power is wrong )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than uspeople seem to forget about our nuclear powered submarine and aircraft carrier fleetfrom wp: today, nuclear energy powers all of U.S. active aircraft carriers and submarines.
(admittedly, the two aren't identical, but to say the US hasn't been investing in nuclear power is wrong)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172632</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1265050860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly the same as the automobile vs airplane fear issue.<br> <br>One kills a small handful of people every day, but only a few at a time, and we never hear about most of them. The other rarely kills anyone, but when things go wrong, lots of people can die at once. And any even remotely problematic issue is widely reported in the media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly the same as the automobile vs airplane fear issue .
One kills a small handful of people every day , but only a few at a time , and we never hear about most of them .
The other rarely kills anyone , but when things go wrong , lots of people can die at once .
And any even remotely problematic issue is widely reported in the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly the same as the automobile vs airplane fear issue.
One kills a small handful of people every day, but only a few at a time, and we never hear about most of them.
The other rarely kills anyone, but when things go wrong, lots of people can die at once.
And any even remotely problematic issue is widely reported in the media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31177190</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1265023560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he's pretty much left that to his DoE secretary, Dr. Chu, who said we should "absolutely" expand the nuclear part of our energy portfolio.</p><p>I'm hoping he'll give fast breeders and thorium fuel a fair hearing, but we'll see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he 's pretty much left that to his DoE secretary , Dr. Chu , who said we should " absolutely " expand the nuclear part of our energy portfolio.I 'm hoping he 'll give fast breeders and thorium fuel a fair hearing , but we 'll see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he's pretty much left that to his DoE secretary, Dr. Chu, who said we should "absolutely" expand the nuclear part of our energy portfolio.I'm hoping he'll give fast breeders and thorium fuel a fair hearing, but we'll see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175774</id>
	<title>Re:What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265017980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>Come on America, you know you want to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu [ wikipedia.org ] Come on America , you know you want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu [wikipedia.org]  Come on America, you know you want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31252696</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Its about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266928920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't anyone pushing the thorium fuel cycle? Thorium is three or time more abundant than uranium and holds the promise of implementations with safety parameters that are actually within the capacity of human beings to control.  Of course it can't be used to breed material for nuclear weapons<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't anyone pushing the thorium fuel cycle ?
Thorium is three or time more abundant than uranium and holds the promise of implementations with safety parameters that are actually within the capacity of human beings to control .
Of course it ca n't be used to breed material for nuclear weapons ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't anyone pushing the thorium fuel cycle?
Thorium is three or time more abundant than uranium and holds the promise of implementations with safety parameters that are actually within the capacity of human beings to control.
Of course it can't be used to breed material for nuclear weapons ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171066</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1265046240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm for building nuclear plants. People think that all nuclear plants are chernobyl, and that before they inevitably explode they will leak radiation to the surrounding countryside. This isnt true. People have a fear of radiation because it is a powerful force they cannot see. Realistically, the coal power plants these will replace would do you a LOT more harm with all the so2 emissions. As for storing the depleted uranium/plutonium- what is the big deal? So we have to put a couple of truck sized boxes somewhere. No big deal. It isnt as if we're lacking for square footage on planet earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm for building nuclear plants .
People think that all nuclear plants are chernobyl , and that before they inevitably explode they will leak radiation to the surrounding countryside .
This isnt true .
People have a fear of radiation because it is a powerful force they can not see .
Realistically , the coal power plants these will replace would do you a LOT more harm with all the so2 emissions .
As for storing the depleted uranium/plutonium- what is the big deal ?
So we have to put a couple of truck sized boxes somewhere .
No big deal .
It isnt as if we 're lacking for square footage on planet earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm for building nuclear plants.
People think that all nuclear plants are chernobyl, and that before they inevitably explode they will leak radiation to the surrounding countryside.
This isnt true.
People have a fear of radiation because it is a powerful force they cannot see.
Realistically, the coal power plants these will replace would do you a LOT more harm with all the so2 emissions.
As for storing the depleted uranium/plutonium- what is the big deal?
So we have to put a couple of truck sized boxes somewhere.
No big deal.
It isnt as if we're lacking for square footage on planet earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169972</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>Loki\_1929</author>
	<datestamp>1265042580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What are we going to do with the waste? Until I hear a good answer to that question, nuclear power just doesn't cut it from my standpoint. Obama's nuclear plan, just like the rest of his policy, and US government policy in general, is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids. If we put 8bln into real solutions, we'd be able to build one.</p></div><p>What are we going to do with the waste? Don't know. What <i>should</i> we be doing with the waste? Reprocessing it like everyone else in the civilized world already does.</p><p>First, a word about modern reactor waste. If you just look at the crappy Westinghouse reactors the President announced loans for and don't even consider recycling all their waste (and we can do <b>vastly</b> better), the per-capita waste over the 60+ years life of the plant fits in a Coke bottle. Take a better design (CANDU, for instance), get less waste. Reprocess the waste you do get (which you can do multiple times in a CANDU reactor), get even less. So the actual level of waste we're talking about over a lifetime on a per-capita basis fits in a bottle of soda. Do what everyone else does with the waste and you end up with far less.</p><p>Second, the President has not specifically addressed what we're going to do with all our soda bottles of waste, but "senior" people dealing with the issue are supposedly telling journalists behind closed doors that they're looking at a number of possible solutions and that any final result will probably have to include reprocessing. If we were smart, we'd build a bunch of CANDU plants and feed our <i>existing</i> "waste" into them as fuel. CANDU plants are remarkably flexible. We can feed our existing waste into them now, take apart decommissioned nuclear weapons and feed their nuclear material into the plants later, and then switch either to natural uranium or to thorium. The CANDU plants would simply continue churning out clean, safe power throughout the whole process.</p><p>China's building CANDU plants right now (among others). Some CANDU projects have already been completed (either on or ahead of schedule and either on or under budget). To the best of my knowledge, the remaining CANDU projects in China are all ahead of schedule and under budget. That's what happens when you do something over and over again: you get better at it and it becomes cheaper and easier to do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are we going to do with the waste ?
Until I hear a good answer to that question , nuclear power just does n't cut it from my standpoint .
Obama 's nuclear plan , just like the rest of his policy , and US government policy in general , is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids .
If we put 8bln into real solutions , we 'd be able to build one.What are we going to do with the waste ?
Do n't know .
What should we be doing with the waste ?
Reprocessing it like everyone else in the civilized world already does.First , a word about modern reactor waste .
If you just look at the crappy Westinghouse reactors the President announced loans for and do n't even consider recycling all their waste ( and we can do vastly better ) , the per-capita waste over the 60 + years life of the plant fits in a Coke bottle .
Take a better design ( CANDU , for instance ) , get less waste .
Reprocess the waste you do get ( which you can do multiple times in a CANDU reactor ) , get even less .
So the actual level of waste we 're talking about over a lifetime on a per-capita basis fits in a bottle of soda .
Do what everyone else does with the waste and you end up with far less.Second , the President has not specifically addressed what we 're going to do with all our soda bottles of waste , but " senior " people dealing with the issue are supposedly telling journalists behind closed doors that they 're looking at a number of possible solutions and that any final result will probably have to include reprocessing .
If we were smart , we 'd build a bunch of CANDU plants and feed our existing " waste " into them as fuel .
CANDU plants are remarkably flexible .
We can feed our existing waste into them now , take apart decommissioned nuclear weapons and feed their nuclear material into the plants later , and then switch either to natural uranium or to thorium .
The CANDU plants would simply continue churning out clean , safe power throughout the whole process.China 's building CANDU plants right now ( among others ) .
Some CANDU projects have already been completed ( either on or ahead of schedule and either on or under budget ) .
To the best of my knowledge , the remaining CANDU projects in China are all ahead of schedule and under budget .
That 's what happens when you do something over and over again : you get better at it and it becomes cheaper and easier to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are we going to do with the waste?
Until I hear a good answer to that question, nuclear power just doesn't cut it from my standpoint.
Obama's nuclear plan, just like the rest of his policy, and US government policy in general, is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids.
If we put 8bln into real solutions, we'd be able to build one.What are we going to do with the waste?
Don't know.
What should we be doing with the waste?
Reprocessing it like everyone else in the civilized world already does.First, a word about modern reactor waste.
If you just look at the crappy Westinghouse reactors the President announced loans for and don't even consider recycling all their waste (and we can do vastly better), the per-capita waste over the 60+ years life of the plant fits in a Coke bottle.
Take a better design (CANDU, for instance), get less waste.
Reprocess the waste you do get (which you can do multiple times in a CANDU reactor), get even less.
So the actual level of waste we're talking about over a lifetime on a per-capita basis fits in a bottle of soda.
Do what everyone else does with the waste and you end up with far less.Second, the President has not specifically addressed what we're going to do with all our soda bottles of waste, but "senior" people dealing with the issue are supposedly telling journalists behind closed doors that they're looking at a number of possible solutions and that any final result will probably have to include reprocessing.
If we were smart, we'd build a bunch of CANDU plants and feed our existing "waste" into them as fuel.
CANDU plants are remarkably flexible.
We can feed our existing waste into them now, take apart decommissioned nuclear weapons and feed their nuclear material into the plants later, and then switch either to natural uranium or to thorium.
The CANDU plants would simply continue churning out clean, safe power throughout the whole process.China's building CANDU plants right now (among others).
Some CANDU projects have already been completed (either on or ahead of schedule and either on or under budget).
To the best of my knowledge, the remaining CANDU projects in China are all ahead of schedule and under budget.
That's what happens when you do something over and over again: you get better at it and it becomes cheaper and easier to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173830</id>
	<title>Destroy the waste</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1265054700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the primary concern about nuclear power is what to do with all the waste. Reprocessing will get you pretty far. But the best solution is to destroy the waste. This can be done with a fusion-fission hybrid system.<br><a href="http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear\_hybrid/" title="utexas.edu">http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear\_hybrid/</a> [utexas.edu]<br>In a normal fission reactor, isotopes of heavy elements break apart, producing neutrons which can cause other heavy elements to break apart. But some isotopes are easier to break down than others, and eventually, you break down most of the "easy" isotopes, and there isn't enough density of high energy neutrons to continue a chain reaction with the "hard" isotopes, aka the sludge.<br>We have the technology to build fusion reactors... the problem is that they currently require more energy to operate than we can harvest from them. This is likely to change soon with NIF breakthroughs and ITER being built, but we cannot yet use pure fusion as a power source.<br>But we CAN currently use fusion as a powerful neutron source, and these neutrons can be use to fission the sludge from the normal fission reactor. It will cost some energy to produce the neutrons, but it's more than made up for by the energy from the fission reactions.<br>The best part of this is that the long-lived heavy isotopes are mostly destroyed. You still have fission byproducts and secondary nuclear waste, but this will drastically cut down on the amount of waste to deal with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the primary concern about nuclear power is what to do with all the waste .
Reprocessing will get you pretty far .
But the best solution is to destroy the waste .
This can be done with a fusion-fission hybrid system.http : //www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear \ _hybrid/ [ utexas.edu ] In a normal fission reactor , isotopes of heavy elements break apart , producing neutrons which can cause other heavy elements to break apart .
But some isotopes are easier to break down than others , and eventually , you break down most of the " easy " isotopes , and there is n't enough density of high energy neutrons to continue a chain reaction with the " hard " isotopes , aka the sludge.We have the technology to build fusion reactors... the problem is that they currently require more energy to operate than we can harvest from them .
This is likely to change soon with NIF breakthroughs and ITER being built , but we can not yet use pure fusion as a power source.But we CAN currently use fusion as a powerful neutron source , and these neutrons can be use to fission the sludge from the normal fission reactor .
It will cost some energy to produce the neutrons , but it 's more than made up for by the energy from the fission reactions.The best part of this is that the long-lived heavy isotopes are mostly destroyed .
You still have fission byproducts and secondary nuclear waste , but this will drastically cut down on the amount of waste to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the primary concern about nuclear power is what to do with all the waste.
Reprocessing will get you pretty far.
But the best solution is to destroy the waste.
This can be done with a fusion-fission hybrid system.http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear\_hybrid/ [utexas.edu]In a normal fission reactor, isotopes of heavy elements break apart, producing neutrons which can cause other heavy elements to break apart.
But some isotopes are easier to break down than others, and eventually, you break down most of the "easy" isotopes, and there isn't enough density of high energy neutrons to continue a chain reaction with the "hard" isotopes, aka the sludge.We have the technology to build fusion reactors... the problem is that they currently require more energy to operate than we can harvest from them.
This is likely to change soon with NIF breakthroughs and ITER being built, but we cannot yet use pure fusion as a power source.But we CAN currently use fusion as a powerful neutron source, and these neutrons can be use to fission the sludge from the normal fission reactor.
It will cost some energy to produce the neutrons, but it's more than made up for by the energy from the fission reactions.The best part of this is that the long-lived heavy isotopes are mostly destroyed.
You still have fission byproducts and secondary nuclear waste, but this will drastically cut down on the amount of waste to deal with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172936</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1265051640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; POINT NUMBER 2</p><p>The primary type of reactor in the US only uses about 3\% of the potential energy in nuclear fuel. A second type of reactor can utilize almost ALL the remaining energy, AND significantly reduce the half-life of the remaining waste. The only "problem" is that the remaining waste is pure enoughto use as a weapon. Nothing good security can't handle.</p><p>My source is an article from Scientific American from several years ago. I want to say it's fast reactors, but I'm not sure.</p><p>We would be able to power the entire world only through nuclear power for at LEAST 100 years, if not much more, by using and re-using nuclear fuel. [citation needed] During that time, we would continue to build and improve our renewable solutions (geothermal, solar, wind, water, heart) and their economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; POINT NUMBER 2The primary type of reactor in the US only uses about 3 \ % of the potential energy in nuclear fuel .
A second type of reactor can utilize almost ALL the remaining energy , AND significantly reduce the half-life of the remaining waste .
The only " problem " is that the remaining waste is pure enoughto use as a weapon .
Nothing good security ca n't handle.My source is an article from Scientific American from several years ago .
I want to say it 's fast reactors , but I 'm not sure.We would be able to power the entire world only through nuclear power for at LEAST 100 years , if not much more , by using and re-using nuclear fuel .
[ citation needed ] During that time , we would continue to build and improve our renewable solutions ( geothermal , solar , wind , water , heart ) and their economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; POINT NUMBER 2The primary type of reactor in the US only uses about 3\% of the potential energy in nuclear fuel.
A second type of reactor can utilize almost ALL the remaining energy, AND significantly reduce the half-life of the remaining waste.
The only "problem" is that the remaining waste is pure enoughto use as a weapon.
Nothing good security can't handle.My source is an article from Scientific American from several years ago.
I want to say it's fast reactors, but I'm not sure.We would be able to power the entire world only through nuclear power for at LEAST 100 years, if not much more, by using and re-using nuclear fuel.
[citation needed] During that time, we would continue to build and improve our renewable solutions (geothermal, solar, wind, water, heart) and their economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173456</id>
	<title>Thorium nuclear power ideal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265053440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is an article on using thorium as the fuel instead of uranium.  It claims that thorium is the perfect green nuclear power.</p><p>http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff\_new\_nukes/all/1</p><p>The main reason that uranium reactors were the reactor of choice was because it produced significant amounts of weapons grade plutonium to build us nukes.  It is practically impossible to produce a nuclear weapon from thorium power byproducts.  On top of that thorium is cheap and plentiful in the US, there is enough to power the us for 100's to 1,000's of years.  It's also 50\% more efficient than uranium reactors.  "It&rsquo;s only slightly radioactive; you could carry a lump of it in your pocket without harm."  "And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts."</p><p>Uranium and thorium reactors as compared in the article:</p><p>*Uranium-Fueled Light-Water Reactor<br>*Fuel Uranium fuel rods<br>*Fuel input per gigawatt output 250 tons raw uranium<br>*Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million<br>*Coolant Water<br>*Proliferation potential Medium<br>*Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone</p><p>*Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor<br>*Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution<br>*Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium<br>*Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated)<br>*Coolant Self-regulating<br>*Proliferation potential None<br>*Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is an article on using thorium as the fuel instead of uranium .
It claims that thorium is the perfect green nuclear power.http : //www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff \ _new \ _nukes/all/1The main reason that uranium reactors were the reactor of choice was because it produced significant amounts of weapons grade plutonium to build us nukes .
It is practically impossible to produce a nuclear weapon from thorium power byproducts .
On top of that thorium is cheap and plentiful in the US , there is enough to power the us for 100 's to 1,000 's of years .
It 's also 50 \ % more efficient than uranium reactors .
" It    s only slightly radioactive ; you could carry a lump of it in your pocket without harm .
" " And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years , not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts .
" Uranium and thorium reactors as compared in the article : * Uranium-Fueled Light-Water Reactor * Fuel Uranium fuel rods * Fuel input per gigawatt output 250 tons raw uranium * Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $ 50-60 million * Coolant Water * Proliferation potential Medium * Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet , surrounded by a low-density population zone * Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor * Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution * Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium * Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $ 10,000 ( estimated ) * Coolant Self-regulating * Proliferation potential None * Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet , with no need for a buffer zone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is an article on using thorium as the fuel instead of uranium.
It claims that thorium is the perfect green nuclear power.http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff\_new\_nukes/all/1The main reason that uranium reactors were the reactor of choice was because it produced significant amounts of weapons grade plutonium to build us nukes.
It is practically impossible to produce a nuclear weapon from thorium power byproducts.
On top of that thorium is cheap and plentiful in the US, there is enough to power the us for 100's to 1,000's of years.
It's also 50\% more efficient than uranium reactors.
"It’s only slightly radioactive; you could carry a lump of it in your pocket without harm.
"  "And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts.
"Uranium and thorium reactors as compared in the article:*Uranium-Fueled Light-Water Reactor*Fuel Uranium fuel rods*Fuel input per gigawatt output 250 tons raw uranium*Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million*Coolant Water*Proliferation potential Medium*Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone*Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor*Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution*Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium*Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated)*Coolant Self-regulating*Proliferation potential None*Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31177428</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Its about time</title>
	<author>enedi</author>
	<datestamp>1265024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is one step closer towards reducing the amount of our dollars that go to the middle east while also stimulating the US economy. This also moves us closer to our goal of having electric vehicles that really are green.</p></div><p>I'm not entirely sure that nuclear power generation will reduce imports from the Middle East, primarily because nuclear power doesn't replace the oil we use with regards to our current energy consumption habits.

On the other hand, you are right that it is power that is generated more "greenly" than burning coal and hopefully with the advent of nuclear power we will see, as you say, electric vehicles that really are green.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one step closer towards reducing the amount of our dollars that go to the middle east while also stimulating the US economy .
This also moves us closer to our goal of having electric vehicles that really are green.I 'm not entirely sure that nuclear power generation will reduce imports from the Middle East , primarily because nuclear power does n't replace the oil we use with regards to our current energy consumption habits .
On the other hand , you are right that it is power that is generated more " greenly " than burning coal and hopefully with the advent of nuclear power we will see , as you say , electric vehicles that really are green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one step closer towards reducing the amount of our dollars that go to the middle east while also stimulating the US economy.
This also moves us closer to our goal of having electric vehicles that really are green.I'm not entirely sure that nuclear power generation will reduce imports from the Middle East, primarily because nuclear power doesn't replace the oil we use with regards to our current energy consumption habits.
On the other hand, you are right that it is power that is generated more "greenly" than burning coal and hopefully with the advent of nuclear power we will see, as you say, electric vehicles that really are green.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169334</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>lambent</author>
	<datestamp>1265040480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and what do we do with the waste, runoff, and pollution from non-nuclear power generation?  where's your outrage over the contamination of our environment from mining coal?</p><p>we're already behaving in a short-sighted fashion, and burdening the next generations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and what do we do with the waste , runoff , and pollution from non-nuclear power generation ?
where 's your outrage over the contamination of our environment from mining coal ? we 're already behaving in a short-sighted fashion , and burdening the next generations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and what do we do with the waste, runoff, and pollution from non-nuclear power generation?
where's your outrage over the contamination of our environment from mining coal?we're already behaving in a short-sighted fashion, and burdening the next generations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168536</id>
	<title>Small vs. Large problems</title>
	<author>Halo-</author>
	<datestamp>1265037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one will say nuclear is without serious drawbacks, but modern reactor design has pretty much reduced those to a single large "what do we do with the waste?" issue.  I would rather have a comparatively small amount of containable waste and eons of time to figure out how to make it "go away"(TM) then have much larger environmental impacts which aren't so simple.  It's reasonable to expect the human race to come up with a way to render a few hundred tons of radioactive waste inert in the semi-near future.  It's much less reasonable to expect us to figure out how to scrub (billions/trillions/quadrillions?) tons of CO2 and other nasties out of the atmosphere, and deal with the other larger scale issues coal/oil/gas produce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one will say nuclear is without serious drawbacks , but modern reactor design has pretty much reduced those to a single large " what do we do with the waste ?
" issue .
I would rather have a comparatively small amount of containable waste and eons of time to figure out how to make it " go away " ( TM ) then have much larger environmental impacts which are n't so simple .
It 's reasonable to expect the human race to come up with a way to render a few hundred tons of radioactive waste inert in the semi-near future .
It 's much less reasonable to expect us to figure out how to scrub ( billions/trillions/quadrillions ?
) tons of CO2 and other nasties out of the atmosphere , and deal with the other larger scale issues coal/oil/gas produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one will say nuclear is without serious drawbacks, but modern reactor design has pretty much reduced those to a single large "what do we do with the waste?
" issue.
I would rather have a comparatively small amount of containable waste and eons of time to figure out how to make it "go away"(TM) then have much larger environmental impacts which aren't so simple.
It's reasonable to expect the human race to come up with a way to render a few hundred tons of radioactive waste inert in the semi-near future.
It's much less reasonable to expect us to figure out how to scrub (billions/trillions/quadrillions?
) tons of CO2 and other nasties out of the atmosphere, and deal with the other larger scale issues coal/oil/gas produce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170134</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1265043120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So where in the US do you have a problem with not enough space for wind turbines? Don't see the merit of the argument.</p><p>We Germans on the other hand have to go offshore because of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So where in the US do you have a problem with not enough space for wind turbines ?
Do n't see the merit of the argument.We Germans on the other hand have to go offshore because of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where in the US do you have a problem with not enough space for wind turbines?
Don't see the merit of the argument.We Germans on the other hand have to go offshore because of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168446</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1265037000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, everyone complains about nuclear waste storage.  But has anyone considered how convenient it is that we actually have the OPTION of storing it-- that it comes prepackaged in nice containers, rather than being spewed into the atmosphere where its a heck of a lot more difficult to get at (as with coal)?<br> <br>

Plus, unlike coal emissions, we can actually USE the waste material and reduce it by reusing it in reactors-- if it is radioactive, that means it is emitting radiation, which can either be used in additional reactors, or worst case in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (not very efficient, but its an option).  With smog and CO2 emissions, we can do....what again?  Bury it so that it can leak back into the atmosphere after a while?<br> <br>

Seems to me, if youre going to have a fuel source that has a waste product, the BEST thing you can ask for is that it deliver it in a prepackaged, stable, reusable form rather than as a useless aerosol.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , everyone complains about nuclear waste storage .
But has anyone considered how convenient it is that we actually have the OPTION of storing it-- that it comes prepackaged in nice containers , rather than being spewed into the atmosphere where its a heck of a lot more difficult to get at ( as with coal ) ?
Plus , unlike coal emissions , we can actually USE the waste material and reduce it by reusing it in reactors-- if it is radioactive , that means it is emitting radiation , which can either be used in additional reactors , or worst case in radioisotope thermoelectric generators ( not very efficient , but its an option ) .
With smog and CO2 emissions , we can do....what again ?
Bury it so that it can leak back into the atmosphere after a while ?
Seems to me , if youre going to have a fuel source that has a waste product , the BEST thing you can ask for is that it deliver it in a prepackaged , stable , reusable form rather than as a useless aerosol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, everyone complains about nuclear waste storage.
But has anyone considered how convenient it is that we actually have the OPTION of storing it-- that it comes prepackaged in nice containers, rather than being spewed into the atmosphere where its a heck of a lot more difficult to get at (as with coal)?
Plus, unlike coal emissions, we can actually USE the waste material and reduce it by reusing it in reactors-- if it is radioactive, that means it is emitting radiation, which can either be used in additional reactors, or worst case in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (not very efficient, but its an option).
With smog and CO2 emissions, we can do....what again?
Bury it so that it can leak back into the atmosphere after a while?
Seems to me, if youre going to have a fuel source that has a waste product, the BEST thing you can ask for is that it deliver it in a prepackaged, stable, reusable form rather than as a useless aerosol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169320</id>
	<title>you guys as a whole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...are tremendously ignorant, are there any engineers in here? any mathematicians?</p><p>"TOTAL COST OF A NUCLEAR PLANT WILL NEVER EVER BE CHEAPER THAN ANY ALTERNATIVE"</p><p>Just try and clean up after a decommisioned nuclearplant and tell me exactly how cheap that is. And don't bother with the waste options yet because we don't even need these in the tally to make it unprofitable to anyone but the power companies.</p><p>Fission powered plants are practically stoneage tech, as is any large scale centralized powerplant.<br>How come the average slashdotter is reasonably up to par on computertechnology but extremely untalented when it comes to questions of energyproduction and distribution?</p><p>Cloud computing is new good tech when we are talking in here, but when it comes to energy everybody runs for monolithic structures to save them.<br>Yes go on, you deserve a nuclear plant in your backyard dumbasses. And a larger electricity bill to boot.</p><p>http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-03-03/news/17483619\_1\_grid-operators-power-plants-california-energy-crisis</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield<br>oh yes sure it's safe, tell that to the british, or have you all forgot three mile island or chernobyl?</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl\_disaster<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three\_mile\_island#Accident</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...are tremendously ignorant , are there any engineers in here ?
any mathematicians ?
" TOTAL COST OF A NUCLEAR PLANT WILL NEVER EVER BE CHEAPER THAN ANY ALTERNATIVE " Just try and clean up after a decommisioned nuclearplant and tell me exactly how cheap that is .
And do n't bother with the waste options yet because we do n't even need these in the tally to make it unprofitable to anyone but the power companies.Fission powered plants are practically stoneage tech , as is any large scale centralized powerplant.How come the average slashdotter is reasonably up to par on computertechnology but extremely untalented when it comes to questions of energyproduction and distribution ? Cloud computing is new good tech when we are talking in here , but when it comes to energy everybody runs for monolithic structures to save them.Yes go on , you deserve a nuclear plant in your backyard dumbasses .
And a larger electricity bill to boot.http : //articles.sfgate.com/2003-03-03/news/17483619 \ _1 \ _grid-operators-power-plants-california-energy-crisishttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafieldoh yes sure it 's safe , tell that to the british , or have you all forgot three mile island or chernobyl ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl \ _disasterhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three \ _mile \ _island # Accident</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are tremendously ignorant, are there any engineers in here?
any mathematicians?
"TOTAL COST OF A NUCLEAR PLANT WILL NEVER EVER BE CHEAPER THAN ANY ALTERNATIVE"Just try and clean up after a decommisioned nuclearplant and tell me exactly how cheap that is.
And don't bother with the waste options yet because we don't even need these in the tally to make it unprofitable to anyone but the power companies.Fission powered plants are practically stoneage tech, as is any large scale centralized powerplant.How come the average slashdotter is reasonably up to par on computertechnology but extremely untalented when it comes to questions of energyproduction and distribution?Cloud computing is new good tech when we are talking in here, but when it comes to energy everybody runs for monolithic structures to save them.Yes go on, you deserve a nuclear plant in your backyard dumbasses.
And a larger electricity bill to boot.http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-03-03/news/17483619\_1\_grid-operators-power-plants-california-energy-crisishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafieldoh yes sure it's safe, tell that to the british, or have you all forgot three mile island or chernobyl?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl\_disasterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three\_mile\_island#Accident</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340</id>
	<title>What plant design?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been hearing about this for the past few days, but I have yet to see what kind of nuclear plant they're talking about building.</p><p>I'm really hoping we take a cue from France (yeah yeah, cheese eating surrender monkeys and all that... Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than us), and standardize a reactor design or three to hopefully avoid some of that red tape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been hearing about this for the past few days , but I have yet to see what kind of nuclear plant they 're talking about building.I 'm really hoping we take a cue from France ( yeah yeah , cheese eating surrender monkeys and all that... Fact is , they 've been doing nuclear power a lot , and doing it much more recently than us ) , and standardize a reactor design or three to hopefully avoid some of that red tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been hearing about this for the past few days, but I have yet to see what kind of nuclear plant they're talking about building.I'm really hoping we take a cue from France (yeah yeah, cheese eating surrender monkeys and all that... Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than us), and standardize a reactor design or three to hopefully avoid some of that red tape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172280</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>e3m4n</author>
	<datestamp>1265049780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>agreed, most people dont understand that chernobyl was a breeder reactor built on a positive reactivity coefficient. The rods themselves controlled rector power instead of using a thermal moderator like water. It also did not use the designed requirement of being able to be shut down with the most critical rod stuck at the top.</htmltext>
<tokenext>agreed , most people dont understand that chernobyl was a breeder reactor built on a positive reactivity coefficient .
The rods themselves controlled rector power instead of using a thermal moderator like water .
It also did not use the designed requirement of being able to be shut down with the most critical rod stuck at the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agreed, most people dont understand that chernobyl was a breeder reactor built on a positive reactivity coefficient.
The rods themselves controlled rector power instead of using a thermal moderator like water.
It also did not use the designed requirement of being able to be shut down with the most critical rod stuck at the top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172190</id>
	<title>Can Anyone chime in on Thorium Reactors?</title>
	<author>jrbuilta</author>
	<datestamp>1265049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand these produce less radioactive waste and are small simpler &amp; etc.  Further, I understand that we (that is Admiral Nimitz) pushed the US towards enrcihed uranium reactors alrgely so we would have plenty of nasty stuff to make A Bombs with.  (Cold war you know.)</p><p>However, I acknowledge little real knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand these produce less radioactive waste and are small simpler &amp; etc .
Further , I understand that we ( that is Admiral Nimitz ) pushed the US towards enrcihed uranium reactors alrgely so we would have plenty of nasty stuff to make A Bombs with .
( Cold war you know .
) However , I acknowledge little real knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand these produce less radioactive waste and are small simpler &amp; etc.
Further, I understand that we (that is Admiral Nimitz) pushed the US towards enrcihed uranium reactors alrgely so we would have plenty of nasty stuff to make A Bombs with.
(Cold war you know.
)However, I acknowledge little real knowledge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170466</id>
	<title>Re:What plant design?</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1265044320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should be this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral\_fast\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral\_fast\_reactor</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral \ _fast \ _reactor [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral\_fast\_reactor [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1265036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reprocess it.</p><p>Stuff you can't reprocess put at bottom of an oceanic trench.  Subduction zones are MomNature's ultimate recycle bin.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reprocess it.Stuff you ca n't reprocess put at bottom of an oceanic trench .
Subduction zones are MomNature 's ultimate recycle bin.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reprocess it.Stuff you can't reprocess put at bottom of an oceanic trench.
Subduction zones are MomNature's ultimate recycle bin.--BMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171352</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1265047020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When there are major airline disasters, it dwarfs anything else. Remember The Hindenberg?</p><p>I wouldn't want to trust a modern aircraft, not after what happened to The Hindenberg!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When there are major airline disasters , it dwarfs anything else .
Remember The Hindenberg ? I would n't want to trust a modern aircraft , not after what happened to The Hindenberg !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When there are major airline disasters, it dwarfs anything else.
Remember The Hindenberg?I wouldn't want to trust a modern aircraft, not after what happened to The Hindenberg!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174344</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265056380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Yucca Mountain logjam is a single person: Harry Reid.  He is strongly opposed to it, has a lot of power, and claims to know enough procedural tricks to delay its opening for decades.  Until he is gone, Yucca Mountain will not open.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Yucca Mountain logjam is a single person : Harry Reid .
He is strongly opposed to it , has a lot of power , and claims to know enough procedural tricks to delay its opening for decades .
Until he is gone , Yucca Mountain will not open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Yucca Mountain logjam is a single person: Harry Reid.
He is strongly opposed to it, has a lot of power, and claims to know enough procedural tricks to delay its opening for decades.
Until he is gone, Yucca Mountain will not open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174330</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1265056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope the administration really makes a PR push on nuclear energy. With Obama being a darling of the left and environmental types, his advocacy could go a long way in dispelling some of the hippie anti-nuclear horseshit and hysteria that has put us so far behind Europe in the last several decades. It might also finally get enough public support to break the Yucca Mountain logjam and finally implement a sensible storage solution.</p></div><p>As an Obama supporter, I have to say I hope he isn't just doing this to get a few conservatives on his side.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope the administration really makes a PR push on nuclear energy .
With Obama being a darling of the left and environmental types , his advocacy could go a long way in dispelling some of the hippie anti-nuclear horseshit and hysteria that has put us so far behind Europe in the last several decades .
It might also finally get enough public support to break the Yucca Mountain logjam and finally implement a sensible storage solution.As an Obama supporter , I have to say I hope he is n't just doing this to get a few conservatives on his side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope the administration really makes a PR push on nuclear energy.
With Obama being a darling of the left and environmental types, his advocacy could go a long way in dispelling some of the hippie anti-nuclear horseshit and hysteria that has put us so far behind Europe in the last several decades.
It might also finally get enough public support to break the Yucca Mountain logjam and finally implement a sensible storage solution.As an Obama supporter, I have to say I hope he isn't just doing this to get a few conservatives on his side.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171468</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Rysc</author>
	<datestamp>1265047320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very simple:<br>
&nbsp; - build a space elevator<br>
&nbsp; - launch it in to the sun</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very simple :   - build a space elevator   - launch it in to the sun</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very simple:
  - build a space elevator
  - launch it in to the sun</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169752</id>
	<title>Thorium?</title>
	<author>jim.mcdonald</author>
	<datestamp>1265041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't thorium fueled reactors considered "green nuclear"? <a href="http://www.thoriumenergy.com/" title="thoriumenergy.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thoriumenergy.com/</a> [thoriumenergy.com] and <a href="http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't thorium fueled reactors considered " green nuclear " ?
http : //www.thoriumenergy.com/ [ thoriumenergy.com ] and http : //thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't thorium fueled reactors considered "green nuclear"?
http://www.thoriumenergy.com/ [thoriumenergy.com] and http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31198582</id>
	<title>Re:Article is a complete fabrication</title>
	<author>cervo</author>
	<datestamp>1266591660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They just need the devil to boil water while he plays his fiddle.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>They just need the devil to boil water while he plays his fiddle.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just need the devil to boil water while he plays his fiddle.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169192</id>
	<title>They need to use Cobalt Thorium G</title>
	<author>drsmack1</author>
	<datestamp>1265040000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've obviously never heard of cobalt thorium G.<br> <br>
Cobalt thorium G has a radioactive halflife of ninety three years. If you take, say, fifty H-bombs in the hundred megaton range and jacket them with cobalt thorium G, when they are exploded they will produce a doomsday shroud. A lethal cloud of radioactivity which will encircle the earth for ninety three years!<br> <br>

Of course this could be a load of commie bull</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've obviously never heard of cobalt thorium G . Cobalt thorium G has a radioactive halflife of ninety three years .
If you take , say , fifty H-bombs in the hundred megaton range and jacket them with cobalt thorium G , when they are exploded they will produce a doomsday shroud .
A lethal cloud of radioactivity which will encircle the earth for ninety three years !
Of course this could be a load of commie bull</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've obviously never heard of cobalt thorium G. 
Cobalt thorium G has a radioactive halflife of ninety three years.
If you take, say, fifty H-bombs in the hundred megaton range and jacket them with cobalt thorium G, when they are exploded they will produce a doomsday shroud.
A lethal cloud of radioactivity which will encircle the earth for ninety three years!
Of course this could be a load of commie bull</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172950</id>
	<title>Re:Good start, but we need more</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1265051700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and the stuff that is radioactive for 10,000 years is dangerous... but not any more dangerous than the chemicals that get spewed from Coal-fired plants or the chemicals that are used in manufacturing photo-voltaic solar panels.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's usually a good deal <i>less</i> dangerous than that, because frequently the "low-level" waste you hear about is stuff like gloves, screwdrivers, and other equipment that is used in nuclear plants but is not normally directly exposed to high levels of radiation. It's contaminated by proxy, and the extremely stringent rules dictate that it has to be treated as if it were highly radioactive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the stuff that is radioactive for 10,000 years is dangerous... but not any more dangerous than the chemicals that get spewed from Coal-fired plants or the chemicals that are used in manufacturing photo-voltaic solar panels.It 's usually a good deal less dangerous than that , because frequently the " low-level " waste you hear about is stuff like gloves , screwdrivers , and other equipment that is used in nuclear plants but is not normally directly exposed to high levels of radiation .
It 's contaminated by proxy , and the extremely stringent rules dictate that it has to be treated as if it were highly radioactive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the stuff that is radioactive for 10,000 years is dangerous... but not any more dangerous than the chemicals that get spewed from Coal-fired plants or the chemicals that are used in manufacturing photo-voltaic solar panels.It's usually a good deal less dangerous than that, because frequently the "low-level" waste you hear about is stuff like gloves, screwdrivers, and other equipment that is used in nuclear plants but is not normally directly exposed to high levels of radiation.
It's contaminated by proxy, and the extremely stringent rules dictate that it has to be treated as if it were highly radioactive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172438</id>
	<title>Re:What about Yucca Mountain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might ask the same question about coal, oil or natural gas energy production. The answer is "directly into the environment".</p><p>What has always baffled me is that we view having all of the waste of nuclear energy production concentrated rather than dispersed as a PROBLEM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might ask the same question about coal , oil or natural gas energy production .
The answer is " directly into the environment " .What has always baffled me is that we view having all of the waste of nuclear energy production concentrated rather than dispersed as a PROBLEM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might ask the same question about coal, oil or natural gas energy production.
The answer is "directly into the environment".What has always baffled me is that we view having all of the waste of nuclear energy production concentrated rather than dispersed as a PROBLEM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282</id>
	<title>Re:some facts about nuclear energy.</title>
	<author>Herkum01</author>
	<datestamp>1265040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember researching an article for coal plants, they had 32,000 injuries and 100~ deaths per year from coal mining.  But hey, out of sight, out of mind right?  The boogey man that is "nuclear energy" must be stopped because it MIGHT hurt someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember researching an article for coal plants , they had 32,000 injuries and 100 ~ deaths per year from coal mining .
But hey , out of sight , out of mind right ?
The boogey man that is " nuclear energy " must be stopped because it MIGHT hurt someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember researching an article for coal plants, they had 32,000 injuries and 100~ deaths per year from coal mining.
But hey, out of sight, out of mind right?
The boogey man that is "nuclear energy" must be stopped because it MIGHT hurt someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169700</id>
	<title>Hellllo - Liquid thorium anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We seriously need to look into liquid thorium plants.</p><p>less waste, more fuel available, easy to manage, almost no proliferation risk.</p><p>http://www.slideshare.net/guestcee6b0/liquid-fluoride-reactors-a-new-beginning-for-an-old-idea</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We seriously need to look into liquid thorium plants.less waste , more fuel available , easy to manage , almost no proliferation risk.http : //www.slideshare.net/guestcee6b0/liquid-fluoride-reactors-a-new-beginning-for-an-old-idea</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We seriously need to look into liquid thorium plants.less waste, more fuel available, easy to manage, almost no proliferation risk.http://www.slideshare.net/guestcee6b0/liquid-fluoride-reactors-a-new-beginning-for-an-old-idea</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31197706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31252696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31268484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31192782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31199750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31186664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31179848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31177428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31198582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31177314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31184012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31181572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31181036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31182526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31178166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1324213_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31177190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31179848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175236
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169608
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174878
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169282
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171726
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172632
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170268
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171352
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170374
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172280
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31178166
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31192782
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31199750
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169580
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169498
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169964
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169000
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171892
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169972
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174962
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169334
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169390
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31186664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31252696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31268484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31177428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31184012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31181036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31177190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31181572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31197706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31172676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175608
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31177314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31182526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31176580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31173594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31198582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31171960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31174460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31170580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31168610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31175512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1324213.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1324213.31169192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
