tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post7829857603267996681..comments2023-06-05T18:32:00.760+10:00Comments on Channelling the Strong Force: Mining Nuclear Fuel.Finrodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02447747229391757964noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-5590247903725957462020-12-20T04:34:30.260+11:002020-12-20T04:34:30.260+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Tekniko Global https://www.blogger.com/profile/17176917181993120351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-83587426518371952032010-12-07T06:42:33.476+11:002010-12-07T06:42:33.476+11:00Sorry Ian, I can't let you get away with that ...Sorry Ian, I can't let you get away with that comment unchallenged. Please provide some credible backup for your comment with references or links. My reading and research into the field suggest you have vastly exaggerated the dangers locals would face from uranium mining.<br /><br />It is true that some native American employees of uranium mines in the US in the fifties were exposed to high radon levels in underground uranium mines which later correlated to high incidents of small-cell carcinoma lung cancer, but this is no longer considered an issue given modern mining practices.<br /><br />The notion that uranium-rich dust from these mines presents any great health risk is not supported by the scientific evidence. Dust is dust, and uranium is not particularly radioactive, so it's difficult to see how it could have any health effects at all beyond those posed by regular dust. Frankly, U-rich dust is already blown around the desert after being eroded from surface deposits, so it's not as if this is anything new for the outback.Finrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02447747229391757964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-44682856865942688702010-12-07T01:44:28.807+11:002010-12-07T01:44:28.807+11:00Thanks Finrod for referring me to your blog, howev...Thanks Finrod for referring me to your blog, however I maintain my view that there needs to be far more discussion regarding uranium mining, use and disposal because there are human beings and many other things living on country that will be seriously negatively impacted on from uranium mining in the west Kimberley and that is worthy of consideration, particularly given many of these people that will be affected will be traditional owners who have lived there for countless generations and receive absolutely none of the benefits of the profit or the power, only waste land.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02199113269092894178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-64397891963967237842010-05-09T06:46:46.883+10:002010-05-09T06:46:46.883+10:00I would suggest that you clearly mention in the &#...<i>I would suggest that you clearly mention in the 'Health concerns' that this type of mining is now safer because of better regulation and monitoring that is now mandated by law. I also believe that it should be pointed out that all aspects of uranium mining/milling/refining in most of the civilized world, is probably more tightly controlled by regulation than any other type of mineral.</i><br /><br />Thanks for the advice, DV82XL. I've added a paragraph to that effect in 'Health Concerns'. Let me know if you have any other suggestions.Finrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02447747229391757964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-17396802856020439652010-05-08T21:17:43.560+10:002010-05-08T21:17:43.560+10:00@Finrod -- Is there a way to add a "print art...<i>@Finrod -- Is there a way to add a "print article" feature to your site? When I attempt to print on "print preview", all I get is the first page with your article but the next 2 pages are empty.<br /><br />Would like to be able to print the separate daily blog posts, without advertising and either with or without comments. Thanks.</i><br /><br />Sorry Daniel, I can't see a way of doing that.Finrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02447747229391757964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-65219608697703838592010-05-08T08:15:52.512+10:002010-05-08T08:15:52.512+10:00but I still think you should revise the figures, b...<i>but I still think you should revise the figures, because they are falling into the same old trap of using worst-case nuclear numbers for comparison with mid-case everything else. Did you use low-CF wind? Brown coal? Low calorific value gas?</i><br /><br />The CF for wind was the one quoted by Per Peterson. Gas and coal fueling figures were derived from Wikipedia and the World Coal Institute website. I chose the numbers for Rossing (it's an open pit mine, by the way) so I could 'deconstruct' the number later in a way which would hopefully come as a pleasant suprise to the reader, but I shall consider what you've said.<br /><br /><br /><i>If you can link to Dr Peterson's presentation that would be great too.</i><br /><br />The link is in the main article, but it doesn't seem to show in the text of the post in the comments section. I note that if you click on it using Windows Explorer, it will tell you it doesn't recognise the file type, but Firefox will get you there. I'm not sure what to do about that.Finrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02447747229391757964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-70131390499251959512010-05-08T08:00:26.259+10:002010-05-08T08:00:26.259+10:00You're right Finrod, I didn't read the par...You're right Finrod, I didn't read the paragraph following the figures carefully - but I still think you should revise the figures, because they are falling into the same old trap of using worst-case nuclear numbers for comparison with mid-case everything else. Did you use low-CF wind? Brown coal? Low calorific value gas? <br /><br />I'm pro-nuclear enough that the figure immediately looked too high to me - but hopefully most readers will be less familiar with the arguments than me, so they should get a number that beats all the rest easily to start with, and if you want to qualify it in the postscript, feel free.<br /><br />If you can link to Dr Peterson's presentation that would be great too.Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-18043713600204374702010-05-08T05:11:39.123+10:002010-05-08T05:11:39.123+10:00@Finrod -- Is there a way to add a "print art...@Finrod -- Is there a way to add a "print article" feature to your site? When I attempt to print on "print preview", all I get is the first page with your article but the next 2 pages are empty.<br /><br />Would like to be able to print the separate daily blog posts, without advertising and either with or without comments. Thanks.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280863976809101664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-73036339208790033332010-05-08T00:40:08.417+10:002010-05-08T00:40:08.417+10:00I'm not sure why you use (or perhaps Dr Peters...<i>I'm not sure why you use (or perhaps Dr Peterson uses) such a low value for the uranium of 300ppm when calculating footprint.</i><br /><br />Then you probably didn't read this bit:<br /><br /><i>These numbers need some qualification for their proper significance to be appreciated. The final figures for the fossil fuel power sources only use the mass of fuel finally consumed. If the same method had been used for nuclear power, the mass of natural uranium mined as fuel would have been 0.2 tonnes, yielding a final figure for nuclear power of 9.38 tonnes, far below any of the others. Critics could justifiably point out that uranium ore is usually far more dilute than the coal or gas resources, and insisted that the mass of raw ore needed should be considered. The grade for the ore body at the Rossing mine in Namibia of 300ppm, one of the poorest ore bodies currently mined, was used to obtain the 676 tonne figure.</i>Finrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02447747229391757964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-71904870796649476702010-05-08T00:24:22.286+10:002010-05-08T00:24:22.286+10:00I'm not sure why you use (or perhaps Dr Peters...I'm not sure why you use (or perhaps Dr Peterson uses) such a low value for the uranium of 300ppm when calculating footprint. This seems like an unrealistic choice. Are there any uranium-specific mines that extract such low-concentration minerals by excavation? Note that in-situ leaching will not extract the parent rock.Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5176706508860724063.post-46029847086452662372010-05-07T23:19:30.508+10:002010-05-07T23:19:30.508+10:00Not bad Finrod, however I would suggest that you c...Not bad Finrod, however I would suggest that you clearly mention in the 'Health concerns' that this type of mining is now safer because of better regulation and monitoring that is now mandated by law. I also believe that it should be pointed out that all aspects of uranium mining/milling/refining in most of the civilized world, is probably more tightly controlled by regulation than any other type of mineral.DV8 2XLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14595060432772287143noreply@blogger.com