[ RadSafe ] Permissible volume of coffee Calculation by Mr.John Dunster

Mon Jul 2 00:22:11 CDT 2012

Hi Dr. P; Dr. Stanford:

Dr. P is correct! We could "mine" the DU already produced but that
would require a significant amount of expensive technology which we
don't currently have. The forward cost for producing natural uranium
is quite a bit cheaper for today's reactors. And the long-term supply
of natural uranium is not so bad!

But there is another issue regarding "Government Takings":  The
uranium deposits (Collapse Breccia Pipes) on the Arizona Strip have
been studied and characterized for decades with mining companies
maintaining the status of licenses & permits for that rather long
period of 3 decades.  To me, it is amazing that they have persevered
in spite of all the opposition. If the government had not allowed them
to proceed, it would amount to Government Takings, in my opinion, and
I think the corporate lawyers would see it as that as well.

Perhaps you might be interested in a paper that I co-authored on
uranium deposit licensing:

Pelizza, Mark and McCarn, Dan W., (2004): Licensing of In Situ Leach
Recovery Operations for the Crownpoint and Church Rock Uranium
Deposits, New Mexico: A Case Study, IAEA-TECDOC-1396, pp. 153-173.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1396_web.pdf

Best,

-- 
Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:43 PM, parthasarathy k s <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Friends,
>
> When Mr John Dunster from the UK was the News Editor of  The Health Physics Journal, he calculated the volume of coffee that may be drunk daily without harm. I recall that he made some very conservative assumptions to get at the number. Can any one who has access to old Volumes of Health Physics locate that page and send me a scanned copy? I believe that he was news editor of the journal during late 60s.
>
>
> regards
> Parthasarathy
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: parthasarathy k s <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012, 20:06
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [NucNews]  Which  nuclear technology has future?
>
> Dear Dr Stanford,
>
> Who will spend money for the developmental efforts? Uranium is cheaply available. LWR is not certainly the best; but it is readily available. Funding for R & D on newer technologies will have to come from the Government. I recall your comments that IFR technology is more completely developed compared to the breeders.
>
> My friends who are deeply involved in Fast Breeder Reactor development (500 MWe capacity) tell me that they will be able to sell electricity at a cost comparable to that from Indian PHWRS. In India, price of power is by law administered  by the Central Government. In the case of nuclear power the Atomic Energy Act 1962 gives Central Government an enabling provision to decide power tariff. So talking about the cost of power in India is only an academic exercise!
>
> Will there ever be a breakthrough in technology which may lead to power too cheap to meter? It happened in communication technology. In the 70s those who do not have a telephone in India will have to book a call at a telephone exchange to talk to another subscriber a few hundred miles away and wait for his turn. Now there is an explosive growth in mobile phone technology. Fifty years ago we did not think that we would be able to carry a telephone exchange in our pocket.Telephone service between India and USA has almost become too cheap to meter!
>
> Can we expect similar developments in energy production?
>
> Regards
> Parthasarathy
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Stanford <gstanford at aya.yale.edu>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012, 19:10
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [NucNews] Forest Service Approves Grand Canyon Uranium Mine Despite 26-year-old Environmental Review
>
>
>      Actually, guys, we could indeed "mine" the DU that we've already accumulated, as Peter suggests, and we probably will (but it will take a while to get going).  Using the plutonium from used LWR fuel as the essential catalyst to get started, fast reactors such as the IFR and its ilk (PRISM, TWR, 4S, etc) can power the world for centuries on the uranium that's already been mined -- and with no more uranium enrichment needed, ever.
>
>      --  George
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> At 08:17 PM 7/1/2012, Maury wrote:
> We need also advocate the early cessation of automobile production ....
> Best,
> Maury&Dog
>
> =================================
>
> On 7/1/2012 8:51 PM, Peter G Cohen wrote:
>
> The continued mining of uranium is a symptom of the profound sickness of our government and the corporations it serves, well demonstrated by our preference for death over life. All mining should be stopped worldwide. We can mine the huge deposits of DU on the premises of every nuclear plant.
> By continuing to mine, we are saying that money is more important than life, that we don't care about  God's Creation, that our own lives are expendable in the pursuit of money. We prostrate ourselves before the Golden Calf!
>
> We must DO something! --Peter G Cohen
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Ellen Thomas wrote:
>
>   *Forest Service Approves Grand Canyon Uranium Mine Despite
>   26-year-old Environmental Review*
>
>
> June 26, 2012, by the Center for Biological Diversity
>
> http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/forest-service-approves-grand-canyon-uranium-mine-despite-26-year-old-environmental-review/
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu