h a l f b a k e r yI CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A number of European countries that separated from Communist Russia have a rather serious problem: toxic, and radioactive heavy metals have been left in their once fertile topsoil.
As these nations cannot, on their own, maintain the level of heavy industrialization that produced this debris, some
of them would prefer to go back to farming and livestock for their livelihoods, but the risk of the radioactive and toxic elements limits buyers... not to mention that it could endanger the health of future generations living in the area.
Normal decontamination processes simply will not suffice. Nobody has the money for the suits, or the traditional cleanup gear. Also, the international community has not stepped up to the challenge.
I propose a change from within. Most certainly not an ideal solution, but it may be a solution nonetheless: Old time prospectors.
Many of these countries also possess a large older population, with nowhere to put them, and nothing for them to do. I propose that these individuals be equipped with old-fashioned prospecting equipment, and sent out to pan, sluice, and dry-wash... not for gold, but rather for the other heavy elements in the soil... those which are putting the nation at risk in the first place.
Why the older generation? Simply because they will be reproducing less, and therefore any damages they sustain will not be passed on to the younger generation.
Some of these toxic substances (Uranium, Lead, Cadmium, Plutonium, Mercury, etc.) have a certain value in their own right, and can be sold to provide some assistance to the prospectors.
Others of course have no value in their own right, but farmers might be willing to support these individuals in their efforts to clean the land. Historical societies might pay for demonstrations of how these techniques can be used to serve humankind in the modern era.
Hopefully, if this plan is put into action, it will prompt people to make donations so that the decontamination can then be done with more safety, and any brave souls who risked themselves for the good of their communities might be well-cared for in their twilight years.
Tellurides
http://www.lornet.c...cles/tellurides.htm
Gold is not always unreactive or easy to identify. However, due to it's density, it is still easy to separate via panning or sluicing. [ye_river_xiv, Dec 23 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
This is great, apart from the fact that it won't work. |
|
| |
Gold prospecting relies on the fact that it occurs as the native
metal, since it's so unreactive. That makes it easy to identify and
separate. |
|
| |
Uranium metal rapidly oxidises after machining. You can literally
see it happen. The other heavy metals will also be, as often as
not, bound up in compounds rather than in their free state. |
|
| |
[8th of 7], you forgot to mention that chemical compounds of heavy metals are always less heavy/dense than those pure heavy metals. So gold is easily separated from other stuff, because it is so dense AND tends to stay pure. Other substances will be less easy to separate by weight-processing --there are some exceptions; "tungsten" translates as 'heavy stone", indicating that its rocky chemical-compound ore is still pretty heavy. |
|
| |
And another problem that chemical compounds can have (not always) is that they are more likely to dissolve in water than pure heavy metals (I'll ignore actual chemical reactions with water, since you've already indicated that those metals will be already-reacted). You can't use water as a weight-separation medium if the substance you seek dissolves and washes away! |
|
| |
If there were only a black market for semi-radioactive material... oh, wait... |
|
| |
What do you think the Russians were doing in Georgia a
few years ago? |
|
| |
Seriously, pull up some old news reports and maps. Study
the Russian Army's deployment pattern; it wasn't an
invasion of occupation or retaliation, nor was it the 'police
action' they described it as... they were looking for
something. This theory is further supported by the speed
with which they pulled out while their UN ambassadors
were swamping the official act of censure in red tape. In
the gorvernment sector, this practiced is fully, if very
quietly baked. It's high time we brought it to the private
sector, so [+]. I'll fetch my Geiger Counter. |
|
| |
Actually, I know exactly where to find some; I even
remember the IID of the box car it's in. I just need to find
out where it's parked. |
|
| |
// Uranium metal rapidly oxidises after machining. You
can literally see it happen. // |
|
| |
Only if it's exposed to oxygen. Plus, there are plenty of
other radioactive substances gone unaccounted-for since
the Soviet Era. Cesium, Cobalt, thousands of tons of
yellowcake, about a billion DU sabot rounds, and, if the
legend is true, there's an entire Oak-Ridge-scale
production facility somewhere in the Urals that was never
on any map. The CIA used the postal-code trick to discover
it, but never officially pinned down a location. |
|
| |
// "tungsten" translates as 'heavy stone", indicating that its
rocky chemical-compound ore is still pretty heavy. // |
|
| |
Wolfram? Very heavy. I saw a couple of mining trucks in
Portugal that looked like 500-ton tanks with the load-
volume of a Ford Ranger. |
|
| |
Gold also can be bound up in chemicals, such as tellurides, which have the same color as dirt. |
|
| |
This effort is not aimed so much at recovering anything in particular, and certainly is not about purifying stuff. |
|
| |
Our goal is to use geiger counters and chemical tests occasionally in order to spot areas that are likely to be most contaminated, and then to separate the denser stuff from the lighter stuff. Uranium oxide will still be denser than potassium oxide, so once we've separated out the denser stuff, we should be able to get rid of a large quantity of the contaminants. |
|
| |
Items that are water soluble may present some difficulty, but since dry washing does not involve the use of water, I suggest that it might still be effective. |
|
| |