[Rockhounds] Gemfield Mine, NV

[Andrew Turner]

Of course the United States should invest in developing spent fuel 
reprocessing plants, as much of Europe does.  This allows us to 
significantly reduce the amount of spent fuel waste while at the same time 
greatly reducing the amount of potential problems and space issues 
associated with storing shelved nuclear weapons and equipment (the plutonium 
from the weapons can be reprocessed).  However, the political and social 
environment in the US will not allow this to happen for a very long time.  
In a country where we cannot build a new nuclear plant for 30 years, it 
takes over 10 years and $1 billion to open up a large scale mining operation 
(if it is allowed to open at all), and a necessary nuclear repository may 
never open (after being studied for decades), how can we convince people 
that we should reprocess nuclear waste?

It is becomming increasing pathetic that small areas of land can not be set 
aside or permitted to be used to benefit all people (i.e. nuclear power 
plant, mine, etc.).  However, if you want to rip a hillside in order to open 
a new ski lift in Aspen or build another nice green golf course in Palm 
Springs, you will have a permit in a few months and can start building now.

Andrew Turner
Victorville, CA


>From: Kreigh Tomaszewski <Kreigh at tomaszewski.net>
>Reply-To: "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem 
>collectors"<rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
>To: "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem 
>collectors"<rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
>Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Gemfield Mine, NV
>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:12:44 -0400
>
>Sid,
>
>Even in you reprocess spent radioactives using new technology that
>'prevents' making bombs (see Scientific American a few months ago) there
>is still some 'hot' waste that needs to go into storage (long term for
>people, short term geologically); Yucca, or equivalent, will be with us
>for a long time unless there is a breakthru in understanding nuclear
>technology and physics.
>
>Kreigh
>
>
>RskRock2000 at aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > I agree with Nate, nice to have some clarification from people who have
> > first hand knowledge.
> >
> > I am not very knowledgeable in that area so I ask you for your  thoughts 
>on
> > the following:
> >
> > There was a recent TV program on France's nuclear energy  industry. 
>Nuclear
> > energy not only provides for most of their domestic  electricity usage, 
>but
> > they also sell electricity to several other European  countries.  Why 
>not follow
> > France's example  of reprocessing the spent fuel and storage of the 
>greatly
> > reduced  volume on site in their one reprocessing plant.
> >
> > Recognizing the security risk of weapons grade material stored, to date 
>the
> > French appear to have that sufficiently controlled in the design and
> > protections of their plant.
> >
> > So finally my question is why do we need to store at Yucca at all?
> >
> > Sid Pomper  Boston, Ma.
> >
> > ************************************** See what's free at 
>http://www.aol.com.
> >
> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > multipart/alternative
> >   text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >   text/html
> > ---
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> > Subscription Services:
> > http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> > List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> > http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
>
>--
>_______________________________________________
>Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
>Subscription Services:
>http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
>List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
>http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html