History Of Use Of Various Mined Minerals In One Area Of Tn

Q: This page has a history of the us of various mined minerals in one area (Tennesseee): http://www.nashvillefossils.com/resources/pages/historyofuse.html It is interesting to see how an interest in mining various things comes and goes as technology changes (and sometimes returns again).

A: It's interesting you note "the high price of labor" as a reason for Iceland not recycling more. I wonder if that dynamic will change with the recent economic issues? As an analogy, in war times like WWII, many countries have instituted national recycling programs. By the way, an online version of a book with related information: "More Other Homes and Garbage: Designs for Self-sufficient Living" http://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/1006 "Population growth, resource depletion, unstable ecosystems, and economic strains are some of the interlinked and uncertain hazards that deteriorate the life experiences of people. Conservation of resources and greater reliance on renewable energy systems sized to the home and perhaps even constructed by the homeowner can provide part of the solution. This book, written by engineers but accessible to anyone with a good calculator, shows how to design and manage technologies that are small-scale, decentralized, conservative, and environmentally gentle." Wow, great to see that stuff finally online and presumably legally. I have that book, and it and a predecessor (along with "The Energy Primer" helped nurture my interest in these topics. The previous book "Other Homes and Garbage" had some other historical stuff of interest that seems to not be in the sequel. There was more controversial stuff in the first version, because it included information about recycling in Germany in WWII and pinned a lot of Germany's "success" in waging war on its recycling program -- but the fact is, frugality can give you a lot of options, even if those options can be misused. It's interesting to me (in a sad way) that much of this information like in the original "Other Homes and Garbage" was written subsidized by non-profits like the Sierra club, but Google Books says the content of that one is not available (even though they have it scanned): "Other homes and garbage" By Jim Leckie, James O. Leckie http://books.google.com/books?id=1DVSAAAAMAAJ&pgis=1 So, Google is acting as a guard, because other guards are bullying it into being a guard too. Still, there is so much information out there, the bigger problem is more organizing it than collecting it at this point. Even though we need small collections, like this mailing list, to provide inspiration in making systems to organize it. And in the end, probably Google will launch openmanufacturing.google.com and "scoop" us all. :-) Interesting related comment too by Nick about how the inefficiently processed mine tailings of previous generations are another source of raw materials. By the way, it has been my understanding that geothermal power like in Iceland can produce a lot of some raw materials? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v346/n6285/abs/346644a0.html "ACTIVE geothermal fields are generally recognized1-5 as modern analogues of the systems responsible for the formation of epithermal gold-silver ore deposits. We have investigated this analogy by studying scales precipitated at various depths in a geothermal well containing boiling fluids. Our results, presented here, show that concentrations and distributions of gold, silver, copper, lead and zinc in well M-53 at Cerro Prieto, Mexico, are comparable to those found in economic epithermal vein deposits, and that the highest concentrations of metals occur at or near the fluid production horizon. The onset of vapour separation or flashing at these depths in the well indicates that boiling caused sequential base and precious metal saturation through the loss of CO2 and H2S, respectively, to the vapour phase. These phenomena provide direct evidence that boiling of chloride-rich hydrothermal solutions may be responsible for the deposition and zonation of gold, silver, copper, lead and zinc in epithermal vein deposits. Geothermal well scales can thus provide the opportunity to study epithermal ore genesis in a wide variety of natural environments. " So, geothermal processing yet another source of materials for Iceland. When looking on stuff for landfills and Iceland, I saw this: http://www.hackwriters.com/whalemeat.htm "Two weeks ago, the Icelandic media reported that Loftsson dumped 179 tons of whale remains at Sorpur>un Vesturlands hf landfill site, in late October/ early November last year, about 24 km west from Borgarnes. Earlier in 2006, Icelandic Government awarded Loftsson, a commercial quota of nine fin whales. He landed seven, with the total catch estimated at 350 tons. Now, three months later, nearly half of this potentially toxic catch, lies under half a meter of soil, 1.5 meters deep, in an area of 150 square meters. Reportedly, Hrefna Bryndis J?nsd?ttir, the landfill manager, indicated that each approved waste requires documentation of testing, and waste which is not tested is not accepted to the landfill. Ms. Hrefna Bryndis J?nsd?ttir, also stated that the whale scraps were tested for toxicity, albeit not by the waste facility. Interestingly not even the Icelandic Marine Research Institute was aware of such tests. In addition, this testing claim cannot be sustained because the whale meat Loftsson extracted, is still in freezers, and still awaiting toxicity tests results. Marine Research Institute did not test the whales because Loftsson's hunt was commercial and not "scientific".The government is not taking responsibility. Not surprisingly, access for sampling at the landfill was denied. It is indeed sad that a "sustainable" whale hunt would necessitate dumping nearly half the whale catch. In addition, lack of testing before dumping, could potentially become hazardous as waste drainage seeps into the ground contaminating soil and groundwater. More importantly however, whale meat is often toxic, particularly the blubber, and should not be consumed. According to Paul Johnson from University of Exeter, "The levels of toxic chemicals found in many baleen whales exceed levels consistent with good food standards, so they should not be eaten. It is quite possible" he adds "that (given the endocrine disrupting activities of many persistent chemicals) subtle effects may be taking place on human reproductive or immune functions". The Norwegians for example, dump blubber out to sea because of toxicity, but also because they know there is no demand for whale products (Japan does not want to import from either Norway nor Iceland). ... But after a few conversations I had with the locals, I can say this: Icelanders and the government may always support whaling in principle, due to their cultural tradition of utilising whale resources, but increasingly they view whaling as unnecessary. ..." While I'm not for whaling, I wonder also what happens to any unused parts of stuff from the rest of the Iceland fishing industry? Might be another raw materials opportunity there? Even the toxic elements could be recycled? If you have enough energy, you can use all sorts of techniques to separate different atoms into groups. What constrains most recycling more than anything is the cost of energy. Often it takes a lot of energy to make, say, the original concentrated aluminum or purified glass from ore, but less to take existing aluminum and glass and clean it up a bit and change its shape. But Iceland has geothermal energy. Ultimately, and especially easier in space in zero gravity, there is a neat idea for recycling that entails making an ionized plasma of materials and then using the equivalent of a huge mass spectrometer to separate the materials (James P. Hogan mentions that in Voyage From Yesteryear). Of course, if you have even more energy you can transmute atoms into other types of atoms in theory, but that needs probably a lot more than Iceland has. :-) In any case, the labor of sorting is in some ways just a trick to save energy of making ionized plasmas. :-) But even then, if you could efficiently manage the heat of plasmas, maybe that would not take as much energy as some less efficient other industrial recycling processes? A question for a future age, perhaps. It's also interesting how your last point is about "high levels of institutional inertia". Or in another word, "culture". :-) Of course, the flip side of institutional inertia is that once you can get an institution on the right track, it can plow ahead even despite deep snows of practical difficulties. :-) I liked those recycling symbols, but in the end, I don't think have humans separate materials is really going to be the biggest part of any solution. Separating recyclables from other trash both takes time, takes hot water to clean jars and cans, and requires substantial space for multiple containers. One comment on that (although it ignores external costs in pricing things): "Recycling: What a Waste!" http://mises.org/story/1911 And another earlier one: "Recycling Is Garbage" http://www.williams.edu/HistSci/curriculum/101/garbage.html "Rinsing out tuna cans and tying up newspapers may make you feel virtuous, but recycling could be America's most wasteful activity. ... Dittersdorf's slide showing New Yorkers' annual garbage output-15 square blocks, 20 stories high-looked frightening because the trash was sitting, uncompressed, in the middle of the city. But consider a different perspective-a national, long-term perspective. A. Clark Wiseman, an economist at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash., has calculated that if Americans keep generating garbage at current rates for 1,000 years, and if all their garbage is put in a landfill 100 yards deep, by the year 3000 this national garbage heap will fill a square piece of land 35 miles on each side. This doesn't seem a huge ...

Discuss It!

Most Popular Articles

More