nuclear1

We have more than enough carbon in the ground to cook our planet. James Hansen from NASA has calculated that we must not burn more than 1/5th of the proven carbon reserves. The poorer countries will burn whatever is cheapest. We need to develop power sources that are cheaper than coal. The answer is Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor has the ability to be mass produced on an assembly line and can produce power cheaper than coal. Check out... http://atomicinsights.com/power-cheaper-than-coal-thorium-and-uranium-make-it-possible/

Which part of what I said is incorrect? What's with your tone and personal attacks? "province unusable for several centuries" do you have any data to back this up? I addressed the idea of low dose cancers in my post. Look up the "Sciences" article I linked to or UNSCEAR for projected numbers of extra cancers. 0.3% extra chance seems small to me. Also there is a marked difference between single high doses and long term lower doses. As long as the dose is well below the spontaneous DNA mutation rate the body doesn't notice any difference. That is why people who live in areas of higher natural background radiation do not have higher rates of illness than those who live in low radiation areas. As for Sodium Fast Reactors, they rely mainly on thermal expansion of the fuel which allows more neutrons to escape, damping the chain reaction. Do you have a more specific concern? I would be happy to answer but you were a bit vague. I have tried to back up my assertions with reliable sources. Here is a good one for levity and radiation perspective. (I love xkcd) http://xkcd.com/radiation/

It is interesting to note how few people died from Chernobyl considering it was the worst case scenario of a badly designed reactor with a positive reactivity coefficient, run by operators who did not know what they were doing, running a dangerous experiment. Unlike the west, where we encase our reactors in buildings with metres thick concrete walls, Chernobyl had only a sheet metal shed to keep the weather out. To quote from the wikipedia article Joatman referenced, Chernobyl increased lifelong cancer rates over 80 years as 0.3%. To put this in perspective, this is in comparison to the roughly 30%-40% of people who will get cancer from drinking beer, eating red meat etc. In the case of Fukushima, the numbers of people who are expected to suffer any radiation related consequences are even lower. The sad thing with both Chernobyl and Fukushima is that far more death and suffering was caused by radiophobia. When people referred to them as "The Walking Dead" etc, these poor people suffered psychological damage and engaged in risky life damaging behaviour like drinking and smoking etc. Personally, I believe the people responsible for spreading this fear to advance their own agendas, who outright lied and distorted the facts, should be held accountable. It is akin to falsely yelling fire in a theatre, knowing that people will panic and injure themselves.

I assumed Joatman was referring to the Fukushima disaster since it was coupled to Chernobyl in his sentence. Here is a recent article in "Nature" that backs my position. http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686

Since this is a "Science" forum I suggest that posters stick to facts and not make stuff up. For example there has not been a single fatal or even severe dose of radiation from the Japan disaster. The doses received in Japan by the nuclear plant workers were below what are considered normal background levels in certain parts of the world such as Ramsar Iran.

I am assuming the mica is the larger proportion of your mixture. The easiest way to separate them is to dissolve the gold with an Aqua Regia acid mixture.