The Human Thirst for Knowledge - Blessing or Curse?

[Dotini]

Read the frickin' article on rare earth minerals and and how we desperately need 'em (for Defense, security and for every single high efficiency motor, generator and electronic device both commercial and military) and how China, basically the world's only source, has now stopped exporting them.

This goes waaaay beyond cheap computer parts. Every nation on Earth is now beholden to the Chinese if they want to make virtually any kind of advanced electronc device. Unless we discover new deposits of these minerals, reopen old mines, and build new processing infrastructure, we will, for instance, need to outsource our missile guidance systems to a potential enemy and certain adversary.

Perhaps you want the world to be dominated by authoritarian Communists practicing predatory capitalism, but I don't!!

 

[Touring Mars]

Read the frickin' article on rare earth minerals and and how we desperately need 'em (for Defense, security and for every single high efficiency motor, generator and electronic device both commercial and military)and how China, basically the world's only source, has now stopped exporting them.

China hasn't stopped exporting them - but there are signs that China is a) giving priority to its own industries and b) is becoming increasingly willing to use their effective monopoly on rare earths as a political weapon. While this raises of a host of issues for many industries worldwide in the short term, it is at the same time potentially very good news for non-Chinese producers of rare earths, and could infact lead to a surge in investment into rare earth production the world over. One way to destroy one's global monopoly is to stop selling the product to other countries... not a particularly wise strategy really.

One reason China continues to enjoy a near-monopoly on the rare earth market is because it is so much cheaper to buy rare earths from China than it is to produce them elsewhere. If China starts cutting back on their supplies to other nations, prices will start to rise and so production elsewhere should become more viable....

 

[Dotini]

That is the sound thinking that any rational democratic capitalist should wish for, as do I.

But we cannot forget for a second we are dealing with extreme authoritarian Communists who are using the capitalist market system to their advantage, you betcha!

 

[Famine]

China, basically the world's only source

Basically, but not technically. Let's take 'em alphabetically by element:

Cerium - Found in Bastnasite (California, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Sweden, Turkey), Gadolinite (Sweden), Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa) and Wakefieldite (Canada, DRP Congo, Germany, Japan)
Dysprosium - Found in Xenotime (Brazil, Japan, Madagascar, Norway, USA)
Erbium - Found in Gadolinite (Sweden)
Europium - Found in Bastnasite (California, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Sweden, Turkey) and Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa). Fission reactor product.
Gadolinium - Found in Bastnasite (California, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Sweden, Turkey) and Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa)
Holmium - Found in Gadolinite (Sweden), Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa)
Lanthanum - Found in Bastnasite (California, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Sweden, Turkey), Gadolinite (Sweden), Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa) and Wakefieldite (Canada, DRP Congo, Germany, Japan)
Lutetium - Found in Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa)
Neodymium - Found in Gadolinite (Sweden), Parisite (Columbia, Greenland) Wakefieldite (Canada, DRP Congo, Germany, Japan)
Praseodymium - Found in Bastnasite (California, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Sweden, Turkey) and Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa)
Promethium - Fission reactor product.
Samarium - Found in Bastnasite (California, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Sweden, Turkey), Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa) and Samarskite (Russia)
Scandium - Found in Euxenite (Brazil, Canada, Norway, Russia), Gadolinite (Sweden) and Thortveitite (Norway)
Terbium - Found in Cerite (Sweden, Russia), Euxenite (Brazil, Canada, Norway, Russia), Gadolinite (Sweden), Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa), Xenotime (Brazil, Japan, Madagascar, Norway, USA)
Thulium - Found in Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa)
Ytterbium - Found in Euxenite (Brazil, Canada, Norway, Russia), Monzanite (India, Madagascar, South Africa), Xenotime (Brazil, Japan, Madagascar, Norway, USA)
Yttrium - Found in Aeschynite (Norway), Gadolinite (Sweden), Titanite (Austria, Brazil, Italy, Madagascar, Pakistan, Russia, USA)

Nary a China mentioned.

Rare earth elements occur in rare earth minerals. Rare earth minerals are, basically, igneous rocks - mantle-sourced. Anywhere on Earth there's a thin crust or serious volcanic activity, rare earth minerals can be found.

Yes, China is currently the major producer of rare earth elements. It's not due to abundance - these things are everywhere - but because they undercut everyone else. If your population is essentially enslaved, that's kinda easy. They've started throttling back supply for their own varying reasons, prompting governments to find other sources - old mines in Australia, Canada and the US are being reactivated and new sources in south-east Asia, South America and Africa are starting up.

China is not the only source.

 

[Touring Mars]

But we cannot forget for a second we are dealing with extreme authoritarian Communists who are using the capitalist market system to their advantage, you betcha!

The swines!

Wakefieldite

Can be very dangerous... especially when mixed with ethanol

 

[Famine]

You're thinking of the Westgateite variant, tightly packed with Tavernium crystals.

 

[TheCracker]

Wakefieldite

Surely the residents of Wakefield are available in abundance, in West Yorkshire at least. A little bit of Chanelle Hayes would appear to go a long way.

 

[Dotini]

You're thinking of the Westgateite variant, tightly packed with Tavernium crystals.

Things hopefully will work out fine, as long as we are entertained and periodically inebriated along the way...

http://www.glgroup.com/News/Braking-Wind--Wheres-the-Neodymium-Going-To-Come-from--35041.html

Summary

It has been estimated that to build the latest and most efficient one megawatt capacity wind turbine powered electric generator requires one ton of the rare earth metal neodymium for use in a permanent magnet made from the alloy neodymium-iron-boron. The total amount of neodymium produced annually in the USA is at most 600 tons, and all of it is used already to build nd-fe-b magnets for various applications. The current US installed capacity for electricity generation is 1,000 gigawatts (a gigawatt is 1000 megawatts), of which 0.6%, 6 gigawatts, is generated from wind turbines. The global annual production of neodymium, essentially all of which is mined in China, is today at an all time historical high of 26,500 metric tons.
Analysis

If wind powered turbines are to be used to generate electricity in the USA, and if those turbines are to use the lightest weight most efficient electric generators then each megawatt of capacity will require one tone of neodymium.

There is no significant neodymium production surplus.

Therefore the neodymium would have to be obtained from new production and such production would have to be over and above the total projected demand for 2014 already estimated at 38,000 metric tons, 50% greater than today's production and demand.

The only possible sources for this extra production would be:

1. Lynas Corp (Mt. Weld, Australia),
2. Arafura, Ltd (Nolan's Bore, Australia)
3. Molycorp (Mountain Pass, california)
4. Great Western Minerals Group, Ltd. (Hoidas Lake, saskatchewan, Canada),
5. Avalon Rare Metals (Thor Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada), or
6. Thorium Energy, inc. (Lemhi Pass, Idaho).

Not a single one of the above mining ventures has yet produced a single gram of commercial rare earth metal, although numbers 1 and 2 above are claimed to be 'ready to go," and 3 above was until 2000 a producing mine, which in 1994, for example, was the world's largest single point rare earth mining and refining operation with an annual total production of 20,000 metric tons.

Companies number 4,5, and 6 above are all in the process of validating resources and reserves and developing refining processes.

Various factors have recently brought the physical operations of all of the above companies to a halt, so that at the present time there is no foreseeable alternative to Chinese sourcing for rare earth metals at any date certain in the near term.

China does not have any known plans to divert any of its present or near term neodymium production to foreign manufacturers for the production of large scale permanent magnets for American wind turbine electricity generation.

Therefore American wind turbine electric power generation must be on hold unless it is to be accomplished using outmoded, outdated, and therefore very inefficient and expensive iron based magnet technology.

There is no point in getting excited about building the structural components for wind power electricity generation in Michigan or anywhere else if the turbine generators cannot be built due to natural resource limitations.

Perhaps the brilliant minds of Wall Street and Washington should revisit their knee-jerk opposition to American mining, before they make plans for renewable energy sources.

 

[Duke]

Why are you so spectacularly failing to grasp that we are not currently producing an excess of rare earths != we are INCAPABLE of producing an excess of rare earths?

 

[Dotini]

Why are you so spectacularly failing to grasp that we are not currently producing an excess of rare earths != we are INCAPABLE of producing an excess of rare earths?

Don't quite grasp the syntax or the question here. US neodymium mining was shut down due to environmental concerns and cost.
http://www.glgroup.com/News/Braking-Wind--Wheres-the-Neodymium-Going-To-Come-from--35041.html

"Perhaps the brilliant minds of Wall Street and Washington should revisit their knee-jerk opposition to American mining, before they make plans for renewable energy sources."

 

[Famine]

!= is "does not equal".

Perhaps the brilliant minds of Wall Street and Washington should revisit their knee-jerk opposition to American mining, before they make plans for renewable energy sources.[/I]

Dig, baby, dig?


Ooooh, no, hang on.

 

[Duke]

US neodymium mining was shut down due to environmental concerns and cost.

...NOT because the materials are unavailable within the United States. In other words, when it ceases to become cost-effective to buy from the Chinese, it will start to become cost-effective to buy from others, including ourselves.

 

[Dotini]

...NOT because the materials are unavailable within the United States. In other words, when it ceases to become cost-effective to buy from the Chinese, it will start to become cost-effective to buy from others, including ourselves.

We can still buy the material from the Chinese, we just have to set up factories there to do so, and import the finished or semi-finished product. We need to think long and hard about what is cost-effective and what is in our best interests. !=, as you might say.

I'm arguing for self-sufficiency in the arena of strategic industry. I do not believe we should outsource our strategic infrastructure or defense apparatus, even if it appears to be slightly more "cost-effective" in the short term to do so. We should think long-term, like chess players, or people who understand that we are in the business of global "strategery" (as GW would say) for the long haul.

 

[Duke]

...with which I agree. But you seem to be saying we've screwed ourselves because this material upon which we utterly rely is ONLY available from the Chinese. Which is patently untrue.

 

[Dotini]

...with which I agree. But you seem to be saying we've screwed ourselves because this material upon which we utterly rely is ONLY available from the Chinese. Which is patently untrue.

Well, the articles I clipped said that the Chinese are the ONLY CURRENT COMMERCIALLY ACTIVE source, didn't they?

Note: If you google this particular subject, or one of many other abstruse subjects posted in these forums, you will be referred to...GTP forums!!

 

[Famine]

Well, the articles I clipped said that the Chinese are the ONLY CURRENT COMMERCIALLY ACTIVE source, didn't they?

No. Though they do say "essentially all" neodymium is sourced from China, that's not the same as "all".

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, the articles I clipped said that the Chinese are the ONLY CURRENT COMMERCIALLY ACTIVE source, didn't they?

Current being the keyword in making Duke's point. As I said before, if China screws us it is just a temporary setback. We will eventually get it from somewhere else. There won't be some Commie regime running the western world, at least not because of this.

Note: If you google this particular subject, or one of many other abstruse subjects posted in these forums, you will be referred to...GTP forums!!

Because Google knows where you like to visit and will, when it is able to, suggest your frequently visited sites first.

They are watching you. They are watching...all...of...us.

 

[Dotini]

No. Though they do say "essentially all" neodymium is sourced from China, that's not the same as "all".

Close enough! Thanks to me, my "exaggeration" and bull-headed persistence, your site has become one the internet's highest rated sources of information on this subject!

 

[Dotini]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/body-scanners-dangerous-scientists/

The price of commercial aviation has now increased to X% of travelers contracting skin cancer right at check-in, and/or getting groped for their own safety. For most of its history since the 1930's, the commercial aviation industry has lost money, which makes no market sense, or does it? The real reason it won't go away is that it's the flagship of national pride, and the uniquely indispensable place for technologists, pilots, globe-trotting businessmen and athletes to show their stuff. Even as a risky and money-losing proposition, its needed for the greater glory and pleasure of the human race.

 

[Kneedragger]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/body-scanners-dangerous-scientists/

..and/or getting groped for their own safety.

(snip from article) "...which have been dubbed "naked" scanners because of the graphic image they give of a person's body, genitalia and all."

Again with the inflammatory language.
Maybe people who work in airports as scanning technicians should simply be forced to register at local police departments when they change residence, and be forced to not live within a 1 mile radius of grade schools.

 

[Famine]

The price of commercial aviation has now increased to X% of travelers contracting skin cancer right at check-in

Where "X" = 0.

Read the article:

"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,"

"Statistically someone".

Yes, because they're getting an X-ray. "Statistically someone" will get cancer from their ER when they ship up with a fracture. "Statistically someone" from a population of 240,000,000 a year (IATA's figure for the number of airline passengers in 2009) is 0.000004% a year. That's not a risk - it's barely even a number.

And how about we compare the X-ray dose from a body scanner to... oooh... a transatlantic flight? The scanners deliver a dose of 50nSv. A transatlantic flight delivers a dose of 1uSv - 20 times higher. The flight is 20 times more likely to give you cancer than the scanner.

For reference, a dose increase of ~1nSv has been calculated to cause an increased incidence of cancer of 1 x 10^-10. 50nSv thus increases incidence of cancer by 5 x 10^-9. That's 0.000000005% - 800 times less than "statistically someone" every year. Or, t'other way about, "Statistically someone" means one airline passenger getting cancer from a scanner every eight hundred years...


Enjoy.

 

[Keef]

one airline passenger getting cancer from a scanner every eight hundred years...

But the government says I'm not safe, so this is a perfectly good reason to jack up regulation and make airlines' cost of doing business that much higher.

 

[Dotini]

Where "X" = 0.
The flight is 20 times more likely to give you cancer than the scanner.

Twenty times zero is still zero. So flying is mathematically now safer thanks to your science! You may have a strong future as a health minister or travel agent.

Would you say that those X-rays technicians who protect themselves by going behind screens and/or employing lead-lined aprons et al are being foolishly alarmist about the potential dangers of X-rays? Should people who are concerned about unnecessary dosages of X-rays be ridiculed, marginalized or subject to anti-disparagement laws such as those which protect certain foods from safety criticism?

Perhaps you could lead a major debunking effort against safety efforts intended to prevent cancer? Or possibly the truth is that a certain amount of cancer is actually a net benefit to society due to the employment opportunities it affords for oncologists and technicians?

PS: My father died a long, hideous death from brain tumors due to radiation exposure. He died well before his parents did, and well before I got to know him as I would have liked. My concern over cancer is probably exacerbated by this trivial (to you) anecdote.

 

[niky]

There's a difference between going through a low-powered scanner every few weeks or months and working directly with a much, much, much higher powered medical diagnostic device every day.

P.S. My grandmother died of complications of diabetes. I'm not overly concerned that Coke Light apparently has one calorie, instead of zero, as you'd assume by the fact that it has no sugar. What Famine is point at is that this is the level of risk exposure the X-Ray scanners are equivalent to. Something small enough not to really matter in the long run... not unless you drink a thousand liters of Coke Light every day...

 

[Famine]

Twenty times zero is still zero.

Correct. This year 0 people will contract cancer from an airport scanner or a transatlantic flight.

So flying is mathematically now safer thanks to your science!

No. Flying is as safe as it ever was and it's not "my" science. The numbers all well-known, well-researched and well-publicised. Just because someone wants to promote himself and his own agenda by using junk science phrases like "statistically someone", or an idiot journalist wants to report it with no understanding of the background doesn't make it any more dangerous.

Would you say that those X-rays technicians who protect themselves by going behind screens and/or employing lead-lined aprons et al are being foolishly alarmist about the potential dangers of X-rays?

Dunno. Would you say that one exposure to 5x10^-9 increase in risk is more or less significant than 30 exposures a day, 340 days a year for 20 years?

Think, McFly. Think.

It might amuse you to know that the average medical radiographer receives an additional dose of 0.3mSv per year (background is 0.2mSv). The average member of aircrew receives an additional dose of 3.0mSv per year - ten times higher...

Should people who are concerned about unnecessary dosages of X-rays be ridiculed, marginalized or subject to anti-disparagement laws such as those which protect certain foods from safety criticism?

No. They should be informed of the truth and not misled by those who should know better and shoddy journalism. But that's the way of the world.

Perhaps you could lead a major debunking effort against safety efforts intended to prevent cancer? Or possibly the truth is that a certain amount of cancer is actually a net benefit to society due to the employment opportunities it affords for oncologists and technicians?

Or perhaps I can stick to just providing sense when someone post junk on a forum I like (and represent), without lofty elevation?

PS: My father died a long, hideous death from brain tumors due to radiation exposure. He died well before his parents did, and well before I got to know him as I would have liked. My concern over cancer is probably exacerbated by this trivial (to you) anecdote.

Great. Both my parents have forms of cancer on their death certificate, one before I was even legally permitted to drive and the other half a week before he met his grand-daughter for the first time. Do you want to carry on this pissing contest, or can you accept that you posted badly-worded, sensationalised tripe that is not supported by facts rather than, as usual, holding me responsible for undermining your world?

 

[Dotini]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html?_r=2&src=tptw

This warning by the New York Times is on cancer from cellphone use. I'm not worried about flying, so we'll let that one go.

 

[Keef]

I'm under the impression that everything can give you cancer.

Maybe it's because, way back in the day, nobody lived long enough for cancer to develop, just as nobody lived long enough for dementia to develop.

Better foods, better hygiene, better medical care, and generally better everything are probably the greatest cancer risks of all. Currently there are two solutions to this problem of cancer: live in the stone age and die at 30, or say "oh well" and hold that cell phone to your ear with a vengeance and smoke that cigarette while laying on an X-ray table inside a flying hospital with a glass roof to get your tan on. No sunscreen.

 

[Famine]

Dotini fire-and-forgetted that one back in September.

 

[Dotini]

I'm under the impression that everything can give you cancer.

Maybe it's because, way back in the day, nobody lived long enough for cancer to develop, just as nobody lived long enough for dementia to develop.

Better foods, better hygiene, better medical care, and generally better everything are probably the greatest cancer risks of all. Currently there are two solutions to this problem of cancer: live in the stone age and die at 30, or say "oh well" and hold that cell phone to your ear with a vengeance and smoke that cigarette while laying on an X-ray table inside a flying hospital with a glass roof to get your tan on. No sunscreen.

This is a seriously good question. It ought to be amenable to some solid answers. Recently I recall seeing a science article which purported that humans generally lived cancer free lives prior to very recent times, regardless of the age issue. I'll look for it as time permits, but it's a little beside my particular interest in the whole matter, which is the health and safety of myself and my fellow man - now, today.

Since this thread is dedicated to examining both sides of the sword of technology, I think it's fair to play either Cassandra or Pollyanna here, without taking it beyond gentlemanly discussion. My basic inclination is to err on the side of caution.

Technology has been very good for me in my career in manufacturing, and obviously my hobby of kart racing is about technology as much as driving. So I'm basically pro-technology by virtue of my actions. Even though I've been injured several times while kart racing, I do so in the knowledge that it is an elective activity which can be very dangerous.

I take the hopeful stance that GTP members will be able to read articles both pro and con on various technologies and then be able to better assess any dangers to themselves and their families, and that there is no harm raising such issues in this thread.

 

[Moot]

A lot of this thread has been about rare earth elements.
News today is that Japan has discovered a massive area on the ocean bed in international waters near Hawaii that contains high yields of rare earths, with just 1sq km providing a 5th of worlds annual consumption. It's easy to extract and contains less radioactive contamination than land sources in China (80% less).
The new discovery is said could increase the global known resources by 1000 times.

"..estimated rare earths contained in the deposits amounted to 80bn to 100bn tonnes – compared to global reserves currently confirmed by the US Geological Survey of just 110m tonnes that have been found mainly in China, Russia and other former Soviet Union countries, and the US."