No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

New Zealand has a paradoxical relationship with nuclear science. We are as proud of Ernest Rutherford, known as the father of nuclear science, as of our nuclear-free status. Early enthusiasm for radium and X-rays in the first half of the twentieth century and euphoria in the 1950s about the discovery of uranium in a West Coast road cutting was countered by outrage at French nuclear testing in the Pacific and protests against visits from American nuclear-powered warships. New Zealand today has a strong nuclear-free identity – a result of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act of 1987 that prohibited nuclear weapons and nuclear warships in the country’s land, air and water – that can be traced back to the first protests against nuclear weapons in the 1940s. This thesis is based on the supposition that the “nuclear-free New Zealand” narrative is so strong and such a part of the national identity that it has largely eclipsed another story, the pre-1980s story of “nuclear New Zealand”. New Zealand’s early embracing of and enthusiasm for nuclear science and technology needs to be introduced into our national story. This thesis aims to discover and reveal that history: from the young New Zealand physicists seconded to work on the Manhattan Project; to the plans for a heavy water plant at Wairakei; prospecting for uranium on the West Coast of the South Island; plans for a nuclear power station on the Kaipara Harbour; and the thousands of scientists and medical professionals who have worked with nuclear technology. Put together, they provide a narrative history of nuclear New Zealand. Between the “anti-nuclear” voices, already well told in many histories of nuclear-free New Zealand, and the “pro-nuclear” voices revealed in this thesis, options were considered and decisions made. This thesis shows that the people with decision-making power tended to make practical decisions based on economics and national interest when it came to deciding whether or not to adopt a certain piece of nuclear technology or whether or not to participate in projects or ventures with international agencies. This eventually led to a nuclear-free policy – focused on weapons, nuclear-powered ships and waste – that since the legislation was enacted in 1987 has been interpreted ever more widely by politicians and the public to include nuclear power, uranium prospecting and many other applications of nuclear technology.

The Nopal I uranium deposit located in northern Chihuahua Mexico has been the focus of study for the past 40 years. Information regarding to its formation and evolution through time demonstrate that it has a very complex history. Uranium mineralization occurs in two different styles: uranium oxide uraninite and a secondary phases of silicates (uranophane, soddyite) and oxyhydroxides (schoepite and ianthinite). Petrographic studies have revealed that uraninite is found encapsulated within the host rock (ignimbrites) as fine grains while secondary uranium minerals are filling fractures and micro-veins. Chemical dates from the uranium minerals give a wide range from 0 to 611 Ma; many of the ages may be overestimated since the host rock is 44 Ma. U/Pb isotopic studies demonstrate the presence of common Pb, and after a correction was applied, a new range of dates from 1< to 7 Ma was obtained.

Historically, the Inuit of Qamani’tuaq (Baker Lake) have expressed strong opposition to uranium mining in their territory, in part due to concerns that it would be detrimental to their harvesting practices. During these struggles, the Inuit of Qamani’tuaq had the support of various Inuit Organizations. The first decade of the 2000s saw the relevant Inuit Organizations change their policies from ones which opposed uranium mining to ones which support it. This thesis is an attempt to understand if Inuit at the community level have changed their opinions about uranium mining and, if so, why. During my time in Qamani’tuaq, it became apparent that the shift in policy has been followed by a gradual change in perspective among some members of the community. While opposition to uranium mining is by no means dead, the seemingly united stance the community previously held has become fragmented. This change is due to a number of factors, including an increased astuteness on the part of the mining industry, certain aspects of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and ongoing economic dependency upon the market economy.

The Nopal I uranium deposit located in northern Chihuahua Mexico has been the focus of study for the past 40 years. Information regarding to its formation and evolution through time demonstrate that it has a very complex history. Uranium mineralization occurs in two different styles: uranium oxide uraninite and a secondary phases of silicates (uranophane, soddyite) and oxyhydroxides (schoepite and ianthinite). Petrographic studies have revealed that uraninite is found encapsulated within the host rock (ignimbrites) as fine grains while secondary uranium minerals are filling fractures and micro-veins. Chemical dates from the uranium minerals give a wide range from 0 to 611 Ma; many of the ages may be overestimated since the host rock is 44 Ma. U/Pb isotopic studies demonstrate the presence of common Pb, and after a correction was applied, a new range of dates from 1< to 7 Ma was obtained.

No description available.

Thesis (M.S. - Hydrology and Water Resources)--University of Arizona, 1982. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 110-116).

Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 2009. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 105-107). Also available on the World Wide Web.