Gold From Filter Feeders

[Bret Cahill]

Ingesting calcium from oyster shell suppliments is supposedly
unhealthy from the high lead levels. Filter feeders concentrate the
heavy metal in their shell.

Now, to be sure, Pb is more reactive than Au and the concentration is
much higher in many oyster beds.

Moreover, years ago I calculated the cost of energy to pump water
through a fat short pipe and it came out to be worth more than the
gold in the same amount of seawater.

But times change. The entire world is wired so the credit crisis
ain't gonna be "solved" by a 1930s style Great Depression + killing 50
million in a world war. Instead they are gonna have to go the
inflation route. (Sorry, Bernanke, well trimmed facial hair will only
get you so far.)

Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.

Is anyone working on this?

If sea water doesn't work I know where to get lots of water with much
higher concentrations of gold.

You might want to get your seafood somewhere else, however.


Bret Cahill

 

[dlzc]

Dear Bret Cahill:

On Nov 9, 7:46 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Ingesting calcium from oyster shell suppliments is
supposedly unhealthy from the high lead levels.
 Filter feeders concentrate the heavy metal in their
shell.
....
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.

Is anyone working on this?

Shellfish don't concentrate gold. Cadmium, lead, mercury, virus,
sure. Wrong chemistry.

David A. Smith

 

[Bret Cahill]

Ingesting calcium from oyster shell suppliments is
supposedly unhealthy from the high lead levels.
�Filter feeders concentrate the heavy metal in their
shell.
...
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.

Is anyone working on this?

Shellfish don't concentrate gold. �Cadmium, lead, mercury, virus,
sure.

Maybe they can gene splice a zebra mussel with the right chemistry.


Bret Cahill

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:22:47 -0800 (PST),
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Ingesting calcium from oyster shell suppliments is
supposedly unhealthy from the high lead levels.
???Filter feeders concentrate the heavy metal in their
shell.
...
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.

Is anyone working on this?

Shellfish don't concentrate gold. ???Cadmium, lead, mercury, virus,
sure.

Maybe they can gene splice a zebra mussel with the right chemistry.

There isn't enough gold in seawater. Gold is estimated to be about 10

parts per trillion. That means that you've have to filter 250,000 tonnes
of seawater for an ounce of gold. Lets say an oyster was a pipe 10cm^2,
you'd need to filter a column 25,000,000 m long. The gulf stream flows
at as high as 2.5m/s. So that's 10Ms, or about 4 months. That's the
theoetical minimum assuming 100% extraction. If you've got a bed of
oysters then some will inevitably end up filtering the sea water that
has already passed through another.

Uranium, OTOH, is not far from being commercially expoitable from
seawater. U is about 3ppb, about 300x more common than gold. It
currently trades at around 60USD/kg, part of the reason the price is so
low is because of existing weapons stockpiles fulfilling a lot of the
demand for fissile materials. But at $200/kgU it would probably be
break-even for extraction from seawater.

What do you want gold for anyway? Other than electronics and jewelry I
cannot think of another major demand where gold is "consumed".

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

 

[dlzc]

Dear Tim Woodall:

On Nov 10, 11:50 am, Tim Woodall <devn...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:22:47 -0800 (PST),
....
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.
....
What do you want gold for anyway? Other than
electronics and jewelry I cannot think of another
major demand where gold is "consumed".

A fast buck / future income.

David A. Smith

 

[dlzc]

On Nov 10, 10:22 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Ingesting calcium from oyster shell suppliments is
supposedly unhealthy from the high lead levels.
Filter feeders concentrate the heavy metal in their
shell.
...
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.

Is anyone working on this?

Shellfish don't concentrate gold. Cadmium, lead,
mercury, virus, sure.

Maybe they can gene splice a zebra mussel with
the right chemistry.

The only organism that concentrates gold is Man. Do you really want
to visit the curse of Midas on such lowly organisms? Gold is simply
too non-reactive to bioaccumulate.

David A. Smith

 

[Mark Thorson]

dlzc wrote:

The only organism that concentrates gold is Man. Do you really want
to visit the curse of Midas on such lowly organisms? Gold is simply
too non-reactive to bioaccumulate.

Several microorganisms accumulate gold _in_vitro_.
It's still an open question whether certain ores
are the result of microbial activity, though the
evidence seems convincing.

http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v1/n7/full/ismej200775a.html

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=876&Itemid=670

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:21:40 -0800 (PST),
dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:

Dear Tim Woodall:

On Nov 10, 11:50 am, Tim Woodall <devn...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:22:47 -0800 (PST),
...
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.
...
What do you want gold for anyway? Other than
electronics and jewelry I cannot think of another
major demand where gold is "consumed".

A fast buck / future income.

People are only going to extract minerals from seawater when it's

commercially viable. Last article I saw on U extraction they were
talking about $1bn for the extraction plant. As well as being much more
abundant, it's easier to find things that will react or bind with
uranium.

I'd expect that the price of gold would be lower than the cost of
extracting gold from seawater. If it ever rises to the extraction costs
then I'd expect it not to go much higher. I really can't see gold
extracted from seawater as ever having a significant financial value
over and above what it costs to extract.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

 

[Jamie]

dlzc wrote:

Dear Tim Woodall:

On Nov 10, 11:50 am, Tim Woodall <devn...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:22:47 -0800 (PST),

...

Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.

...

What do you want gold for anyway? Other than
electronics and jewelry I cannot think of another
major demand where gold is "consumed".


A fast buck / future income.

David A. Smith
Fast is correct, in one hand and out

the other before you even get to count
it.
Obama-nomics. its coming!

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[Bret Cahill]

The only organism that concentrates gold is Man. �Do you really want
to visit the curse of Midas on such lowly organisms? �Gold is simply
too non-reactive to bioaccumulate.

Several microorganisms accumulate gold _in_vitro_.
It's still an open question whether certain ores
are the result of microbial activity, though the
evidence seems convincing.

http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v1/n7/full/ismej200775a.html

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id....

The concentration of gold in water near a fault line is high enough so
that the byproduct pipe clogging scale from geo thermal plants can be
processed for the metal.

The gold probably isn't profitable by itself without the geo plant.

To be sure all the other heavy metals will kill anything and
everything over a period of time but all an organism has to do is stay
alive long enough to concentrate some gold.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Ingesting calcium from oyster shell suppliments is
supposedly unhealthy from the high lead levels.
???Filter feeders concentrate the heavy metal in their
shell.
...
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.

Is anyone working on this?

Shellfish don't concentrate gold. ???Cadmium, lead, mercury, virus,
sure.

Maybe they can gene splice a zebra mussel with the right chemistry.

There isn't enough gold in seawater. Gold is estimated to be about 10
parts per trillion. That means that you've have to filter 250,000 tonnes
of seawater for an ounce of gold. Lets say an oyster was a pipe 10cm^2,
you'd need to filter a column 25,000,000 m long. The gulf stream flows
at as high as 2.5m/s. So that's 10Ms, or about 4 months. That's the
theoetical minimum assuming 100% extraction. If you've got a bed of
oysters then some will inevitably end up filtering the sea water that
has already passed through another.

Uranium, OTOH, is not far from being commercially expoitable from
seawater. U is about 3ppb, about 300x more common than gold. It
currently trades at around 60USD/kg, part of the reason the price is so
low is because of existing weapons stockpiles fulfilling a lot of the
demand for fissile materials.

Believe it or not this is reassuring.

But at $200/kgU it would probably be
break-even for extraction from seawater.

What do you want gold for anyway? Other than electronics and jewelry I
cannot think of another major demand where gold is "consumed".

"Thou knowest not gold's effect."

Act I Scene 2 _The Taming of the Shrew_ (1492)

 

[Bret Cahill]

Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.
...
What do you want gold for anyway? Other than
electronics and jewelry I cannot think of another
major demand where gold is "consumed".

A fast buck / future income.

"The search for gold has impoverished more European nations . . ."

-- DeTocqueville

 

[Wim Lewis]

In article <4d54a25c-0b6a-4251-86e7-ddc45edccba9@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com>,
dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:

Dear Tim Woodall:
On Nov 10, 11:50 am, Tim Woodall <devn...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:22:47 -0800 (PST),
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.
...
What do you want gold for anyway? Other than
electronics and jewelry I cannot think of another
major demand where gold is "consumed".

A fast buck / future income.

Careful, there! Extracting too much gold will inflate the gold-
based currencies. Better to stick with a nice, stable fiat currency.




--
Wim Lewis <wiml@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." -Hegel

 

[Bob Masta]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:31:29 -0800 (PST), dlzc
<dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:

On Nov 10, 10:22=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Ingesting calcium from oyster shell suppliments is
supposedly unhealthy from the high lead levels.
Filter feeders concentrate the heavy metal in their
shell.
...
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.

Is anyone working on this?

Shellfish don't concentrate gold. Cadmium, lead,
mercury, virus, sure.

Maybe they can gene splice a zebra mussel with
the right chemistry.

The only organism that concentrates gold is Man.

<snip>

When I first saw the header to this thread, I
thought "Gold from filter feeders" must be about
lawyers!

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.51
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Brian Whatcott]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:23:15 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
wrote:

The only organism that concentrates gold is Man.

snip

When I first saw the header to this thread, I
thought "Gold from filter feeders" must be about
lawyers!

Best regards,
Bob Masta

It would have read, "Gold from bottom-feeders"
surely?

Brian W

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:21:40 -0800 (PST), dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:

Dear Tim Woodall:

On Nov 10, 11:50 am, Tim Woodall <devn...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:22:47 -0800 (PST),
...
Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.
...
What do you want gold for anyway? Other than
electronics and jewelry I cannot think of another
major demand where gold is "consumed".

A fast buck / future income.

David A. Smith

Gold's value is mostly symbolic, largely irrational. As an industrial
chemical, it would be worth a fraction of its current value.

So if you produce a lot more gold, you'll dilute its value in roughly
the proportion that you increase the amount in circulation. Same with
diamonds, which were once worth a few dollars a carat until the supply
was restricted.

You could make a heap of money transiently, if you had a modest-scale
way to extract and sell gold.

Such dreams of getting rich off gold is another indicator of its
irrational appeal. Other materials are more valuable and less
exploited.

John

 

[Brian Whatcott]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:38:54 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The successful ones are top feeders which is the real reason they'll
generally try to undermine democracy, lofty statements about the
tyranny of the majority, etc., notwithstanding. Without a top and
bottom tort income drops precipitously.

No profession has been hit harder by cheap communications. The only
growth field in law is intellectual property.


Bret Cahill

That's the best news I've heard in a good while.
All that engineering & science talent drained off to train for
ambulance chasing. Too bad,

Brian W

 

[Bret Cahill]

The only organism that concentrates gold is Man. ďż˝

snip

When I first saw the header to this thread, I
thought "Gold from filter feeders" must be about
lawyers!

Best regards,
Bob Masta

It would have read, "Gold from bottom-feeders"
surely?

The successful ones are top feeders which is the real reason they'll
generally try to undermine democracy, lofty statements about the
tyranny of the majority, etc., notwithstanding. Without a top and
bottom tort income drops precipitously.

No profession has been hit harder by cheap communications. The only
growth field in law is intellectual property.


Bret Cahill


"The freedom of the press and the sovereignty of the people are,
therefore, entirely correlative whereas censorship and universal
suffrage contradict each other and cannot long coexist in the
institutions of the same people."

-- DeTocqueville

 

[Bret Cahill]

Gold will soon be worth $2K/oz.
...
What do you want gold for anyway? Other than
electronics and jewelry I cannot think of another
major demand where gold is "consumed".

A fast buck / future income.

David A. Smith

Gold's value is mostly symbolic, largely irrational. As an industrial
chemical, it would be worth a fraction of its current value.

So if you produce a lot more gold, you'll dilute its value in roughly
the proportion that you increase the amount in circulation. Same with
diamonds, which were once worth a few dollars a carat until the supply
was restricted.

You could make a heap of money transiently, if you had a modest-scale
way to extract and sell gold.

Such dreams of getting rich off gold is another indicator of its
irrational appeal. Other materials are more valuable and less
exploited.

Even geo exploitation of "useful" materials like coal is often a
dubious way to make money.

Where would you rather live? Netherlands where they don't even have
land? Or Iraq where if the oil wealth was distributed on a per head
basis, every man woman and child is or will soon be worth over $10
million?

But that doesn't mean geo exploitation doesn't often have beneficial
spinoffs, i. e., Texas Instruments invention of the chip.

Already someone mentioned uranium from sea water. In that case the
energy supply from nukes really could last thousands of years.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

The successful ones are top feeders which is the real reason they'll
generally try to undermine democracy, lofty statements about the
tyranny of the majority, etc., notwithstanding. �Without a top and
bottom tort income drops precipitously.

No profession has been hit harder by cheap communications. �The only
growth field in law is intellectual property.

Bret Cahill

That's the best news I've heard in a good while.

Progress happens.

All that engineering & science talent drained off to train for
�ambulance chasing. Too bad,

Many quit and retrain for the productive sector.


Bret Cahill