General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCoal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-wasteOver the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power planta by-product from burning coal for electricitycarries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
* As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Response to leveymg (Reply #1)
Recursion This message was self-deleted by its author.
RC
(25,592 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Phase them both out.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)To say that coal ash is "more radioactive" than nuclear waste is misleading, to put it mildly.
Less radiation may escape from the storage facility if it works as designed all the time
and there aren't any earthquakes and nothing else ever goes wrong.
When it does, you have something like Chernobyl or Fukushima.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)to bulk it out to match the quantity of ash produced by the generation of matching amounts of electricity and come out ahead.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Is the creepiest looking thing ever.
We don't even have cell signal around the plant. It's like a dead zone.
dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)I'm a better dancer that Fred Astaire*
*Clarification- Astaire properly hobbled. And dead.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)The sooner they're done away with the better for everyone's health. Of course with this "clean coal" propaganda they have now, and the money that goes with it, we'll probably not see it happen in our lives.
hunter
(38,326 posts)Well, assuming human civilization survived that, which seems unlikely observing the ferociousness of the Great World War, Acts One and Two.
Instead we swim in coal waste.
Coal is more dangerous than nuclear power in every way.
Toxic elements of coal -- mercury for example -- have half-lives of essentially forever.
Climate change caused by fossil fuels will kill billions of people in the long run, and is already contributing to mass extinctions.
More people are killed by coal every day than will ever be harmed by nuclear power, even taking into account accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima.
So far as I can tell, anti-nuclear power is a religious faith. Getting killed by nuclear power plant waste is somehow far, far worse than other kinds of death. Better 100,000 people get killed by fossil fuels than one die from nuclear power. Other deadly fallout of the fossil fuel industry is equally overlooked: automobiles, for example.
Personally, I think that electric power networks are in and of themselves one of the core elements of our current environmental catastrophe. The highway system is another.
I'm a Luddite. I figure at least 90% of our industrial activity doesn't increase the general level of happiness and ought to be abandoned because it is harmful to the environment and our health.
Yes, if I was emperor of this planet, I would take away many of your toys. Go play outside in the garden.