Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

[TalkingDog]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Over 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 plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries 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]

1. May I suggest, in that case, the author might want to build his house atop a pile of nuclear waste.

[RC]

7. And you might want to build your house down wind of a coal plant?

[leveymg]

9. Do I have to choose between the two? Not.

Phase them both out.

[AndyTiedye]

2. Unless The Water Boils Away, or the Pool Leaks, or the Casks Rust

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. Or, IIRC it could be mixed in with sufficient silica (100% non-radioactive)

to bulk it out to match the quantity of ash produced by the generation of matching amounts of electricity and come out ahead.

[darkangel218]

3. Near my work is a coal plant.

Is the creepiest looking thing ever.

We don't even have cell signal around the plant. It's like a dead zone.

[dems_rightnow]

5. And I'm a better dancer that Fred Astaire

I'm a better dancer that Fred Astaire*

*Clarification- Astaire properly hobbled. And dead.

[bemildred]

8. Well, heck, maybe we should filter all that exhaust gas. nt

[Union Scribe]

10. Coal plants are a scourge.

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]

11. If nuclear power had been discovered in the Victorian age we'd be swimming in nuclear waste.

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.