"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.
[FROM THE EDITOR OF THE ARTICLE CITED: Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.
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.]
At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements.
[MY NOTE: PLUS COBALT, THALLIUM, RADIUM, CADMIUM, AND OTHER "TRACE" RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS IN ASH.
SEE Citizens Coal Council, Hoosier Environmental Council, Clean Air Task Force (March 2000), "Laid to Waste: The Dirty Secret of Combustion Waste from America's Power Plants"]
[MY NOTE: PLUS COBALT, THALLIUM, RADIUM, CADMIUM, AND OTHER "TRACE" RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS IN ASH.
SEE Citizens Coal Council, Hoosier Environmental Council, Clean Air Task Force (March 2000), "Laid to Waste: The Dirty Secret of Combustion Waste from America's Power Plants"]
The RADIONUCLIDES occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem.
But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.
Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food.
People living within a "stack shadow" - the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks - might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.
In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama.
To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.
The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities.
At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year.
Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period.
And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.
McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly.
To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash-based uranium content for sites across the U.S.
[MY NOTE: while that database may have once been readily available, it appears to be intermittently available now at http://energy.usgs.gov/Coal/AssessmentsandData/CoalDatabases.aspx
and a message stating this is given.
However, a wealth of information and a very long list of 'studies' can be found at http://energy.usgs.gov/PublicationsAdvancedSearch.aspx?sb-search=coal+ash+uranium&sb-inst=0_dnn_Header1_avtSearch&sb-logid=401970-je691bfs6g4k24g2
and "Environmental Effects" at http://energy.usgs.gov/EnvironmentalAspects/EnvironmentalAspectsofEnergyProductionand
Use/EnvironmentalEffects.aspx also offers interesting facts.]
So why does coal waste appear so radioactive?
It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants - they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones.
"You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
Radiation from uranium and other elements in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains.
"It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon."
The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown.
"I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."
TRACE ELEMENTS IN COAL ASH INCLUDE ARSENIC, CHROMIUM, CADMIUM, LEAD AND MERCURY.
(A PDF FILE)
FROM THAT STUDY:
Coal ash includes fly ash, bottom ash, and flue-gas desulfurization products (at power plants equipped with flue-gas desulfurization systems).
[MY NOTE: THE COAL INDUSTRY HAS LOBBIED AND SPENT MILLIONS EACH YEAR TO KEEP FROM FILTERING THEIR COAL-POWERED PLANTS. THEY HAVE BATTLED EVERY ATTEMPT TO CLEAN UP THAT INDUSTRY AND CONGRESS HAS HELPED THEM, ESPECIALLY FROM THE GOP SIDE OF THE AISLE UP ON CAPITOL HILL. LITTLE WONDER, SINCE COAL CONTRIBUTES HEAVILY TO CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN CHESTS WHICH ARE THE "FRIENDLIEST" TO THE COAL INDUSTRY.]
THE 'STUDY' SHOWS THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH LONG-TERM STORAGE AND CONTAINMENT OF COAL ASH AS LEAKAGES AND EFFECTS OF HEAVY RAINS OVERFLOWING HOLDING PONDS CAN CAUSE LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS.
EVEN LOW CONCENTRATIONS OF LEAD, MERCURY, ARSENIC AND CHROMIUM CAN BE ESPECIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO HUMANS, THE ECOSYSTEM AND ANIMALS.
Fly ash, the most common form of coal ash, is used in a range of products, especially construction materials.
[HOW MANY WERE AWARE THAT CONCRETE, BRICKS AND SUCH CONTAIN THESE WASTE PRODUCTS BUT ARE ALLOWED AS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS?]
POWER PLANTS, AS OF 2014, GENERATED 130 MILLION TONS OF COAL ASH PER YEAR.
THE ENTIRE APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CHAIN AND BASIN AND THE POWDER RIVER BASIN IN MONTANA/WYOMING ARE SERIOUSLY CONTAMINATED BY THE MINING AND BURNING OF COAL AND FAULTY STORAGE OF COAL ASH.
ARSENIC PRESENTS A SPECIAL PROBLEM IN THE APPALACHIANS.
AS STATED ABOVE OTHER RADIOACTIVE "TRACE" ELEMENTS TOXIC TO HUMANS AND ANIMALS, WERE ALSO FOUND IN SAMPLES OF FLY ASH.
COAL ASH BEHAVES DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS AND SUCH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PRESENT-DAY CONTAINMENT.
AND YET THE EPA HAS DESIGNATED COAL ASH AS NON-HAZARDOUS?
WHY?
"A new Environmental Protection Agency ruling upholds designation of coal ash as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, allowing for the continued beneficial use of coal ash and also designating procedures and requirements for its storage.
Long-term projected use of coal in electricity generation will require continuing efforts to address the safe storage, disposal, and reuse of large volumes of coal ash."
BENEFICIAL USE?
WHAT ARE THE "BENEFITS" , AND TO WHOM EXCEPT TO THOSE WHO NEED TO UNLOAD 140 MILLION TONS OF THIS CRAP EVERY YEAR?
A RECENT, IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT...
MANY U.S. CONGRESSMEN HAVE JUST RECENTLY GONE TO BAT FOR THE COAL INDUSTRY AND AGAINST WE "AVERAGE CITIZENS" YET AGAIN WITH NEW "BILLS" WILL LIKELY SAIL THROUGH CONGRESS VIRTUALLY UNIMPEDED WHICH WILL FURTHER CRIPPLE ALL EFFORTS TO CURB THE MINING AND CURRENT NEGLIGENT BURNING OF COAL AND THE STORING OF THE WASTE FROM THAT.
H.R. 1644: STREAM ACT (SUPPORTING TRANSPARENT REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS IN MINING)
The bill would prevent implementation of new regulations limiting coal extraction in a newly established "buffer zone" around streams and waterways. According to the bill's sponsor, "the bill would prevent the administration from implementing a new stream buffer zone rule intentionally designed to shut down all surface mining and a significant section of underground mining in the Appalachian region.”
S.J.Res.22: RESOLUTION DISAPPROVING THE EPA RULE RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" (WOTUS)
The resolution seeks to invalidate the "Waters of the United States" rule, which refines the definition of the term determining which "waters" fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
The vote will attempt to leverage the Congressional Review Act, which allows for Congress to invalidate a rule from the executive.
Though, given the potential for a veto, these resolutions rarely hit their mark (only one has ever been enacted.)
Read more about the Congressional Review Act and Congressional attempts to invalidate Obama Administration environmental rules.
CONGRESS, ESPECIALLY THE GOP MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, HAS HISTORICALLY TRIED TO INVALIDATE ANY AND ALL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT MIGHT STOP THE RAPE OF LANDS AND THE POISONING OF HUMANS, ANIMALS AND OUR ENVIRONMENT.
REGULATIONS BE DAMNED WHEN BIG INDUSTRY NEEDS A HAND FROM CONGRESS.
OUR "ELECTEDS" HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED THE DESTRUCTION OF MORE LAND AND LIVES THAN WE MAY EVER COUNT.
NONE OF THEM LIVE NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, A COAL MINE, A URANIUM MINE, A COAL-BURNING POWER PLANT, A NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP OR A LANDFILL.
THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF ANY OF US DO OR IF WE'RE EXPOSED TO HAZARDS, OBVIOUSLY.
WATCH THE VOTES IN CONGRESS FOR JUST ONE MONTH, SEE HOW LITTLE OUR HEALTH MATTERS TO THEM.
SEE HOW OFTEN THEY MOVE TO AID BIG BUSINESS, THE OIL AND COAL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES, HOW THEY PROTECT ENTITIES LIKE MONSANTO AND THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.
WATCH FOR JUST ONE MONTH...THEN CONSIDER WHAT YOU SEE...
Tracking legislation and votes in the United States Congress is easy at https://www.govtrack.us/.
Detailed Session List Roll call vote results are compiled through the Senate Legislative Information System at http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm.
WANT TO SEE HOW THE ONES YOU VOTED FOR IN CONGRESS HAVE VOTED SINCE 1991?
GO TO http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/ .
USE THE DROP-DOWN MENU WHERE YOU SEE EITHER 113th OR 114th CONGRESS TO GET DATA ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE 102nd CONGRESS.
WHAT IS VERY INTERESTING IS TO SEE HOW EACH "PARTY" VOTES AND THEN GO COMPARE THOSE VOTES TO WHO MADE MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO EACH PARTY'S CAMPAIGNS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE AT http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/.
YOU CAN VIEW MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS FOR PAST YEARS BY SELECTING THE ELECTION CYCLE IN THE DROP-DOWN MENU.
FOR 2012, THE TOP 10 COMPANIES STUFFING "WAR CHESTS" CAN BE SEEN AT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/corporate-political-donations_n_1644375.html.
ALL BUT 3 DONATED HEAVIEST TO THE GOP.
BE AWARE THAT CONGRESS AND A LOT OF HIGH-POWERED ATTORNEYS ARE FIGHTING TO GET EVEN MORE DEREGULATIONS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS SO THE 'BIG NAMES' CAN MAKE BIGGER DONATIONS.
"MUST HAVE THE PRECIOUS" AFTER ALL, RIGHT?
IT'S ABOUT WINNING, NOT ABOUT SERVING THOSE WHO VOTE FOR THEM.
IT'S ABOUT BEING THERE FOR WALL STREET, THAT "PAYBACK", THAT "YOU SCRATCH MY BACK AND I'LL SCRATCH YOURS".
IT'S ABOUT "BEDFELLOWS".
SO, NO MATTER THE HEALTH RISKS, NO MATTER THE POSSIBILITIES OF PERMANENT DAMAGE TO OUR ENVIRONMENT, WHETHER BY COAL OR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, CONGRESS IS NOT ON OUR SIDE, AMERICANS.
NEVER HAVE BEEN, NEVER WILL BE...NOT THE MAJORITY, AT LEAST.
NOW YOU CAN SEE WHICH ONES HAVE SOLD US OUT MOST OFTEN.
BUT WILL EVEN THAT REVELATION CHANGE HOW AMERICANS VOTE?
IF ONLY.....
No comments:
Post a Comment