toml@druxm.UUCP (04/20/84)
One thing I haven't heard anyone mention in the debate of nuclear power versus coal power (yes, there are other possibilities, but the ones that have been developed have severe environmental consequences, too) is the radioactivity of coal. My understanding from physicists that know better than I is that more radioactivity is released per kilowatt-hour from a coal-fired electric plant than from a nuclear electric plant (including the radioactive waste from the nuclear plant and the low-grade radioactivity from mine tailings and waste from refining nuclear fuel). Unfortunately, I cannot give references that support this (if I get flamed badly enough, I'll make a special effort to locate them), but I will mention that another source shows that living in a brick or stone house (brick and stone, like coal, are naturally radioactive) increases your chance of dying from radiation-induced diseases (notably cancer) by 1 part per million for every two months you live in such a house. Also, "Science News" (about 2 years ago -- no I don't have the issue andymore) reported that levels of radioactive heavy metals in the air in modern houses (involving masonry and fuel-efficient techniques that reduced outside air infiltration) were increasing, and were approaching the known-to-be-dangerous levels commonly found in coal mines. Now, the source I was able to dig up (Do you retain every interesting article you come across? I don't.) is from "Advice/dissent" from "The Colorado Daily", November 11, 1980: "You can calculate your own exposure to radiation from the information table below. The average American is exposed to 148 millirems per year. "Cosmic radiation that reached the earth (44): "Add 1 for every 100 feet above sea level. Denver is 5300 ft. so add 53; coastal cities are at sea level, so add 0. "If your house is brick add 45; stone add 50; wood add 35; concrete add 45. "Ground radiation (U.S. average -- 15). Water, food, air radiation (U.S. average -- 25). Nuclear weapons testing fallout (4). If you've had a chest X-ray this year, add 9 for each one. For each 1500 miles you've flown in a jet airplane during the year, add 1. If you watch color TV add 0.15 for each hour of average daily use. If you live one mile from a nuclear power plant add 0.02 for each hour you are typically at home during the day. If you live over 5 miles from a nuclear plant, add 0. If you sleep with your spouse add 0.1. If you are in school seated by other students 6 hrs/day add 0.1." I support research into better energy sources, and I also support energy conservation. (It's about 8:30pm, and I have a total of 65 Watts of lights turned on in my house.) I also believe we need more electric power in the near term. I see no available source that is more environmentally sound than nuclear power. Truth is never popular... Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (04/24/84)
]>One thing I haven't heard anyone mention in the debate of nuclear power ]>versus coal power (yes, there are other possibilities, but the ones that ]>have been developed have severe environmental consequences, too) is the ]>radioactivity of coal. My understanding from physicists that know ]>better than I is that more radioactivity is released per kilowatt-hour ]>from a coal-fired electric plant than from a nuclear electric plant ]>(including the radioactive waste from the nuclear plant and the low-grade ]>radioactivity from mine tailings and waste from refining nuclear fuel). ]Absolutely not true. Coal contains, on the average, 1.8 parts per million ](ppm) uranium. In comparison, the average uranium content of uranium ore is ]1500 ppm. To produce an equivalent amount of electricity, about 20 times more ]coal than uranium ore must be mined. But because there is roughly 1000 times ]more uranium in uranium ore than coal, the mining part of the nuclear fuel ]cycle brings 50 times as much radioactivity to the earth's surface (1000/20=50). Whoa! What about Carbon-14??? I believe that it is a significant part of coal. --> Allen <-- ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (04/27/84)
Both Allen England and rabbit!jj have pointed out that my analysis of the radioactivity of coal vs. uranium ore failed to take into account the radon and carbon-14 in coal. Well, this is true enough, but I also didn't take into account the radon, radium, Thorium 230, etc. in uranium ore. If someone can cite a study that compares ALL the radioactivity in uranium ore to ALL the radioactivity in coal, I'd like to see it. If it can be shown that uranium ore is less than 20 times as radioactive as coal, only then will I believe that the coal fuel cycle releases more radiation per KWH than the nuclear fuel cycle. And even if that can be proven, you still have to consider the fission products of a nuclear reactor (strontium and cesium) that are millions of times more radioactive than the original uranium. This is not to say that coal is harmless, but I think that the sulphur content is a much more serious problem than the minute amount of radiation in coal. Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
mwm@ea.UUCP (04/28/84)
#R:druxm:-83100:ea:10100042:000:1482 ea!mwm Apr 28 12:27:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / azure!jonw / 7:29 am Apr 25, 1984 */ >My understanding from physicists that know >better than I is that more radioactivity is released per kilowatt-hour >from a coal-fired electric plant than from a nuclear electric plant >(including the radioactive waste from the nuclear plant and the low-grade >radioactivity from mine tailings and waste from refining nuclear fuel). Absolutely not true. Coal contains, on the average, 1.8 parts per million (ppm) uranium. In comparison, the average uranium content of uranium ore is 1500 ppm. To produce an equivalent amount of electricity, about 20 times more coal than uranium ore must be mined. But because there is roughly 1000 times more uranium in uranium ore than coal, the mining part of the nuclear fuel cycle brings 50 times as much radioactivity to the earth's surface (1000/20=50). Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw /* ---------- */ Positively misread. The (now double) quoted article talks about the radioactivity from a plant, whereas you start talking about the radioactivity from complete cycles. It is very easy to believe that the radioactivity from a coal-fired plant is much greater than that from a nuke-fired plant, as the coal-fired plant doesn't have to follow any of the incredible stringent rules the nuke plant does in this area. Note that most coal-fired plants (and some railroad stations) can't be licensed as nuclear power plants... <mike
bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (05/01/84)
<....> Jon White reports that, because uranium contains much more radioactive elements than coal, that it is "absolutely not true" that more radioactivity is released per kilowatt-hour from a coal-fired electric plant than from a nuclear electric plant. The problem with coal is, while the uranium fuel and radioactive byproducts in a nuclear power plant are contained within the reactor, the radon and other radioactive elements in coal are released into the atmosphere (and our lungs) when the coal is burned. This is aside from the ordinary carcinogenic particulates that coal-fired power plants produce. Sam Hall decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (05/02/84)
==================
This is not to say that coal is harmless, but I think that the sulphur content
is a much more serious problem than the minute amount of radiation in coal.
==================
Regardless of whether the emissions from coal power plants are more or
less radioactive than those from nuclear plants, the above statement
is probably true. And it isn't just the sulphur. There are lots of
compounds involved, both carcinogenic and teratogenic. The main problem
with both radioactive and chemical pollution is that it kills us by
inducing cancer and it kills our children and their descendants by
genetic damage. Both radioactivity and chemical pollution have rapidly
decaying and long-lived components. Both sources can (with difficulty)
be sequestered from the environment for the most part. The volume is
greater for chemical pollutants, because it usually is mixed with large
volumes of effluent gas. In nuclear plants, the volume problem is with
the ore from which the major radioactive elements have been extracted.
We should compare systems in terms of their effects, not in terms of the
methods by which those effects are achieved. Chemical or radiation-induced
cancer or mutations are equally bad and their causes can be equally
long-lived. The policy answers come down to numbers: how to control
the numbers of people adversely affected, and the degree to which
seriously affected people are damaged.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtbbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (05/04/84)
>> uranium ore. If someone can cite a study that compares ALL the >> radioactivity in uranium ore to ALL the radioactivity in coal, I'd like >> to see it. If it can be shown that uranium ore is less than 20 times >> as radioactive as coal, only then will I believe that the coal fuel >> cycle releases more radiation per KWH than the nuclear fuel cycle. And I've been sort of glancing at this debate with a sort of semi-detachment. One thing that apparently hasn't occurred to all the self-proclaimed experts throwing facts around. Has anyone thought of actually *measuring* the radioactivity of coal against that of Uranium? I'm sure that someone out there must have the apparatus (Geiger Counter? Gold leaf electroscope?) and access to the required material. Hell, even I can come up with a lump of anthracite, and I had a mineral kit bought from a toy store in when I was a kid, which contained a sample of pitchblende. I wish that all these "experts" would consider actually *TESTING* their theory before they made various bombastic statements (both pro and con). Second and third source references don't make the grade. I could probably find some Turkey to quote on any asinine view ever conceived. So, why don't I do it? Answer - I'm really not interested in this debate... but then again, I'm not posting on it either. Please send me flames, I love mail. "liberal, but believe in nuclear energy" -- Binayak Banerjee {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje