Radioactivity from burning coal.Worry about the release and accumulation of radioactive materials in the environment has led to much hand wringing over the risks of accidents at nuclear power plants and weapons facilities. But what about radioactivity released from burning coal? W. Alex Gabbard, a nuclear physicist Nu´cle`ar phys´i`cist n. 1. A scientist specializing in nuclear physics. Noun 1. nuclear physicist - a physicist who specializes in nuclear physics physicist - a scientist trained in physics at the Oak Ridge Oak Ridge, city (1990 pop. 27,310), Anderson and Roane counties, E Tenn., on Black Oak Ridge and the Clinch River; founded by the U.S. government 1942, inc. as an independent city 1959. (Tenn.) National Laboratory, did a little calculating. According to Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), independent agency of the U.S. government, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1970 to reduce and control air and water pollution, noise pollution, and radiation and to ensure the safe handling and figures, an average ton of coal contains 1.3 parts per million parts per million mg/kg or ml/l; see ppm. of uranium and 3.2 parts per million of thorium thorium (thôr`ēəm) [from Thor], radioactive chemical element; symbol Th; at. no. 90; at. wt. 232.0381; m.p. about 1,750°C;; b.p. about 4,790°C;; sp. gr. 11.7 at 20°C;; valence +4. . Both naturally occurring trace metals are radioactive. Of the uranium, roughly 0.71 percent is U-235, the fissionable fis·sion·a·ble adj. Capable of undergoing fission: fissionable nuclear material. fis variety used by nuclear power plants. Thus in 1982, he estimates, U.S. coal-burning power plants, which collectively consumed 616 million tons of coal, released 801 tons of uranium and 1,971 tons of thorium into the environment -- virtually unnoticed. Roughly 11,371 pounds of the uranium was U-235. Moreover, global combustion of 2,800 million tons of coal that year released 8,960 tons of thorium and 3,640 tons of uranium, of which 51,700 pounds was U-235. Ironically, in 1982, 111 U.S. nuclear power plants used 540 tons of nuclear fuel to generate electricity. Thus, "the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels," Gabbard notes in the fall issue of the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is a multiprogram science and technology national laboratory managed for the United States Department of Energy by UT-Battelle, LLC. ORNL is located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, near Knoxville. REVIEW. Gabbard then calculated the energy value of the lost radioactive materials. He found that the nuclear fuel released by burning coal has one and a half times more energy than the coal itself. Because electric utilities are not perceived to be as hazardous as nuclear power plants, "large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste," Gabbard says. "These products emit low-level radiation. But because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities," he adds. "Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere biosphere, irregularly shaped envelope of the earth's air, water, and land encompassing the heights and depths at which living things exist. The biosphere is a closed and self-regulating system (see ecology), sustained by grand-scale cycles of energy and of in an unregulated manner," Gabbard concludes. Such wastes accumulate on electric utility sites and are "not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain."
Duncan MacKellar (Member): Actually these conclusions are lies, its really worse 6/7/2009 2:58 AM
Atomic power plants do not give off any radiation at all. They do make radioactive waste that is contained and safely reprocessed and never reaches the environment. Coal burning actually puts more radiation into the environment than if atomic power plants just dumped the waste on the ground or in a river, or burned it in a pit. Coal burning is hugely radiation producing, atomic power plants put no radiation into the environment.<br>Duncan- |
|
||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion