By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

...
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. * [See Editor's Note at bottom]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

https://media4.giphy.com/media/55bqVL2msLyT2OqvDp/giphy.gif

random wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 6:31pm:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Ah a 2007 study. Later ones say 5-10 times.

"While the chances of experiencing negative health effects from radiation in relation to nuclear and coal-fired power plants are slim; the article reports they are higher if you live close to a coal fired power generation station."

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/coal-ash-em1428/

Coal emissions can concentrate radioactivity
By Claire Moore | June 6, 2019

When coal burns at power plants, it produces residual waste, or coal ash, including a fine silicon powder called fly ash. A 2015 Duke University-led study found radioactive contaminants, such as byproducts of uranium and thorium, can be highly concentrated in this ash.

Radioactive particles were detected in groundwater surrounding Muskingum River Power Plant in Beverly, Ohio. The American Electric Power plant closed in May 2015 after a plan to switch plant operations to natural gas fell through. Rising costs and the passing of environmental regulations were listed as the cause of the closure.

A 2019 report from the Environmental Integrity Project found radium, a radioactive element found in coal, had contaminated groundwater above safe levels at four of the ten monitored coal plants in Ohio. A total of 48 sites across the country had radium-contaminated groundwater.

https://greatlakesecho.org/2019/06/06/burning-coal-can-concentrate-radioactive-particles/

https://c.tenor.com/R0MlsXWGFIQAAAAC/pacino-rapote.gif

The fly ash emitted from burning coal for electricity by a power plant carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/035/43035329.pdf

random wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 6:48pm:

Coal emissions can concentrate radioactivity

That's not new. Tell us just how much radiation it is. Compared to marble or granite. ;)

Dear Random,
with all that smoking you're doing -
it doesn't seem that you're too worried about radioactive ash.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 6:54pm:

Dear Random, with all that smoking you're doing - it doesn't seem that you're too worried about radioactive ash.

12 July 2021
The radioactive particles settle in smokers' lungs, where they build up as long as the person smokes. Over time, the radiation can damage the lungs and can contribute to lung cancer. Using tobacco products can also make users more vulnerable to other cancer-causing contaminants.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/BnHsIq78ygZb2/200.gif

Vitrified tiles give off higher radiation than coal ash.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850714000041

http://www.coal-ash.co.il/english/info_radio.html

random wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 6:57pm:

The radioactive particles settle in smokers' lungs, where they build up as long as the person smokes. Over time, the radiation can damage the lungs and can contribute to lung cancer

Wow. Gone from coal ash to the remnants of bomb testing without blinking an eye. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Television = Radiation

Television - the drug of a nation. Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=television+-+disposible+heroes+of+hypcrisy&view=detail&mid=9489189397BE98E71C3F9489189397BE98E71C3F&FORM=VIRE

Do coal-fired power stations produce radioactive waste?

Yes – and the waste contributes far more radiation to the environment than nuclear power stations. The radioactivity comes from the trace amounts of uranium and thorium contained in coal. These elements have been trapped in the Earth’s crust since its formation and are usually in concentrations too low to pose any serious threat. But the burning of coal produces fly ash, a material in which the uranium and thorium are much more concentrated.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/

https://c.tenor.com/GInBaAGln_UAAAAd/smoke-out-laughing-out-loud.gif

random wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 7:24pm:

Do coal-fired power stations produce radioactive waste?

And it is negligible. Being less than marble, granite etc/kg. ::)

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 7:34pm:

random wrote on Jun 6th, 2022 at 7:24pm: Do coal-fired power stations produce radioactive waste? And it is negligible. Being less than marble, granite etc/kg. ::)

Not sure you have noticed, but the last time I checked no one burns granite to make electricity.  You might in you BBQ though.

Wait for it.  I will say in slowly so you will find it harder to continue to act dumb ...

"These elements have been trapped in the Earth’s crust since its formation and are usually in concentrations too low to pose any serious threat. But the burning of coal produces fly ash, a material in which the uranium and thorium are much more concentrated."

https://i.gifer.com/5POI.gif

random wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 8:38pm:

Not sure you have noticed, but the last time I checked no one burns granite to make electricity.

It is still background radiation. ::)


random wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 8:38pm:

These elements have been trapped in the Earth’s crust since its formation and are usually in concentrations too low to pose any serious threat.

And the same for coal ash. Too low to cause problems unless you follow the WHO  LNT (Linear No Threshold) model. ::)

I won again!

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/10/What-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-800x441.png

random wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 8:56pm:

I won again!

"Fossil fuels and the burning of biomass – wood, dung, and charcoal – are responsible for most of those deaths. Eliminating fossil fuels could cut premature deaths from air pollution by around two-thirds. That’s three to four million deaths per year.2"

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Biomass - dung etc kills millions a year alone. ::)

"Biomass fuels linked to 3.5 million deaths annually"

https://www.bioenergy-news.com/news/iea-biomass-fuels-linked-to-3-5-million-deaths-annually/

So take 3.5 million out of the four million and remainder is coal.

Talk about skewed efforts. You really are a joke.

Under normal operation neither is a threat at all.

The comparison here is with properly treated and secured nuclear material.


Quote:

coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

Tell me about the comparative radiation risk when we have a core meltdown in a coal plant or if the stored radioactive waste is released after a thousand years or so.

The main risk with coal is to coal miners.

It is true that coal power is way less than ideal but this argument inferring that it is a radiation risk compared to nuclear power plants is 100% piffle.

Oh look - a butterfly

Jasin wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 9:55pm:

Oh look - a butterfly

Chernobyl Butterflies glow in the dark, they say its from the coal.

Coal and Oil: made from dead things.

Raise the Dead.

.

---

Dnarever wrote on Jun 6^th, 2022 at 9:53pm:

Under normal operation neither is a threat at all. The comparison here is with properly treated and secured nuclear material. Quote: coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage. Tell me about the comparative radiation risk when we have a core meltdown in a coal plant or if the stored radioactive waste is released after a thousand years or so. The main risk with coal is to coal miners. It is true that coal power is way less than ideal but this argument inferring that it is a radiation risk compared to nuclear power plants is 100% piffle.

No true DNA.

People living around coal fired generators experience far higher respiratory disease and deaths.Same with people living around coal mines, e.g. in the Hunter Valley.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 7^th, 2022 at 6:35am:

People living around coal fired generators experience far higher respiratory disease and deaths.Same with people living around coal mines, e.g. in the Hunter Valley.

But not radiation poisoning. ;)

"And then there’s health. Ongoing concerns and myriad anecdotal reports of serious health impacts have been expressed by both local communities and health professionals, and echoed by organisations such as Doctors for the Environment. But there’s virtually no hard evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to confirm or deny the negative health impacts on communities near coal mines or coal-fired power stations in Australia."

"Health and Social Harms of Coal Mining in Local Communities: Spotlight on the Hunter Region cites excess deaths from lung cancer, chronic heart, respiratory and kidney disease related to living near coal mines. The evidence is mostly from the United States and often features a dose-response effect related to coal quantity or surface area of the mine. Other effects include high blood levels of heavy metals in children, and higher rates of birth defects. "

https://theconversation.com/coal-industry-thriving-but-at-what-social-and-health-cost-9266

A dose-response effect? Oh dear another statistical study. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2022 at 1:13pm:

"And then there’s health. Ongoing concerns and myriad anecdotal reports of serious health impacts have been expressed by both local communities and health professionals, and echoed by organisations such as Doctors for the Environment. But there’s virtually no hard evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to confirm or deny the negative health impacts on communities near coal mines or coal-fired power stations in Australia." "Health and Social Harms of Coal Mining in Local Communities: Spotlight on the Hunter Region cites excess deaths from lung cancer, chronic heart, respiratory and kidney disease related to living near coal mines. The evidence is mostly from the United States and often features a dose-response effect related to coal quantity or surface area of the mine. Other effects include high blood levels of heavy metals in children, and higher rates of birth defects. " https://theconversation.com/coal-industry-thriving-but-at-what-social-and-health-cost-9266 A dose-response effect? Oh dear another statistical study. ;)

Faarkin funny as, apparently US power stations as different to Australian versions.

"Coal-fired power stations’ failure to install life-saving pollution controls costs Australians around $2.4 billion in health costs annually, warn actuaries, economists and lawyers. 

In a new report released today, a team of volunteer actuaries modelled the economic cost of the health impacts of air pollution from coal-fired power, finding that the health bill last year alone amounted to $2.4 billion on conservative estimates, or more than two-thirds of federal government spending on the COVID healthcare package. "

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GPAP-Lethal-Power-Report-Summary-LP.pdf?_ga=2.174557218.1408356037.1598315407-1949333565.1598315407

https://media2.giphy.com/media/JDbx0yICUNdPW/200w.gif

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2022 at 1:13pm:

" But there’s virtually no hard evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to confirm or deny the negative health impacts on communities near coal mines or coal-fired power stations in Australia." A dose-response effect? Oh dear another statistical study. ;)

[list bull-blackball]

Need peer reviewed papers to confirm coal affects health.

Peer reviewed papers on Climate Change are bullshite!


You Can't Make This Shite Up!

https://media3.giphy.com/media/hvq8ONQhQ1XLq/giphy.gif

So let's look at that

Greenpeace say 785 died from burning coal.

In Australia Coal - Black and Brown on electricity alone generated about 243,000 GWh.

https://www.energy.gov.au/publications/australian-energy-statistics-table-o-electricity-generation-fuel-type-2019-20-and-2020

So about 0.33% per GWh. That's YUGE. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And then of course those deaths attributed to coal for the making of renewables? ::) Oh dear.


random wrote on Jun 7^th, 2022 at 5:58pm:

You Can't Make This Shite Up!

Yet you manage. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2022 at 6:00pm:

So let's look at that Greenpeace say 785 died from burning coal. So about 0.33% per GWh. That's YUGE. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Just numbers hey?  So you are ok with people dying from coal burning?

What a kunt you are!

Meanwhile on another planet, renewables don't kill anyone to make power!

random wrote on Jun 7^th, 2022 at 6:10pm:

Just numbers hey?  So you are ok with people dying from coal burning?

People die. Even from car accidents and there is no call to ban them. And at a greater rate than 33 per year.


random wrote on Jun 7^th, 2022 at 6:10pm:

Meanwhile on another planet, renewables don't kill anyone to make power!

Not even in those non-existent Chinese slave labour camps? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But how did Our World In Data find deaths from renewables if there were NONE. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. ::)

Even though there is much less energy produced by renewables? ::)