...
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/

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-p
articles/

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



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

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


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.

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


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

– 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/

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


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

."

I won again!

Under normal operation neither is a threat at all.

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

Quote:


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.

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


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

.

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



But not radiation poisoning.

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


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

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-elec...

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

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:



Yet you manage.

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


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:



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

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?