Coal Plants More Radioactive than Nuclear Power Plants

Coal is a complex mineral containing lead, mercury, Iron 1ppm Uranium and 4ppm Thorium. We burn millions and millions of tons of coal today because environmentalists have successfully blocked nuclear power plants.

Burning 1 million tons of coal releases 1 ton of Uranium and 4 tons of Thorium into the atmosphere. U235 (bomb making material) can be found right out in the open in slag heaps. Coal plants emit 12,000 tons of Uranium and Thorium per year right into the atomsphere.

So...The question is, why do environmentalists block nuclear power when clearly coal is a much more polluting fuel? Even the nuclear accidents around the world haven't released as much radiation into the atmosphere on a year in, year out, 24/7 basis.

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.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

And...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short

Radiation doses from airborne effluents of model coal-fired and nuclear power plants (1000 megawatts electric) are compared. Assuming a 1 percent ash release to the atmosphere (Environmental Protection Agency regulation) and 1 part per million of uranium and 2 parts per million of thorium in the coal

 

For reasons like this I wonder why the opponents of nuclear energy even bother. Nuclear is the cleanest power out there that we have, and it is insanely abundant, and inexpensive as well.

 

do you have any statistics comparing coal plants to Chernobyl??

 

Unsurprising, and well known for a long time. Although I don't know any environmentalist who thinks coal burning is a good idea any more.

 

And? Opinion?

 

Since they are blocking nuclear power development they are, by default, in favor of coal. They really don't care because they are brainwashed eco-zombies.

 

perhaps its natural gas they are in favour of

 

I gave you the stats on coal...do you really think that Chernobyl would even put a dent in that? Come on...Instead of trying to play some silly game, how about using your head? We are all effected. Fuel rods can be handled after 50 or 60 years you know. Chernobyl is a non-issue compared with the hundreds and thousands of tons of radioactive particles emitted by coal burning plants on a constant basis right now.

Also, Japan and France are reprocessing used fuel rods and re-capturing usable fuel to use again. This reduces the amount of waste to maybe a thimble-full for a family of 4 for 20 years.

 

so that would be a no??

 

The idiots don't realize that natural gas reservoir areas have higher concentrations of radioisotopes than the surrounding areas which is how they LOCATE natural gas reservoirs in the first place!! LOL Of course the radiation levels are pretty low but, those same eco-idiots are using that to try to stop fracking.....I mean you couldn't make this stuff up!!

Idiocy, stupidity and outright ignorance is what drives these eco-idiots.

 

that's okay, America can buy gas

 

And we will...... So will you.

 

no I wont

 

The point is that for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. This is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation.

I already gave you a link to this...

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/

But, apart from that, why would anyone insist on burning coal for power when it is a proven fact that it constantly puts radioisotopes into the environment? Why not USE those radioactive elements, encase them in fuel rods where we can actually monitor it? Coal contains the same elements but you are BURNING it which releases it into the atmosphere. The slag will contaminate the earth and the water.

 

Then foot it is.

 

How is that relevant to the discussion at all? Or are you just debating for the sake of debate? Come on now....Let's hear your ideas for delivering an adequate power supply to America. If you even have one.

 

Actually, yes. Laden et. al. (2006) estimates that coal causes 34,000 premature deaths in the US alone every year. Worldwide that would amount to about 200,000 premature deaths every year.

Chernobyl killed 64 people. Fukushima killed zero. Three Mile Island killed zero.

Nuclear power is the safest form of energy ever invented. Safer than wind. Safer than solar. Far, far, safer than coal.

 

why? try googling "lobbyist"

- - - Updated - - -

no I need one plant to one plant. and not estimates, facts

 

Because they are either ignorant or stand to gain by blocking the most efficient form of energy mankind has access to.

 

I guess so

 

No what you need is to go get educated. You offer no support for you POV and demand others to answer all your questions. I have given you the facts. You cannot refute them in any meaningful way.

 

I haven't yet stated my POV. and you haven't answered my question

 

By all means.....

 

im sure someone here understands that

 

Yes, try it on foot.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, try it on foot.