Coal Ash Is [100 times] More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

Scientific American ^ | December 13, 2007 | Mara Hvistendahl

[grundle]

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.

[grundle]

Irrational opposition to nuclear power by people who call themselves "environmentalists" is the reason that coal is the biggest source of electricity in the U.S.

[robert14]

Do not trust anything Scientific American says. Any orginization that supports manmade global warming is not scientific and cannot be believed.

[Olog-hai]

I’m for both coal and nuke. The fly ash thing didn’t stop the USA from growing into a superpower by slaughtering everyone en masse.

[Neidermeyer]

I’m not reading the article but this seems to be comparing radiation emissions from physical gases and particulates from coal to the radiation emitted by stored (spent) fuel for the same amount of electric production, otherwise the comparison would be “infinite” as no radiation escapes a nuclear plant in normal operation... neither is dangerous.

[catnipman]

What a bogus article. SA is publishing nothing but pure political propaganda.

The premise of the article is:

“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”

This is complete bullshit since nuclear power plants emit essentially ZERO radiation into the surrounding environment, so 100 times essentially ZERO is essentially zero.

[rockinqsranch]

More Leftist bullshit.

[A. Morgan]

Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

[crazyhorse691]

I call BS...just more global warming alarmism. I think the authors have spent too much time smelling glue.

[FatherofFive]

UnScientific Anti-American

Fixed it.

[RetiredTexasVet]

Need to change the name of the periodical to Pseudo- or Faux- Scientific American to warn readers up front.

[TexasGator]

Facts, please

[sparklite2]

The odds of your winning the Powerball lottery are also essentially zero, and yet otherwise rational people spend money on it. Go figure.

Also essentially zero is still not zero, so something one hundred times not zero is still something.

[x_plus_one]

Radioactive Tritium is at every nuclear plant site, down deep, in the ground water, and it is spreading like kudzu. You don't want to be anywhere near it. You don't want your family near it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43475479/ns/us_news-environment/t/radioactive-tritium-leaks-found-us-nuke-sites/

St Louis is the poster child of what can go wrong with safely disposed atomic waste years after its 'safe' disposal. The Manhattan Project waste is there and is next to an underground burning landfill. Once released into the atmosphere, there will be a dead zone in the US bigger than that of Chernobyl.

[Revel]

These are the same people that will tell you that bathing in pools at Fukushima is good for you.

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

One puts out nothing, the other, 100x nothing

which equals....global warming?

[central_va]

The fly ash thing didn't stop the USA from growing into a superpower by slaughtering everyone en masse.

Wait, what?

[huldah1776]

Has the study been replicated since 2007? Not that I am against either method, just wondering.

[NewHampshireDuo]

Scientific American lost credibility beginning around 1990.
To bad, it was a great magazine and was the first magazine I ever subscribed to. Had a couple of contributions in it also in its dying days.

[hadaclueonce]

fly ash makes a great road base the clay soil here in Texas.

I wish I had about 10 loads of the stuff.

[sheik yerbouty]

“0buttbongo Science”