• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

    Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

    Well how about that!
    Originally posted by Stevie Wonder Boy
    I can't see any way to do it can you please advise?

    I want my account deleted and all of my information removed, I want to invoke my right to be forgotten.

    #2
    Originally posted by SimonMac View Post
    Think I'd rather stick my hand in some ash rather than a Magnox Fuel Rod...

    stek, ex-BNFL!!

    Comment


      #3
      There's relatively little nuclear waste compared to coal waste. Coal waste is mildly radioactive, but in terms of radioactivity per amount of energy produced, coal is way ahead of nuclear. The total amount of radioactivity released into the environment by coal power stations is far greater than that from nuclear power stations.

      Here's a book that explains this, and other issues, in nice clear terms Radiation: What It Is, What You Need to Know: Amazon.co.uk: Robert Peter Gale, Eric Lax: Books

      Coal has killed more people per Gigawatt than Nuclear since the first nuclear reactor went online. Hydroelectric is more lethal than nuclear.
      Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

      Comment


        #4
        Take a look at this article on wildlife around Chernobyl with very few signs of abnormality:

        Life after Chernobyl: Sergei Gaschak

        Probably good for you actually, I am off to lick my smoke detector.
        bloggoth

        If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
        John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

        Comment


          #5
          1. It's not normal service that scares people about nuclear, it's the risk of abnormal situations. Coal-fired power stations don't melt down and make whole counties uninhabitable.

          2. Radioactivity per kWh may be less, and that's interesting or at least amusing, but radioactivity per kg of waste is rather more intense. Otherwise nobody would need to look for places to bury it safely.


          Note: I do know that coal sucks. And I do think that nuclear is probably a necessary option, but I do think that we should not stop being scared of it.
          Job motivation: how the powerful steal from the stupid.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
            There's relatively little nuclear waste compared to coal waste. Coal waste is mildly radioactive, but in terms of radioactivity per amount of energy produced, coal is way ahead of nuclear. The total amount of radioactivity released into the environment by coal power stations is far greater than that from nuclear power stations.

            Here's a book that explains this, and other issues, in nice clear terms Radiation: What It Is, What You Need to Know: Amazon.co.uk: Robert Peter Gale, Eric Lax: Books

            Coal has killed more people per Gigawatt than Nuclear since the first nuclear reactor went online. Hydroelectric is more lethal than nuclear.
            NAT ffs, you can't make a statement like that and not elaborate

            Water more deadly than nukeystuff, how???
            Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
              Coal has killed more people per Gigawatt than Nuclear since the first nuclear reactor went online. Hydroelectric is more lethal than nuclear.
              Sorry, that post is so misleading, sensationalised and so out of context.

              Sort of puff you read in mags and the MSM. Even look at some of the comments in SciAm let alone other O&G and engineering sources.
              If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by suityou01 View Post
                NAT ffs, you can't make a statement like that and not elaborate

                Water more deadly than nukeystuff, how???
                It can be used to make Dihydrogen Monoxide.
                merely at clientco for the entertainment

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by hyperD View Post
                  Sorry, that post is so misleading, sensationalised and so out of context.

                  Sort of puff you read in mags and the MSM. Even look at some of the comments in SciAm let alone other O&G and engineering sources.
                  It's true. People drown in resevoirs and rivers al the time. We should ban water.
                  While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by suityou01 View Post
                    NAT ffs, you can't make a statement like that and not elaborate ...
                    But it does produce some lovely knee-jerk reactions founded in irrationality.

                    There's a huge amount of ignorance and fear surrounding nuclear power. Sometimes a sensationalised headline is needed to grab sheeple's attention.

                    Originally posted by Ignis Fatuus View Post
                    1. It's not normal service that scares people about nuclear, it's the risk of abnormal situations. Coal-fired power stations don't melt down and make whole counties uninhabitable...
                    Nor do properly built and run nuclear power stations. Chernobyl is more an indictment of the soviet system than it is of nuclear power.

                    There are more deaths attributable to hydroelectric power than nuclear in the past 60 years. Mainly due to catastrophic dam failures that happened in China after a devastating earthquake. Hundreds of thousands died.

                    Hydroelectric power also is responsible for vast quantities of greenhouse gases - from the rotting vegetation when valleys are flooded to make the dams.

                    Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power - tech - 23 March 2011 - New Scientist



                    Of course, nuclear waste gradually gets safer as time goes on. Non-radioactive toxic waste - which needs as much careful handling and is produced in far higher quantities, never gets safer.

                    (Hmm, perhaps we should mix the two types of waste. Then non-radioactive could become radioactive, then decay into something safer).
                    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X