Coal Plants Emit More Radiation Than Nuclear Plants Do - Nuclear Propaganda and Lie Exposed And Debunked

http://youtu.be/x9bqzX7pBlA
City Pollution Growth - Megacity Pollution Plumes

EXAMPLE OF THE LIE THAT COAL EMITS MORE RADIATION THAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

"Coal plants emit more radioactivity than Nuclear power plants.

Via sourceofrealnews Blog

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. 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 end of page 2] (Link)

This of course ignores a whole bunch of issues. It ignores the fact that during the mining of uranium, radiation is released into the environment as well. Another article that makes the same claim is a little fairer when it gives us the number of the whole process:

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year; the equivalent dose for coal use, from mining to power plant operation to waste disposal, is not listed in this report and is probably unknown.(link)

There a bit of a difference between 136 rem per year and 4.8 rem per year. But even that pales in comparison to the “Editor’s note” at the end of page 2.

In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from “In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste” to “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.” Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

This is where the cat comes out of the bag. They’re comparing coal ash released from a power plant with nuclear waste that is properly being shielded. This is of course comparing apples and oranges. First of all nuclear waste isn’t properly shielded. Nuclear waste gets into the environment all the time.

For example, The Herald reported recently:

A nuclear power station has been sent a final warning letter after radioactive waste leaked into the sea.

Around 2600 litres of low-level waste was discharged from Hunterston B into the Firth of Clyde because of a problem with a valve. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) said the leak did not cause an environmental issue, but it issued the Ayrshire power station with a final warning letter because procedures were not followed.(Link)

DECEPTIVE CLAIM IS BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS

In other words, the claim that nuclear waste is less radioactive than coal waste assumes that the waste is properly stored behind water which absorbs the radiation, whereas in reality, the nuclear waste often is released into our environment, where it will enter the food chain, our atmosphere, and eventually settle into our bodies. This means that the article is dealing with a hypothetical situation that will never occur in reality. The author is very much aware of this, I am convinced.

However, 95% of people will simply see the headline and perhaps read the first few paragraphs of his article before moving on and will never question it. They will just remember “coal plants are 100 times more radioactive than nuclear power plants”. They won’t question the facts and assumptions made to arrive at this conclusion and make up their minds on the basis of a cheap one-liner.

SPENT FUEL NUCLEAR WASTE IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN COAL WASTE PRODUCTS

Second, radioactive nuclear waste is inherently more dangerous than the natural isotopes we get from coal. I have brought this argument up earlier, and it is true for this case as well. For example, we have about three times the plutonium waste than was earlier estimated in the United States alone. (Link)Plutonium is a second event emitter.

The waste created by nuclear power plants is chemically toxic as well. The artificial isotopes created by nuclear power plants are not comparable to the isotopes in coal emissions. All of this increases the complexity of comparing different types radioactive material.

COAL PLANTS DON'T BLOW UP OR MELT DOWN, BUT NUCLEAR PLANTS AND ATOMIC BOMBS DO

Then there is the fact that when nuclear power plants blow up, they release far more nuclear waste than coal plants have in all of recorded history. In fact, the Chernobyl accident is estimated to have released 25–50 million curies (1–2 exabecquerels) (IAEA estimations), whereas the collective radioactivity resulting from all coal burning worldwide between 1937 and 2040 is estimated to be 2,700,000 curies or 0.101 EBq).

In other words the Chernobyl accident alone released ten times as much radiation as all coal burning worldwide between 1937 and 2040 did. The disaster currently unfolding in Japan shows us that meltdowns are still possible. However, it must again be mentioned that the artificial isotopes released in the Chernobyl disaster are hard to compare to the natural radioactive isotopes in our environment, because some of them are Second event emitters.

COAL CAUSES DEATHS, BUT FISSION PROCESS CAUSES EVEN MORE, BOTH MUST BE ABOLISHED

Then, there has to be a final point made. Nobody ever said that coal plants are safe either. The argument made here is comparable to the argument that “it is safe to smoke cigarettes, because injecting heroin is 100 times as lethal as smoking a cigarette”. Even coal plants cause deaths and birth defects. China’s main coal producing province has the highest birth defect rate in the entire country for example.(Link) Dirty coal ought to be rejected in the same manner that nuclear power should be.

CHERNOBYL RELEASED 10 TIMES MORE RADIATION THAN ALL COAL PLANTS ON THE PLANET HISTORICALLY

However, the overwhelming evidence points towards coal plants still being nowhere near the danger that is posed by nuclear power plants, because all coal plants on the planet still released less than 10 times the amount of radiation released during the Chernobyl disaster.

Source: http://sourceofrealnews.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/nuclear-propagandists-lies-exposed-and-debunked-by-david-rothscum-reports

USGS STUDIES SHOW COAL PLANT EMISSIONS CAUSE MINOR INCREASE IN RADIATION EXPOSURE FOR RESIDENTS WITHIN 1 KM

The radiation hazard from airborne emissions of coal-fired power plants was evaluated in a series of studies conducted from 1975–1985. These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment. For the average citizen, the radiation dose from coal burning is considerably less. Components of the radiation environment that impact the U.S. population are illustrated in figure 4. Natural sources account for the majority (82 percent) of radiation. Man-made sources of radiation are dominated by medical X-rays (11 percent). On this plot, the average population dose attributed to coal burning is included under the consumer products category and is much less than 1 percent of the total dose. 

Fly ash is commonly used as an additive to concrete building products, but the radioactivity of typical fly ash is not significantly different from that of more conventional concrete additives or other build-ing materials such as granite or red brick. One extreme calculation that assumed high proportions of fly-ash-rich concrete in a residence suggested a dose enhancement, compared to normal concrete, of 3 percent of the natural environmental radiation. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

NUCLEAR PLANTS CAUSE HUGE INCREASES IN DISEASES, CANCERS, AND DEATHS

By comparison, nuclear plants cause HUGE increases in rates of cancers and diseases for people living around them. 

Nuclear Power Plant Studies Show Child Leukemia, Breast, Thyroid Cancer Rates Increase RADICALLY Closer To Plants; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/child-leukemia-breast-thyroid-cancer.html

CARBON FUEL COMPANIES RECEIVE 88 BILLION PER YEAR IN CORPORATE WELFARE ENTITLEMENTS

The Guardian exposes the fact that despite the world's nations agreeing that carbon emissions must be cut by a huge amount, carbon fuel companies are still receiving 88 Billion per year in subsidies each year. The nuclear industry also receives a huge subsidy, despite it also being global warming. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry only receives about 10% of what the nuclear industry receives alone, all by itself. Add in the carbon fuel industry subsidies and the share that renewables receives shrinks even more drastically. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/11/rich-countries-subsidising-oil-gas-and-coal-companies-by-88bn-a-year?CMP=EMCENVEML1631

Nuclear Power; EXPENSIVE, Dirty, Dangerous And Toxic; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/nuclear-power-expensive-dirty-dangerous.html

Nuclear Plants Are Six Times More Expensive To Operate Than ANY Other Type Of Power Plants; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/09/nuclear-plants-are-six-times-more.html

NUCLEAR IS MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN SOLAR OR OTHER RENEWABLES

Why does this dirty, polluting, lying and deceptive industry deserve taxpayer corporate welfare payments just to keep them in business?

12 reasons why all nuclear power plants must be shut down; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/12-reasons-why-all-nuclear-power-plants.html

If the nuclear industry is allowed to continue, it will result in the suicidal extinction of all life on the planet, via the Carrington Event.

Super Solar Storm To Hit Earth; 'Carrington Effect'; 400 Nuke Plants Will Melt Down/Explode; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/super-solar-storm-predicted-to-hit-2013.html

What result do people expect, when almost all of the money is thrown at the problem, instead of the solution? What do people expect, when the biggest problems are ignored or denied, while the solutions are attacked, suppressed and ignored by the mass media? 

Solar Energy Usage And Costs Compared To Nuclear And Coal Costs/Usage; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-solar-energy-energy-usage-and-costs.html

SUMMARY

It is time to create a carbon, chemical and nuclear free future. Have you heard of a solar, wind, water or geothermal plant blowing up and then melting down? Have you heard of any of these needing to have nuclear waste stored for 1 million years? Have you heard of any of these quadrupling in cost, without even the cost of decommissioning? No?  Humanity has been led by wolves dressed in sheep's clothing, and it is about time to undress the wolves, show them the door and let the truth out. 

Isn't it about time to switch the subsidies from the carbon and nuclear industries to the 100% carbon free renewable energy segment?

Environment, Holistic Living, Health, Self-Healing, Zero Point And Renewable Energy
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/green-energy-green-living.html
If humanity wants to live through the carbon and fission age, it must say goodbye to it all and let it all go, in order to have any chance at a sustainable future. 

End

Coal Plants Emit More Radiation Than Nuclear Plants Do - Nuclear Propaganda and Lie Exposed And Debunked
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/11/coal-plants-emit-more-radiation-than.html

More articles at;

Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations, CIA, Journalism And The 1%, Whistleblowers, Voting, Elections And Solutions
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/corporations-art-and-science-of.html