Switch off at the socket?

"Albert Ross" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


natural radon is the greatest source of radioactive related deaths in
the country, by IIRC a factor of several thousand over the nuclear
industry.

Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal

I think that the big difference is what they capable of emitting, not what
the actually emit.

You can pile coal waste up in a heap and build a local park on it. You
can't do that with nuclear waste.


tim

On 23 Sep, 12:57, "tim...." wrote:
"Albert Ross" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

natural radon is the greatest source of radioactive related deaths in
the country, by IIRC a factor of several thousand over the nuclear
industry.

Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal

I think that the big difference is what they capable of emitting, not what
the actually emit.

You can pile coal waste up in a heap and build a local park on it. *You
can't do that with nuclear waste.

tim

One more post for 1000!

In article , tim.... wrote:

You can pile coal waste up in a heap and build a local park on it.

Though you do have to be a bit careful about that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash..._contamination

Albert Ross wrote:

Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal

Indeed, but it is large volumes of extremely low level radiation,
rather than tiny volumes of high level radiation. That's the problem;
the latter needs special handling and storage.

SteveT

tim.... wrote:
"Albert Ross" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


natural radon is the greatest source of radioactive related deaths in
the country, by IIRC a factor of several thousand over the nuclear
industry.
Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal

I think that the big difference is what they capable of emitting, not what
the actually emit.

You can pile coal waste up in a heap and build a local park on it. You
can't do that with nuclear waste.


You could, easily.

And it would be no worse than the ash.

But legally ash isn't classed as radioactive waste (though it is) and
anything out of a nuclear power station is (though most of it is barely
radioactive at all)


Only high level waste needs special treatment, and thats reporocessed to
make more fuel.



tim

Steve Thackery wrote:
Albert Ross wrote:

Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal

Indeed, but it is large volumes of extremely low level radiation, rather
than tiny volumes of high level radiation. That's the problem; the
latter needs special handling and storage.


Mix it with enough random rubbish, and its high volume low level :-)

Apart from fuel rids and the like, there is not much else out of a
reactor that is radioactive.

Until to take it to bits. Which is why they are preferably just filled
up with concrete and left for a couple of hundred years.



SteveT

Albert Ross wrote:
Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal

"Steve Thackery" wrote: Indeed, but it is large
volumes of extremely low level radiation, rather than tiny volumes of high
level radiation. That's the problem; the latter needs special handling and
storage.


From my backyard I can see four of the eight reactor buildings that at one
time made up the worlds largest nuclear power plant. I have yet to hear of
any spikes in the number of incidences of cancers in the local population
and, I have lived here pretty much since the plant went into operation some
30 years ago. Admittedly there are only four of the reactors still in
operation these days.
There is a monitoring agency that keeps an eye on the local health
situation.
Truebrit.

On 23/09/2010 18:39, Steve Thackery wrote:
Albert Ross wrote:

Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal

Indeed, but it is large volumes of extremely low level radiation, rather
than tiny volumes of high level radiation. That's the problem; the
latter needs special handling and storage.

SteveT



That's easily dealt with. Let's take the fission waste, grind it up
small, and scatter it over the Sahara Desert. We can then collect up
the sand, which will be no more radioactive than the fly ash.

Or we could stick it in a little hole out of the way somewhere.

Andy

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:18:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve Thackery wrote:
Albert Ross wrote:

Bizarrely enough, or so I believe, coal fired power stations actually
emit more "radiation" than nuclear due to the radioactive content of
the coal

Indeed, but it is large volumes of extremely low level radiation, rather
than tiny volumes of high level radiation. That's the problem; the
latter needs special handling and storage.


Mix it with enough random rubbish, and its high volume low level :-)

Apart from fuel rids and the like, there is not much else out of a
reactor that is radioactive.

Until to take it to bits. Which is why they are preferably just filled
up with concrete and left for a couple of hundred years.

Depends whether you count the by-products of reprocessing, which
adds up to quite a bit. Plus the low-level radioactive waste such
as prtective clothing & irradiated equipment that gets zapped
during maintenance.

--
http://www.thisreallyismyhost.99k.or...1413308229.php