Re: radioactivity from fossil fuel power stations

[Dave Derenzo <dave@UIC.EDU>]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the coal was replaced by U, Th or Ra, 

it would just be shifting from one place to the other.  However, It would 

be in a different location and might have different chemical and physical 

properties rendering it more "releasable."



Dave Derenzo, RSO

University of Illinois at Chicago



At 04:05 PM 8/3/01, you wrote:

>Technically, once the coal is gone and burned, nothing "replaces" it in

>the ground.  For strip mines, the landscape is permanently altered

>because material is missing.  For subsurface mines, voids remain that

>may fill with water or that may collapse causing subsidence at the

>surface.

>

>I doubt that an area mined for coal would then become a higher radon

>source.  In fact, that coal itself contains uranium and thorium means

>that coal is at least a minor radon source.  Most important rock types

>for radon are granites, phosphates, and various sedimentary rocks (such

>as shales, sandstones, and limestones) that have become somewhat

>enriched in radionuclides via exposure to uranium-bearing groundwater

>(generally due to a significant organic content which seems to

>preferentially capture uranium).

>

>Only if the other rock types associated with coal have relatively high

>uranium contents, and these are fractured or exposed to the extent that

>trapped radon is released, might your argument hold much weight.  These

>negative effects are probably negligable compared to the acidification

>of groundwater and surface water caused by the exposure of the iron

>sulfides commonly associated with coal.

>

>Regards,

>Susan

>

>Bernard L Cohen wrote:

> >

> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Susan Gawarecki wrote:

> >

> > > Dr. Cohen,

> > >

> > > I'm a geologist, but I don't understand what you mean by this statement:

> > >

> > > > When coal is mined out of the ground and

> > > > made to "disappear" as carbon dioxide, its carbon is replaced in the

> > > > ground by other rock which contains U, Th, Ra.....

> >

> >         -- My statement here is a simplification of a much more

> > complicated analysis, given in the paper cited, but I will try.

> >         When the carbon in the coal is burned, it disappears from the

> > ground. The volume of the ground that it occupied is then taken by other

> > rock or soil which contains uranium, and therefore eventually serves as a

> > source of radon. The carbon in the coal cannot serve as a source of radon.

> > The uranium impurity in the coal is returned to the ground eventually.

> >         In other words, the carbon in the coal takes up a volume in the

> > ground which produces no radon, while the rock that takes up that volume

> > when the coal is removed does produce radon.

>

>--

>.....................................................

>Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director

>Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee

>                        -----

>A schedule of meetings on DOE issues is posted on our Web site

>http://www.local-oversight.org/meetings.html - E-mail loc@icx.net

>.....................................................

>************************************************************************

>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.