Re: radioactivity from fossil fuel power stations

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 8/3/2001 12:59:28 PM Mountain Daylight Time, blc+@PITT.EDU 

writes:



<< 

    -- 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. 

  >>

Like Dr. Gawarecki, I am confised about something:  First of all, as you 

point out, the radon didn't come from the carbon content of th coal in the 

first place, but from any uranium, thorium, etc. in the ore removed from the 

ground with the mined coal.  When coal is mined, the volume of material in 

the remaining unmined ore body is decreased.  To the extent that the unmined 

material in the ground releases radon, it does so onloy when there is 

additional disturbance, as when more coal is mined.  In undisturbed rock, 

radon is apparentlyt not released.  Thus, unless there is additional mining, 

there is not going to be additional release of radon -- I mean, it's there in 

the first place because it is trapped in  the rock when it is produced by 

actinide decay.

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

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.