Re: radioactivity from fossil fuel power stations

[BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Susan Gawarecki wrote:



> Dr. Cohen, 

> 

> I understand your argument better now, thanks for sending a more

> complete explanation.  However the coal itself does contain uranium and

> thorium, and so would be a source of radon while in situ.  I don't

> believe that the rocks commonly found in association with coal

> (sandstones, silts, and shales) have significantly different

> concentrations of uranium, thus the change in exposure would be

> negligible once these are exposed.  Just as the carbon in the coal

> produces no radon, neither does the silica in the sandstone.



	--Shales have 3.7 ppm uranium, whereas coal averages 1.0 ppm. I

assume that the coal is replaced by average rock which contains 2.7 ppm.

But the uranium in the coal is released into the ground when the

coal is burned so its effects are still present whether or not the coal is

burned. The additional dose from burning coal comes from the uranium in

the average rock that displaces the carbon -- this carbon is made to

disappear but the silica is not made to disappear.

	If I should not be using average rock but rather assume that the

coal and the replacement rock have the same uranium content, the result of

my calculation would be 11 rather than 30 deaths per GWe-year from coal

burning.



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

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.