Re: Radioactivity from burning coal

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Dale Boyce writes,

> The ash is put in a landfill somewhere, even if it is not released
> to the air.  

While looking at U and Th in comparison is significant, assuming secular
equilibrium, an equal inventory of Rn is in the coal and, between crushing/
pulverizing and burning, most is released to the atmosphere, not retained in 
the bottom ash or flyash/precipitator scrubber. As Ron Kathren points out,
the Rn and decay products have relatively short half-lives, so 4 alphas and
2 betas is deposited in the lung, or leaves Pb-210 on the soil surface.
Since Pb-210-Po-210 is a most significant contributor to internal tissue and 
bone dose, increases in this 20+ year half-life material in a free state
from thousands of tons of coal/day would likely have a significant
additional contribution to naturally-occuring doses. 

>Still I agree that it is not a hazard, but what is
> perplexing is that while it is okay to dump hundreds of Curies of
> Uranium and Thorium 

and their daughters, including Ra,

>...in a landfill the relatively innocuous radwaste
> generated by hospitals and universities must be held for disposal in
> sites yet to be developed. 

With standards for treatment and disposal that will costs $ Billions to
reduce <1 mr/yr to <<1 mr/yr!?  :-) 

>Compare the number of ALI's contained
> in typical long-lived lab trash and the number of ALI's in the
> coal ash and I think you'll see my point. Bottom line is that
> neither represent a real hazard.

But you wouldn't know it from the investment of the public's $$$ in an
enterprise that will provide no public health benefit, and that doesn't
count the effect of suppressing applications of nuclear medicine and
technology that could benefit the public health and reduce costs. 

> These are my own opinions and may not be attributed to my employer.

Regards, Jim