Re: "POLLUTION FREE"

["GOLDIN, ERIC" <goldinem@songs.sce.com>]

     Paul Vitalis covers a lot of ground on big picture risks for 
     electricity generation in his note below.  I did gather some 
     specifics on "pollution" and provide those for a quantitiative 
     comparison:
     
     Characterize wastes from steam electricity generation:
     
     Fossil fuel power creates air pollution that is:
          large volume
          direct input to the environment
          not contained, no controls
          not persistent (is it diluted so much we don't care          
               anymore?)
     
     Nuclear power creates radioactive waste (low level and spent 
     fuel)
          small volume
          no direct input to the environment
          can be controlled
          very persistent (at least spent fuel)
     
     For comparison purposes, the typical 1000 MWe thermal power plant 
     generates annually (ballpark figures):
     
     COAL:          30,000 tons/yr  SO2
                    24,000 tons/yr  NOx
                     2,000 tons/yr  Particulate
                 9,400,000 tons/yr  CO2  
     
     GAS/OIL            44 tons/yr  SO2
                     3,400 tons/yr  NOx
                     1,500 tons/yr  Particulate
                 5,400,000 tons/yr  CO2
     
     NUCLEAR             0 tons/yr  SO2, NOx, Particulate, CO2
                       ~50 tons/yr  LLRW
                        48 tons/yr  Spent Fuel
     
     This listserver has plenty of folks with significantly greater 
     expertise than I on the hazards associated with the above listed 
     chemical air pollutants.  The radwaste technical (not political) 
     issues are probably of little importance compared to the 
     long-term and not well-understood consequences of the air 
     pollution from fossil fuels; at least IMHO.  There have been 
     entire books written on the overall risks of electricity 
     generation by all forms (fossil, nuclear, wind, hydro...)  
     Nuclear generally is the safest when all risks are considered.
     
     The opinions expressed may not be those of my employer. 
     Eric Goldin
     Southern California Edison
     goldinem@songs.sce.com
     
     
     Well, how about
     
     No carbon dioxide, no NOx, no unburned hydrocarbons, no soot, flyash, 
     acid rain, no smoke, no smog, no noise, negligible gaseous radioactive 
     releases, all solid radwaste is buried and secured from human contact 
     for 300 years.  Our liquid effluents have not been found to 
     concentrate significantly in the aquatic life in the rivers, lakes or 
     oceans.  Oh yes, what about that spent fuel?  While it is a problem, 
     it cannot be considered pollution.  If the public ever gets over its 
     unfounded fear of radiation (or something equally dramatic happens) 
     the spent fuel can be safely stored underground virtually 
     forever--still, no pollution.
     
     Let's turn some attention to the beginning of the fuel cycle.  Look at 
     the health hazards and loss of life associated with coal mining.  
     Uranium is mined too, you say?  That's true of course, but compare the 
     volumes of material needed to generate power with the two fuels.  With 
     more volume (thousands of times more) comes more workers working more 
     hours accumulating more health detriment and endangerment to life and 
     limb each day. Of 4000 U.S. miners studied, there were 159 fatal lung 
     cancers up to 1974 versus only 25 expected in populations not exposed 
     to radon daughters found in mines.  With high fuel voume comes high 
     volumes of waste. At a nuclear plant, 40 years worth of spent fuel can 
     fit into a pool smaller (but deeper) than one at the local YMCA.  That 
     same pool would be filled to overflowing in just minutes or hours with 
     the ash coming out of a coal plant.  You want to talk about gaseous 
     and solid radwaste?  What radioactive materials do you suppose are 
     bound up in all that coal?  How about all the daughters of the natural 
     decay chains--alpha emitters.  
     
     Look at NCRP report 94, 1987 for a breakdown of doses to various 
     tissues of the body from exposure to natural nuclides.  This same 
     information is in "The Health Physics and Radiological Health 
     Handbook", Bernard Schleien, 1992 on page 5.  It refers to natural 
     nuclides inhaled and contained in the body.  Uranium and Thorium and 
     their daughters in the body?  How do those get there?  Some get there 
     by erosion and water transport to the food chain but I'd be willing to 
     bet that they mainly get there by inhaling the effluents from coal 
     plants.
     
     To go on,(and on) there are other carcinogens released by burning coal 
     which cause cancer deaths.  Namely, Cd, Ni, Cr, As, Be.  The risks of 
     dying from cancer induced by carcinogenic agents released as a 
     consequence of burning coal are far higher (thousands of times higher) 
     than those possible from running nuclear power plants AND burying all 
     the high level wastes.  If you would like to read more on the topic, 
     read chapter 15 of "THE RISK ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL and HUMAN 
     HEALTH HAZARDS" edited by Dr. Dennis J. Paustenbach, Copyright 1989 by 
     John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
     
     There is a bounty of relative risk information contained comparing the 
     deaths per GWe-yr of nuclear, coal and photovoltaic power generation.  
     If you cannot find a copy, I can send some out by fax or snail mail on 
     request.  If you would like copies mailed to you, I would appreciate 
     an SASE.
     
     Paul Vitalis
     byrpv@ccmail.ceco.com
     
     Address 
     
     Attn: Paul Vitalis
     Byron Station
     Rad Protection
     4450 N. German Church Rd.
     Byron, Il 61101
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Blue Ice & [I-131]
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at INTERNET 
Date:    11/29/95 11:05 AM
     
     
Would you expand upon the concept of "pollution free", please?