Re[2]: "POLLUTION FREE"

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

I'm joining this thread late, so perhaps this has already been brought up, 
but are there not detectable releases of radioactivity during the burning of 
fossil fuels?  Also, there is a great deal more variability in the quality 
of fossil fuels in use - some areas of the world burn some pretty low grade 
coal - as well as a lot less in the way of controls and regulation.
     
Alan Enns
aenns@unixg.ubc.ca
     
     Alan,  All of what you say above is true.  There have been papers 
     published in Health Physics over the years which looked at the 
     radiological risks of burning coal (and comparing those risks to 
     nuclear power).  The most comprehensive evaluation I've seen is a 
     book called Energy Risk Assessment, by Herman Inhaber, 1982 
     (Gordon and Breach).  The conclusion, when all factors (fuel 
     production, construction, transportation, electricity generation, 
     waste management, etc.) are considered for all energy sources, is 
     that natural gas and nuclear are the two safest sources of 
     electricity.  Nuclear takes a bit of a hit because the author 
     used maximum risk data for various activities, while using 
     averages for all other sources.  Catastrophic accidents were 
     included, as well as a rather short lifetime for the plants (30 
     years).  Taking more modern assumptions about plant life 
     expectency, reduces the risk considerably.  Much of the risk in 
     nuclear was radiological exposure to fuel 'gathering/handling,' 
     so that if radiation risks for low levels of occupational 
     exposure are really lower than predicted by the linear model, 
     nuclear's risk will be the lowest by far.  Anyway, the book is 
     well worth a review if you're into comparative risk assessment 
     for energy production.
     
     Eric Goldin
     Southern California Edison
     goldinem@songs.sce.com