On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...


One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.


What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred
years
because it is so dangerous for the environment.


From December 13, 2007 Scientific American article, "Coal Ash Is More
Radioactive than Nuclear Waste",

... the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than
that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash
emitted by a power plant€”a by-product from burning coal for
electricity€”carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more
radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
...
The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are
slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants€”they're just somewhat
higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion
for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million
to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
...
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a
power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via
water or dry cask storage.

The whole article can be read at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.

It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install a
low volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to flush
it twice using more water than the old ones.

I wonder if we could increase the volume of facts to flush the nonsense
about the nuclear power plants down the drain with the other stuff.