★
DAON-PHOBLACHT
CHORCAÍ
Home
baile
Forums
fóraim
Tickets
ceol
Event Guide
Imeachtaí
Street Art
ealaíon sráide
Articles
ailt
Cork Slang
béarlagair
Contact
teagmháil
Shop
siopa
Articles
Cork Slang
Forums
Events
Shop
Gwan
Order search results by
Date of last reply
Date thread created
Order search results by
Current events
Archive
Home
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Current & Local Affairs
Should Ireland go nuclear?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="How bad boy" data-source="post: 7103511" data-attributes="member: 3028"><p>There's a reason why I'm dismissive.</p><p></p><p>When you look at the physics of those issues, and compare them to real world risks, they simply are not as dangerous as people usually believe. There has been an enormous amount of scare mongering around nuclear, especially when compared to alternatives.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Are there massive arguments around what to do with Coal ash? No, because while it is significantly more dangerous, it has been around a lot longer and simply has been brushed under the carpet:</p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/[/URL]</p><p></p><p>"At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.</p><p></p><p>Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.</p><p></p><p>In a 1978 paper for <em>Science,</em> J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.</p><p></p><p>The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Here's Moneypoint, those exposed black hills behind it are made from radioactive coal ash:</p><p><a href="https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/04/Moneypoint-power-station.jpg?quality=82&strip=all" target="_blank">https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/04/Moneypoint-power-station.jpg?quality=82&strip=all</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What's the long term plan for it?</p><p></p><p>As for nuclear meltdown risk scenarios, what do you think would prompt them in Ireland? Tsunamis? War?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="How bad boy, post: 7103511, member: 3028"] There's a reason why I'm dismissive. When you look at the physics of those issues, and compare them to real world risks, they simply are not as dangerous as people usually believe. There has been an enormous amount of scare mongering around nuclear, especially when compared to alternatives. Are there massive arguments around what to do with Coal ash? No, because while it is significantly more dangerous, it has been around a lot longer and simply has been brushed under the carpet: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/[/URL] "At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels. Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. In a 1978 paper for [I]Science,[/I] J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants." Here's Moneypoint, those exposed black hills behind it are made from radioactive coal ash: [URL]https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/04/Moneypoint-power-station.jpg?quality=82&strip=all[/URL] What's the long term plan for it? As for nuclear meltdown risk scenarios, what do you think would prompt them in Ireland? Tsunamis? War? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Current & Local Affairs
Should Ireland go nuclear?
Top