Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste (2007)

scientificamerican.com

36 points·DrZootron··7 comments

I saw that and thought "no way". And that is the case because that headline is misleading.

There is a rather large editors note defending their framing of this key piece of information:

> 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.

I was suspect of the headline having lived ~8 miles from a coal burning plant. Most people in the community that cared to know there was radiation emitted in the pollution knew that. Our community also had issues with NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) from local natural gas fields so thoughts or concerns about radiation were not outliers.

Not defending coal but, yea, not a fan of this articles framing.

Agreed, divers can repair running reactors right next to them without incurring radiation poisoning because water is just such an effective shield.

It’s not surprising the shielded radiation is so low.

I came here to point out that this is one hell of a caveat. How does radioactive waste compare to water or dry cask shielded fly ash?

Not sure if the article was in defense of nuclear power or just intented to show that coal emissions should be filtered more effectively.

The tortoise is faster than the hare—when the tortoise is in a Ferrari.

If the tortoise is in a Ferrari, that's important information if you're placing a bet on who will finish first.

Dishonest people refuse to be transparent or consistent about context, because all truth values depend on context. But it's not the statement that is true or false.

Coal ash isn't stored that way, but if it were, we'd need to find another mountain range to stuff it in.

Indeed. A banana releases more radiation than shielded nuclear waste.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com