Reply #121: The source link you provided proves you are wrong

[txlibdem]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium. For a large number of coal samples, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Using these values along with reported consumption and projected consumption of coal by utilities provides a means of calculating the amounts of potentially recoverable breedable and fissionable elements (see sidebar). The concentration of fissionable uranium-235 (the current fuel for nuclear power plants) has been established to be 0.71% of uranium content.

...snip...

Because existing coal-fired power plants vary in size and electrical output, to calculate the annual coal consumption of these facilities, assume that the typical plant has an electrical output of 1000 megawatts. Existing coal-fired plants of this capacity annually burn about 4 million tons of coal each year. Further, considering that in 1982 about 616 million short tons (2000 pounds per ton) of coal was burned in the United States (from 833 million short tons mined, or 74%), the number of typical coal-fired plants necessary to consume this quantity of coal is 154.

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

... from your source, and that is only ONE YEAR (1982)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, to summarize, we have 51,700 pounds of U-235 (about 26 tons), 3.640 tons of Uranium, and 8,960 tons of Thorium released into the environment with no controls, no containment and no regulation to speak of (most states have ultra lax coal regulations). What's the problem? Why can't we count the Becquerels and the millisieverts and get a very favorable pro-coal number?

Here's why:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the clay in cat litter does give off radiation in very small quantities. There is naturally occurring radiation all around us; the radiation in cat litter comes from trace amounts of uranium, thorium, and potassium-40. Many other consumer products are also radioactive. Among these are some ceramic tiles (which can contain uranium), glossy magazines (which are sometimes coated with material that's high in uranium and thorium), and Brazil nuts (which have a fair amount of radium).

The quantity of radiation in cat litter—and all of the other consumer products listed above—is small enough that it poses no risk for either humans or their pets. So, why can't screening devices distinguish between common sources of radiation and the material used to make a nuclear bomb? For one, the most common ingredients in bombs, uranium-235 and plutonium-239, don't give off very much radiation at all. To suss out these materials, a detector must be set to a very high sensitivity. If the sensitivity of the screening device is high enough, then naturally occurring radioactive materials can set off a false alarm. (A small percentage of the uranium found in nature, for example, happens to be in the form of the U-235 isotope.)

...from http://www.slate.com/id/2120491/
Note: the longer the half-life, the less radiation is given off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not make the huge emissions from coal any less dangerous. It just means that the accumulation of radioactive matter from each coal plant gets to fly under the radar of detecting equipment. It does NOT mean that the quantities of these cancer causing radioactive elements that go out the coal chimney stack won't lodge in your lungs and give you cancer, it does NOT mean that dumping thousands of tons worth of it in open pits and "ash" ponds is safe or even advisable.

Why does this anti-nuker say that your Chernobyl data is suspect?
"For Chernobyl, actual doses were so poorly recorded or estimated, that all studies since then have been both difficult to design and easy to criticize as inaccurate."
...from http://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2011/04/measuring-low-level-radiation-damage.html

Yet you claim an exact level of radiation given off in a "few bad days at Chernobyl."

This university study shows that only those workers directly involved in the cleanup at the Chernobyl site were exposed to anything above what a normal human would during his or her lifespan.
...ref: http://pulse.pharmacy.arizona.edu/math/lesson_gifs/chernobyl1_gifs/Chernob6.pdf

And UN studies show that your estimates are the highest of any that have been published. Nice cherry picking of data but you've proven nothing.