Comments on: Coal waste dumps: ticking toxic time bombs

By: Months after ash spill, Tennessee town still choking - The Political Asylum - Forums for Intelligent Discussion & Debate

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:58:52 +0000

[...] barium are not naturally radioactive. Where would any radioctivity come from after burning coal? Coal waste dumps: ticking toxic time bombs | CEJournal [...]

By: totssheaphy

totssheaphy — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:42:48 +0000

Nice, no advice.

By: liger

liger — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:56 +0000

hello…

wonderful…

By: elchinas

elchinas — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:07:55 +0000

yo…

usefull…

By: Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:09:49 +0000

Hi Jerry,

Here’s what the headline in Scientific American said: “Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste.” (See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste) That is completely different than saying a coal-fired power plant gives off more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant — and it is objectively incorrect.

Some people who live near the disaster in Tennessee are now unnecessarily worried about being exposed to radioactivity, and many hundreds if not thousands more read the headline and are now spreading a lie. So that headline is deeply irresponsible.

– Tom

By: Jerry

Jerry — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:09:03 +0000

Mr. Yulsman, In your hurry to apologize for your mistaken use of a fact you are again making a mistake. Yes, it is correct that Coal Ash does not give off 100 times the radiation of unspent nuclear fuel, but a coal fired power plant does give off more than 100 times the radiation of a nuclear power plant (both are so low as to be negligible). That is how the report on the radiation comparison reads. Simply because you misstated it in your article does not mean you should completely walk away from it. Instead your own posts should correct the statement rather than simply stating that it is absurd. The editor of Scientific American shows that the original article has been revised and correctly provides the data about radiation release of coal fired plants and nuclear powered plants (I presume that you wrote the correction?). Otherwise I thought your article was well written.

By: Kingston, TN sings “Auld Lang Sludge” (Updated) |

Kingston, TN sings “Auld Lang Sludge” (Updated) | — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 05:20:01 +0000

[...] blog CEJournal has been covering this story pretty thoroughly, and he’s got an excellent post up on the hazards of coal combustion byproducts (CCBs). His other posts are here, here, and here. Tom was also kind enough to let us crosspost his CCB [...]

By: Scholars and Rogues » Kingston, TN sings “Auld Lang Sludge” (Updated)

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:27:34 +0000

By: Coal waste dumps: ticking toxic time bombs |

Coal waste dumps: ticking toxic time bombs | — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:00:26 +0000

[...] his first (on a very different topic) can be found here, and the original of this post can be found here. A truly frightening video from ground zero of the coal ash [...]

By: Scholars and Rogues » Coal waste dumps: ticking toxic time bombs

Scholars and Rogues » Coal waste dumps: ticking toxic time bombs — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:00:26 +0000

[...] Coal waste dumps: ticking toxic time bombs Posted on December 30, 2008 by Guest Scrogue under Nature, energy, environment [ Comments: none ] Tom Yulsman of the Center for Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado ran the following post on the toxic nature of coal combustion byproducts at the CEJ’s blog, CEJournal. Tom has been kind enough to permit S&R to crosspost his work here. This is Tom’s second guest post: his first (on a very different topic) can be found here, and the original of this post can be found here. [...]