Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!teklds!azure!jonw
From: jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Nuclear power reduces radioactivity
Message-ID: <2734@azure.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Apr-84 06:45:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: azure.2734
Posted: Fri Apr 27 06:45:00 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Apr-84 05:37:29 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 17

Both Allen England and rabbit!jj have pointed out that my analysis of the
radioactivity of coal vs. uranium ore failed to take into account the radon
and carbon-14 in coal.  Well, this is true enough, but I also didn't take into
account the radon, radium, Thorium 230, etc. in uranium ore.  If someone can
cite a study that compares ALL the radioactivity in uranium ore to ALL the
radioactivity in coal, I'd like to see it.  If it can be shown that uranium ore
is less than 20 times as radioactive as coal, only then will I believe that the
coal fuel cycle releases more radiation per KWH than the nuclear fuel cycle. 
And even if that can be proven, you still have to consider the fission products
of a nuclear reactor (strontium and cesium) that are millions of times more
radioactive than the original uranium.

This is not to say that coal is harmless, but I think that the sulphur content
is a much more serious problem than the minute amount of radiation in coal.

			Jon White
			[decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw