Sunday, August 5, 2012
Coal & the Potential for Radioactive Leachate
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Will Whatcom County Host the Shipping of Radioactive Coal?
The following is a short paper that I have prepared from my researches. I am sending this out to a number of persons and organizations for whom the cc list is still incomplete. This document may also be found on my blog: http://fixingair.blogspot.com/
Marc Hurlbert
6003 Ridgeview Place,
Ferndale, WA 98248
360-384-4379
Will Whatcom County Host the Shipping of Radioactive Coal?
In his book Annals of the Former World, writer John McPhee describes discussions that he had in the 1980's with J. D. Love, the pre-eminent, Wyoming field-geologist with the U. S. Geological Survey at the time. Dr. Love discovered, among many other things, the uranium ore deposits in the Powder River Basin. Among Dr. Loves’ other discoveries was the fact that the massive Powder River coal deposits contained large quantities of uranium and other radioactive materials that result from these uranium ore deposits. Further, he also figured out the process by which these radioactive elements were leached into and left in the coal fields through hydrological processes. Soluble forms of uranium dissolved in the ground water percolates through the coal seams. The organic materials in the coal snatch oxygen from the radioactive elements and cause them to precipitate out into the coal.
Radioactive elements in coal are a very serious problem that seems to be rarely discussed. It’s well known that mercury, lead and other heavy metals are released into the air by burning coal. Uranium and other radioactive elements are released as well. In fact, coal burning power plants are the largest source of radioactive pollution on the planet. Another huge but hardly-recognized problem is the fact that these toxic elements are also concentrated in the fly ash that results from burning coal. According to Mara Hvistendahl, writing in the December 13, 2007 issue of Scientific American:"...the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Gwenyth Cravens, journalist and editor, who has spent almost a decade researching the effects of the nuclear power industry, is quoted in Seed magazine, July, 2, 2009. To be found at: http://seedmagazine.com/
"...And as far as pollution goes, 120 million tons of unregulated coal fly ash pours into thousands of American slurry pits each year. It contains toxic heavy metals and enough U-235 to run all of our 104 power reactors. Coal pollution exposes people within 50 miles to low-dose radiation—about 100 to 400 times greater than from a nuclear plant."
As I looked further into this subject I found more information. Alex Gabbard, in his article: Coal Combustion Nuclear Resource or Danger, to be found at: http://www.ornl.gov/info/"The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive."
Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article: Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that "Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations."The importance of these facts has to do with the source of the coal that Millenium Bulk Terminals, Inc. And Peabody Energy hopes to ship through their proposed Gateway Pacific terminal. According an AP release in the Seattle Times, March 15, 2011:
"The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal in Whatcom County would serve as the West Coast hub for exporting Peabody's coal from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana to Asian markets, Peabody said in a statement Monday."
These are the same coal deposits that J. D. Love found to be contaminated with uranium and other radioactive materials.
http://www.defendblackhills.
The Powder River Basin is the source of the coal that would be transported by rail through Whatcom County to be burned in Chinese power plants from which the prevailing winds would carry the radioactive elements along with the mercury and other toxins already floating across the Pacific to North America from Chinese power plants.
In a letter to the editor of the Bellingham Herald dated March 16, 2011, Micki Shomaker of Bellingham wrote that:"Burlington Northern Santa Fe, on its own website, states: ‘The amount of coal dust that escapes from PRB (Powder River Basin) coal trains is surprisingly large.’ While the amount of coal dust that escapes from a particular coal car depends on a number of factors, including the weather, BNSF has done studies indicating that from 500 lbs to a ton of coal can escape from a single loaded coal car. Other reports have indicated that as much as 3 percent of the coal loaded into a coal car can be lost in transit. In many areas, a thick layer of black coal dust can be observed along the railroad right-of-way and in between the tracks. Given the high volume of loaded coal trains that move each day in the PRB, large amounts of coal dust accumulate rapidly along the rail lines." ...Do you want that much coal dust in your backyard? "
That is a lot of coal dust. If the terminal is built and the trains begin hauling the coal through our front yard, the coal dust deposited here will continue to accumulate, year round, year after year, as long as the coal trains run. That Powder-River-Basin coal, in addition to the heavy metal and organic toxins it contains, happens to be more radioactive than most. We must ask ourselves–how wise is it to allow this coal to not only contaminate Whatcom County with the lost coal dust, but then to ship it to China where it will be burned in power plants where the prevailing winds will carry much of it’s contaminants including heavy metals, radioactive elements and other toxins back across the pacific to our western shores? In light of the problems with environmental radioactive pollution now highlighted by the nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, the choice to allow this coal through our county would seem far less than wise. Marc Hurlbertcc: Bob Ferris, Re Sources; Gary Jensen, Ferndale mayor; Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive; Dan Pike, Bellingham Mayor; Community Wise Bellingham; Seth Norman; Hugh Lewis; Dan Homel; Ralph Lloyd; Bellingham Herald; Cascadia Weekly; Whatcom Watch; Whatcom County Council; Jack Weiss; Gene Knutson; Barry Buchanan; Stam Snapp; Terry Bornemann; Micheal Lilliquist; Seth Fleetwood; Lynden mayor Scott Korthuis; Jeff Margolis; Foothills Gazette; John Stark at Bellingham Herald; Representative Rick Larsen: Senator Maria Cantwell; senator Patty Murray; Senator Doug Ericson; Representative Jason Overstreet; Representative Vincent Buys; Sierra Magazine; Mother Jones Magazine; CCA; Klause Lohse; Dan Coombs; Frank Koterba; Bill McMillan; Micheal Riber; Rick Schessler; Sherilyn Wells; Sharon Stewart; Sid Strong; Jimmy Watts; Joseph Kelly; Flip Breskin; Kelli Linville; Clayton Petree; Marie Claire Dole; Bill McKibben--350.org; Whatcom Transitions; Wild Fish conservancy; Chuckanut Conservancy; Climate Solutions; Whatcom Democrats; Chuckanut Conservancy; 350 Bellingham; People for Puget Sound; Lummi Nation; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Nooksack Indian Tribe; others to follow.
Will Whatcom County Host the Shipping of Radioactive Coal by Marc Hurlbert is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://fixingair.blogspot.com/2011/04/will-whatcom-county-host-shipping-of.html.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
A Purpose of the Fixing Air Blog
"Environmental injury is deficit spending. It is spending for short-term gain..."
-- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
Plundering our environment for short-term gain with no thought to the future is but theft, criminal theft of the worst and most thoughtless kind. It is stealing from the future--stealing from our future selves, from our children, from our children's children. It is to leave of ourselves a thoughtless legacy of naught but obscene greed, a heritage of naught but the selfish degradation of our souls.
J. Marcus
12/03/08
http://www.oceana.org/climate/problem/pollution-sources/
http://www.oceana.org/climate/cause/
http://www.oceana.org/climate/cause/greenhouse-gases/
Monday, April 28, 2008
SOLUTIONS
Given this point of view, I'm going to list everything I can think of that might help. Here goes:
1. Reflective roofs on our buildings. In the late 1970's, in Phoenix, Arizona where I lived then, I heard of reflective roof coatings that one could buy and apply to ones roof. The developers of this coating had researched white pigments and had come up with one that was particularly effective at reflecting a high percentage the light that fell upon it. It would help in two ways. A. It would lessen the energy needed to both cool and heat buildings. Reflective surfaces serve to reflect heat both in and out. It would help keep buildings warm in winter and cool in summer. B. By reflecting sunlight back out into space, it would help cool the earth. It might also just happen to extend the life of ones' roof covering. I've wondered just how great a surface area the buildings of the USA and even the world add up to. I'd love to hear from anyone who knows how to get a reasonably accurate estimate of this.
Beyond the simple issue of roofs, I was very impressed by the way that cities or rather the things that cities are constructed of, such as concrete and black top, had of soaking up and slowly giving off heat in such a way as to warm up its' entire environs. I lived in a house that, when I was very young, was out in the country. In fact, until I reached age of six, my grandfathers' mostly-organic dairy farm was located at the end of my street, less than a quarter of a mile away. At night in the summer, by around 9 or 10 PM a cooling breeze would come in off the surrounding rural and desert land. As the city grew around us and passed us by, the cooling breezes were replaced by the heat that was soaked up all day and given off all night. I think that there are other elements of our city environments that could benefit from more reflective surfaces. Roads and parking lots come to mind. White might cause too much glare to be safe, but could blacktop be somehow lightened to reflect a portion of the light that strikes it? It's something to think about.
THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
1. What is the total amount of carbon in, on and around the earth?
2. In what forms and percentages does this carbon exist?
3. What sort of natural carbon cycles exist?
4. What chemicals are there that will bind easily to carbon and hold it in a form that sequesters it from the atmosphere.
5. How available are these carbon-binding compounds and elements and where are they?
6. How easily are they obtained and used to sequester carbon?