Arkansas Blog

We want all of our electricity tied to natural gas prices? Ask an 80 year old living alone on social security after they open their January gas bill.

Not to mention mercury and scads consequential byproducts from burning coal.. I found this article from Scientific American to be rather alarming. (full article at my name)

<<<<<<<<<<<
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash-a by-product from burning coal for power-contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"-the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks-might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.
SNIP
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Here is another excerpt from that article:

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants."

And here's another:

Radiation from uranium in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon."

And here's another:

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants-they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

So, rest easy Russellville.

I wonder whether or not cumulative effects were considered and if multiple coal plants (effects) from Wright, AR to Texas etc.. have been considered.. Also, where does AR dump coal ash now? Will a new land fill location be chosen for southern AR and where will it be? Maybe Bill Clinton will come to our rescue and find a way to wheel and deal our radio active ash by-products off to a kitty litter manufacturer for library donations. SInce a little radioactive coal ash doesn't hurt anyone... let's make baby food out of it and add it to bottled mineral water for an extra boost and charge extra. Will ground saturated in this ash still be able to be verified as organic farming areas? Will health insurance rates remain the same for folks living in coal plants and ash dumps sights shadow?

On their website it reads, ADEQ - to protect, enhance and restore the natural environment for the well being of all Arkansas.

This tells me there are one of 2 actions that need to be taken.
1) ADEQ can remove that ridiculous lie off their web site and where ever else it is printed and stop the sham.

or

2) The leg and the governor can give ADEQ the "the regulatory, statutory requirements" (to quote Mr. Bates of ADEQ) they need to full fill that slogan. Until this is done completed Governor Beebe, grant the moratorium.