RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
This confirms my assumption that todays concrete blocks probably have no more radio active properties than other objects used in our daily lives. Thanks. Fritz _ From: egels...@satx.rr.com [mailto:egels...@satx.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:17 AM To: Don Cooper Cc: John P Brooks; Fritz Holt; pitboun...@gmail.com; csnew...@gmail.com; texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste I am definitely NOT an authority on "Cinder Blocks". I do however have a daughter that works for a major company that fabricates them. The make over a million bricks per month right here in good old San Antonio. The reference to Cinder in the name is no longer accurate. The formula (I confirmed this) is water, portland cement, sand, and differing aggregates depending on the model of brick being cast. No ash from a coal fired power plant. I have worked with the former HL&P plant and they used to sell their soda ash to soil stabilization companys where they in turn mixed it with lime and used it to (guess what?) stabilize soil; at constructions sites. Usually parking lots and foundations. I would worry about that more than what might be in what used to be cinder blocks. It has been common in the past that some conctrete mixers used to insert a percentage of soda ash in their cheap grades of concrete to save money. It might be worth someone spending their time checking that out since concrete is so abundant. Ed - Original Message - From: Don Cooper List-Post: texascavers@texascavers.com Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste To: John P Brooks Cc: "fh...@townandcountryins.com" , "pitboun...@gmail.com" , "csnew...@gmail.com" , "texascavers@texascavers.com" > Ediger chimed in - and his explanation supports the unbiased > findings of my > random discoveries. > > I know I did not say concrete blocks, and according to Gill, > there's a > pretty good explanation to why cinderblocks from 50 years ago > could be > sufficiently radioactive to be read by a Geiger counter. It might > not be a > surprise that there is radioactivity of some level in almost > everythingincluding people. > > Caveat: Radioactive is - as far as I can tell a "relative" > measure. It is > not "either present or not present" In this place, it's all > around. The > radioactivity of cinderblocks was REAL. But is it significant > enough to > cause health problems in a hundred years? I HAVE NO IDEA. > > But thank you for the interruption- > Now back to your regular scheduled internet experience. > -WaV > > > On Dec 19, 2007 4:41 PM, John P Brooks > wrote: > > Radioactive concrete block? That's absurd...I can assure you > that if > > there was even a small level of radioactivity or anything > harmful in these > > blocks...building codes would ban them and or our liability > insurance would > > prohibit the use...concrete block is safe...although I would > think twice > > about building a concrete block home or school in a high > humidity area > > > > Fritz Holt wrote: > > > Nico, > > > I would assume that like so many things, the > > > radioactive hazard of these concrete blocks is blown way out of > > proportion. But > > > I would like to know from an expert on the matter so that I > can be > > better > > > informed. While many people don't live in the same home for 23 > years it > > > is possible that effects from exposure may take a much longer > period and > > > therefore not considered a hazard to human health. > > > There is a small subdivision in > > > Jacinto City , Texas , > > > surrounded by Houston > > > on the east side where most of the small homes were built of > concrete> block in > > > the 1940'S OR 50'S. > > > From a RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE standpoint, > > > concrete block homes and those with solid masonry exterior > walls (those > > with no > > > wood framing in the walls) take a lower insurance rate > (premium) than > > the brick > > > veneer homes in which many of us live. I haven't insured one > of these in > > > the last twenty-five years. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL. > > > Fritz > > > > > > From: Nico Escamilla > > > [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 > > > 11:30 AM > > > To: Fritz > > > Holt > > > Cc: Don
RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
My original question was, are the concrete building blocks sold at all home improvement stores the same as cinder blocks of old and do they have virtually the same level of radio active ingredients? I assume that they are not and don't. Fritz _ From: Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:54 PM To: John P Brooks Cc: Fritz Holt; pitboun...@gmail.com; csnew...@gmail.com; texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste Ediger chimed in - and his explanation supports the unbiased findings of my random discoveries. I know I did not say concrete blocks, and according to Gill, there's a pretty good explanation to why cinderblocks from 50 years ago could be sufficiently radioactive to be read by a Geiger counter. It might not be a surprise that there is radioactivity of some level in almost everything including people. Caveat: Radioactive is - as far as I can tell a "relative" measure. It is not "either present or not present" In this place, it's all around. The radioactivity of cinderblocks was REAL. But is it significant enough to cause health problems in a hundred years? I HAVE NO IDEA. But thank you for the interruption- Now back to your regular scheduled internet experience. -WaV
Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Never in my life have I ever come across a true cinder block. They were always made of concrete. Where I grew up (Nebraska) the "cinder" and "concrete" names were used interchangeably for the same kind of block, but the older generations seemed to prefer the word "cinder". During the summers of my college years, I worked at a coal-fired plant. The fly and bottom ash just seemed to be dumped and spread out on some land beside the plant. I don't recall it being used for anything else, but the plant engineer told me it was sometimes used for road beds. I think they may have just been building up the land to make it more suitable for extending the plant in the future. (It was on bottom land along the Missouri river). Anyway, the coal was pulverised into a very fine powder (similar in consistancy to facial powder) before it was burned, so the ash itself was a pretty fine powder, too. It certainly didn't seem like it would be a very good aggregate, but maybe a good binder. As part of my job was inspecting the interiors of the electrostatic precipitators, I've inhaled more than my share off the stuff, but so far I've noticed no health problems. It really drys out your skin, though. George
Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
I am definitely NOT an authority on "Cinder Blocks". I do however have a daughter that works for a major company that fabricates them. The make over a million bricks per month right here in good old San Antonio. The reference to Cinder in the name is no longer accurate. The formula (I confirmed this) is water, portland cement, sand, and differing aggregates depending on the model of brick being cast. No ash from a coal fired power plant. I have worked with the former HL&P plant and they used to sell their soda ash to soil stabilization companys where they in turn mixed it with lime and used it to (guess what?) stabilize soil; at constructions sites. Usually parking lots and foundations. I would worry about that more than what might be in what used to be cinder blocks. It has been common in the past that some conctrete mixers used to insert a percentage of soda ash in their cheap grades of concrete to save money. It might be worth someone spending their time checking that out since concrete is so abundant. Ed - Original Message - From: Don Cooper Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste To: John P Brooks Cc: "fh...@townandcountryins.com" , "pitboun...@gmail.com" , "csnew...@gmail.com" , "texascavers@texascavers.com" > Ediger chimed in - and his explanation supports the unbiased > findings of my > random discoveries. > > I know I did not say concrete blocks, and according to Gill, > there's a > pretty good explanation to why cinderblocks from 50 years ago > could be > sufficiently radioactive to be read by a Geiger counter. It might > not be a > surprise that there is radioactivity of some level in almost > everythingincluding people. > > Caveat: Radioactive is - as far as I can tell a "relative" > measure. It is > not "either present or not present" In this place, it's all > around. The > radioactivity of cinderblocks was REAL. But is it significant > enough to > cause health problems in a hundred years? I HAVE NO IDEA. > > But thank you for the interruption- > Now back to your regular scheduled internet experience. > -WaV > > > On Dec 19, 2007 4:41 PM, John P Brooks > wrote: > > Radioactive concrete block? That's absurd...I can assure you > that if > > there was even a small level of radioactivity or anything > harmful in these > > blocks...building codes would ban them and or our liability > insurance would > > prohibit the use...concrete block is safe...although I would > think twice > > about building a concrete block home or school in a high > humidity area > > > > Fritz Holt wrote: > > > Nico, > > > I would assume that like so many things, the > > > radioactive hazard of these concrete blocks is blown way out of > > proportion. But > > > I would like to know from an expert on the matter so that I > can be > > better > > > informed. While many people don't live in the same home for 23 > years it > > > is possible that effects from exposure may take a much longer > period and > > > therefore not considered a hazard to human health. > > > There is a small subdivision in > > > Jacinto City , Texas , > > > surrounded by Houston > > > on the east side where most of the small homes were built of > concrete> block in > > > the 1940'S OR 50'S. > > > From a RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE standpoint, > > > concrete block homes and those with solid masonry exterior > walls (those > > with no > > > wood framing in the walls) take a lower insurance rate > (premium) than > > the brick > > > veneer homes in which many of us live. I haven't insured one > of these in > > > the last twenty-five years. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL. > > > Fritz > > > > > > From: Nico Escamilla > > > [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 > > > 11:30 AM > > > To: Fritz > > > Holt > > > Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; > > > texascavers@texascavers.com > > > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - > > > Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste > > > > > > I have lived in a > > > cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am > healthy as > > can > > > be. a little overweight but thats another story. > > > Nico > > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt > > > < fh...@townandcou
Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Just to briefly merge two off-topic discussions, here are some lyrics to a popular Dan Fogelberg song: I hear the thunder three miles away The Island's leaking into the bay The poison is spreading The demon is free And people are running from what they can't even see [Chorus:] Face the fire You can't turn away The risk grows greater with each passing day The waiting's over The moment has come To kill the fire and turn to the sun It was years before I noticed the lyrics were anti-nuclear and pro-solar and realized Dan was a durn hippie. I still like the tune, though, and I admire the way he was able to slip his position in without using any hot-button words. George
Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Ediger chimed in - and his explanation supports the unbiased findings of my random discoveries. I know I did not say concrete blocks, and according to Gill, there's a pretty good explanation to why cinderblocks from 50 years ago could be sufficiently radioactive to be read by a Geiger counter. It might not be a surprise that there is radioactivity of some level in almost everything including people. Caveat: Radioactive is - as far as I can tell a "relative" measure. It is not "either present or not present" In this place, it's all around. The radioactivity of cinderblocks was REAL. But is it significant enough to cause health problems in a hundred years? I HAVE NO IDEA. But thank you for the interruption- Now back to your regular scheduled internet experience. -WaV On Dec 19, 2007 4:41 PM, John P Brooks wrote: > Radioactive concrete block? That's absurd...I can assure you that if > there was even a small level of radioactivity or anything harmful in these > blocks...building codes would ban them and or our liability insurance would > prohibit the use...concrete block is safe...although I would think twice > about building a concrete block home or school in a high humidity area > > Fritz Holt wrote: > > Nico, > > I would assume that like so many things, the > > radioactive hazard of these concrete blocks is blown way out of > proportion. But > > I would like to know from an expert on the matter so that I can be > better > > informed. While many people don't live in the same home for 23 years it > > is possible that effects from exposure may take a much longer period and > > therefore not considered a hazard to human health. > > There is a small subdivision in > > Jacinto City , Texas , > > surrounded by Houston > > on the east side where most of the small homes were built of concrete > block in > > the 1940'S OR 50'S. > > From a RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE standpoint, > > concrete block homes and those with solid masonry exterior walls (those > with no > > wood framing in the walls) take a lower insurance rate (premium) than > the brick > > veneer homes in which many of us live. I haven't insured one of these in > > the last twenty-five years. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL. > > Fritz > > > > From: Nico Escamilla > > [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 > > 11:30 AM > > To: Fritz > > Holt > > Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; > > texascavers@texascavers.com > > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - > > Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste > > > > I have lived in a > > cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as > can > > be. a little overweight but thats another story. > > Nico > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt > > < fh...@townandcountryins.com > > > wrote: > > Don, > > "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't > > know enough about – cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). > > As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building > > materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. > > I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have > > about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain > > Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure > > inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it > > allowed to be used so extensively? > > Fritz > > > > From: Don Cooper [mailto: wavyca...@gmail.com ] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 > > 11:34 PM > > To: Simon Newton > > Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com > > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - > > Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste > > > > That is correct! > > As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon > > Dioxide. > > Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly > greater > > than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. > > This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear > > engineers) > > that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. > > Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock > > is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a > > Geiger counter! > > -WaV > > On Dec > > 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton < csnew...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Some food for thought... > > From the article: > > Among the surprising conclusions: the waste
RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Radioactive concrete block? That's absurd...I can assure you that if there was even a small level of radioactivity or anything harmful in these blocks...building codes would ban them and or our liability insurance would prohibit the use...concrete block is safe...although I would think twice about building a concrete block home or school in a high humidity area Fritz Holt wrote: > Nico, > I would assume that like so many things, the > radioactive hazard of these concrete blocks is blown way out of proportion. > But > I would like to know from an expert on the matter so that I can be better > informed. While many people don’t live in the same home for 23 years it > is possible that effects from exposure may take a much longer period and > therefore not considered a hazard to human health. > There is a small subdivision in > Jacinto City , Texas , > surrounded by Houston > on the east side where most of the small homes were built of concrete block in > the 1940’S OR 50’S. > From a RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE standpoint, > concrete block homes and those with solid masonry exterior walls (those with > no > wood framing in the walls) take a lower insurance rate (premium) than the > brick > veneer homes in which many of us live. I haven’t insured one of these in > the last twenty-five years. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL. > Fritz > > From: Nico Escamilla > [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 > 11:30 AM > To: Fritz > Holt > Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; > texascavers@texascavers.com > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - > Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste > > I have lived in a > cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as can > be. a little overweight but thats another story. > Nico > On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt > < fh...@townandcountryins.com > > wrote: > Don, > "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't > know enough about – cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). > As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building > materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. > I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have > about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain > Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure > inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it > allowed to be used so extensively? > Fritz > > From: Don Cooper [mailto: wavyca...@gmail.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 > 11:34 PM > To: Simon Newton > Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - > Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste > > That is correct! > As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon > Dioxide. > Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly greater > than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. > This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear > engineers) > that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. > Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock > is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a > Geiger counter! > -WaV > On Dec > 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton < csnew...@gmail.com > wrote: > Some food for thought... > From the article: > 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. > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 > - > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com > For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com > > - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Nico, I would assume that like so many things, the radioactive hazard of these concrete blocks is blown way out of proportion. But I would like to know from an expert on the matter so that I can be better informed. While many people don't live in the same home for 23 years it is possible that effects from exposure may take a much longer period and therefore not considered a hazard to human health. There is a small subdivision in Jacinto City, Texas, surrounded by Houston on the east side where most of the small homes were built of concrete block in the 1940'S OR 50'S. >From a RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE standpoint, concrete block homes and those with solid masonry exterior walls (those with no wood framing in the walls) take a lower insurance rate (premium) than the brick veneer homes in which many of us live. I haven't insured one of these in the last twenty-five years. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL. Fritz _ From: Nico Escamilla [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:30 AM To: Fritz Holt Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste I have lived in a cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as can be. a little overweight but thats another story. Nico On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt < fh...@townandcountryins.com> wrote: Don, "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't know enough about - cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it allowed to be used so extensively? Fritz _ From: Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:34 PM To: Simon Newton Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste That is correct! As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon Dioxide. Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear engineers) that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a Geiger counter! -WaV On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton wrote: Some food for thought... >From the article: 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. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nu clear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Maybe it's like irradiated food - all the bugs that cause disease are
killed off by the low-level radiation leaving the main, stronger, body
more healthy?
Stefan
From: Nico Escamilla [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Fritz Holt
Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; texascavers@texascavers.com
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than
Nuclear Waste
I have lived in a cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years)
and I am healthy as can be. a little overweight but thats another story.
Nico
On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt < fh...@townandcountryins.com>
wrote:
Don,
"I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't know
enough about - cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song).
As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building
materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses.
I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have about
three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain
Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure
inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it
allowed to be used so extensively?
Fritz
From: Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:34 PM
To: Simon Newton
Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive
than Nuclear Waste
That is correct!
As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create
radioactive Carbon Dioxide.
Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed
significantly greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant.
This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds
(nuclear engineers)
that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech.
Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive
cinderblock is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its
enough to test a Geiger counter!
-WaV
On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton
wrote:
Some food for thought...
From the article:
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.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nu
clear-waste&sc=WR_20071218
-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail:
texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
--
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any
medium. Thank you.
Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
I have lived in a cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as can be. a little overweight but thats another story. Nico On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt wrote: > Don, > > "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't know enough about – > cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). > > As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building materials of > choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. > > I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have about three > hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain > > Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure inside > buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it > > allowed to be used so extensively? > > Fritz > > > -- > > *From:* Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:34 PM > *To:* Simon Newton > *Cc:* texascavers@texascavers.com > *Subject:* Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than > Nuclear Waste > > > > That is correct! > As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon > Dioxide. > Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly > greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. > This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear > engineers) > that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. > Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock > is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a > Geiger counter! > -WaV > > On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton wrote: > > Some food for thought... > > From the article: > 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. > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 > > > - > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com > For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com > > >
RE: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Don, "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't know enough about - cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it allowed to be used so extensively? Fritz _ From: Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:34 PM To: Simon Newton Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste That is correct! As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon Dioxide. Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear engineers) that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a Geiger counter! -WaV On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton wrote: Some food for thought... >From the article: 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. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nu clear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
That is correct! As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon Dioxide. Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear engineers) that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a Geiger counter! -WaV On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton wrote: > Some food for thought... > > From the article: > 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. > > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 > > - > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com > For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com > >
[Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Some food for thought... >From the article: 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. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
