Exploring Facts about Liquified Natural Gas

[JasonRox]

This is regarding...

Liquified Natural Gas

I need to know the facts about this. They are currently thinking about building large LNG Importation Facilities in my area, or pretty close to my house I guess.

At the moment, they will have a Public Hearing before doing anything.

As of now, there are "wackos" going around sending flyers on how dangerous it is and stuff. It doesn't explain why though.

It says that the only thing more dangerous is a Nuclear Power Plant, which in my opinion isn't that dangerous. Sure you don't want to live around it, especially when the plant is unionized and filled with incompetent workers, which is the norm for unionized companies. Enough about unions though.

I came here because I know some of you know about it, and can direct me to trustworthy information sites. I searched a bit, but it seems flooded with companies and what not.

Any information will be greatly appreciated.

 

[cronxeh]

If the plant ignites.. run.

Ahh finally dug up the MSDS

http://seweb2.phillips66.com/hes%5CMSDS.nsf/MSDSID/US791815/$file/Natural+Gas+Liquid+(English).pdf

 

[BicycleTree]

There is a LNG facility that may go in in my city too. From this site there were two LNG accidents that involved major loss of life, one in 2004 in an uninhabited area and one in an inhabited area in 1944, as well as a number of lesser failures that did not involve loss of life.

http://www.nolng.org/facts.html

In 1944 in Cleveland Ohio an LNG accident devastated a
huge portion of that city. According to the U.S. Bureau of
Mines report, LNG holding tanks failed and released their
contents into the streets and sewers. A vaporous cloud
formed which was subsequently ignited. Nearby residents
and businesses were engulfed by the ensuing fire. The
fire devastated one square mile and destroyed 79 homes,
2 factories, 217 cars, 7 trailers, and left 680 people
homeless. The most tragic result of the fire was that it
killed 128 and injured 225 people!

 

[franznietzsche]

It says that the only thing more dangerous is a Nuclear Power Plant, which in my opinion isn't that dangerous. Sure you don't want to live around it, especially when the plant is unionized and filled with incompetent workers, which is the norm for unionized companies. Enough about unions though.

Unions aside, if they claim that nuclear plants are more dangerous, then i wouldn't be worried at all, because contrary to public idiocy nuclear power plants are incredibly safe. Eyesores maybe.

Heck, three mile island leaked less radiation than the natural levels from the environment there. Further, all the safety measures at 3 mile functioned properly, IIRC, making it more a testament to the safety of nuclear power.

 

[JasonRox]

It doesn't seem like they get that many accidents.

I have no clue what to think.

I guess I have to let the public decide.

 

[cronxeh]

Jason did you read that MSDS? Its pretty toxic stuff, and if it ignites my concern won't be getting cancer from this stuff - it would be getting burned alived.

There hasnt been major accidents in the US in past 40 years, but I guess if managers assume its safe and cut back more and more eventually there will be a big spill. Personally I'd put this thing at least 10 miles away from my house.

 

[JasonRox]

Jason did you read that MSDS? Its pretty toxic stuff, and if it ignites my concern won't be getting cancer from this stuff - it would be getting burned alived.

There hasnt been major accidents in the US in past 40 years, but I guess if managers assume its safe and cut back more and more eventually there will be a big spill. Personally I'd put this thing at least 10 miles away from my house.

I did see that too.

I'm e-mailing them right now, not to do it. Besides its in another city, so it doesn't affect our economy. :D

 

[gnome]

That article just sounds like common NIMBYism. If that's the worst they could come up with I wouldn't worry much about it. Based on that article, plus a bit of googling on the Algeria incident, in 61 years about 150 or 160 people were killed worldwide in accidents involving LNG. And 128 of those were killed in 1944. Meanwhile, over the past decade US imports of LNG have averaged nearly 3 trillion cubic feet per year.

 

[russ_watters]

It says that the only thing more dangerous is a Nuclear Power Plant, which in my opinion isn't that dangerous.

Well, since no nuclear power plant anywhere, ever, except in the USSR (Chernobyl, with a major, unique design flaw) has had an accident that hurt some civilians - and in normal operation they are perfectly safe, I'd say that they are arguing for LNG and just don't know it! :rofl:

In all seriousness, the only thing to worry about with LNG (they are thinking of building a terminal here in Philly) is terrorism. If terrorists hijack one of these ships, that'd be bad (though not as bad as 9/11).

 

[BicycleTree]

Russ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents

Seems like quite a few nuclear accidents, many of them fatal. Moreover, the only possible serious terrorist attack is nuclear (assuming they don't get their hands on a dangerous new disease, which is unlikely) so the material inside nuclear plants represents one of the very few truly dangerous targets by terrorists.

 

[cronxeh]

The only thing you should be afraid of is fear itself

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents

Seems like quite a few nuclear accidents, many of them fatal.

Yes but we didn't lose any cities. That's good enough.

 

[Moonbear]

Russ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents

Seems like quite a few nuclear accidents, many of them fatal. Moreover, the only possible serious terrorist attack is nuclear (assuming they don't get their hands on a dangerous new disease, which is unlikely) so the material inside nuclear plants represents one of the very few truly dangerous targets by terrorists.

The vast majority in that link had nothing to do with nuclear power plants. Of those that did, other than Chernobyl, which Russ already mentioned, the rest involved employees.

I think the main thing to consider for such a plant would be the distance from large storage tanks to the surrounding neighborhoods. Is there a sufficient buffer zone should there be an explosion that it would be contained within property owned by the plant? I agree with the others that if the best anyone can argue against it is that a nuclear power plant is more dangerous, I wouldn't worry a bit.

 

[JasonRox]

The vast majority in that link had nothing to do with nuclear power plants. Of those that did, other than Chernobyl, which Russ already mentioned, the rest involved employees.

I think the main thing to consider for such a plant would be the distance from large storage tanks to the surrounding neighborhoods. Is there a sufficient buffer zone should there be an explosion that it would be contained within property owned by the plant? I agree with the others that if the best anyone can argue against it is that a nuclear power plant is more dangerous, I wouldn't worry a bit.

It's right next to the city. Maybe 1km away from the first house... and another 2km for the rest of them.

Note: I'm talking about the storage tanks and the facility itself is close.

Note: If you know what a canal is... well the plan is on the other side of the canal from the city, so technically it is probably less than 1km. That seems a little close.

 

[russ_watters]

Personally I'd put this thing at least 10 miles away from my house.

They're contemplating putting a terminal in Philly - it'll be well isolated (they always are, for safety reasons).

I guess I have to let the public decide.

This is a bit like the nuclear issue: in cases where safety is an issue, the public very often decides wrong because they let their fear cloud their judgement.

The vast majority in that link had nothing to do with nuclear power plants. Of those that did, other than Chernobyl, which Russ already mentioned, the rest involved employees.

I hate pointing out the obvious. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

Moreover, the only possible serious terrorist attack is nuclear (assuming they don't get their hands on a dangerous new disease, which is unlikely) so the material inside nuclear plants represents one of the very few truly dangerous targets by terrorists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Terrorists getting a nuclear bomb doesn't have a whole lot to do with nuclear power (you can't use nuclear power plant fuel in a bomb without enriching it). Also, terrorists could hit a nuclear plant, but as tests have shown, its unlikely they could do significant damage to a reactor even if they flew a large plane into one.

Yes but we didn't lose any cities. That's good enough.

- indeed. :uhh: , , and :rofl: too.

Gawd, I love anti-nucclear fear-mongering: While no civilian has ever died because of nuclear power in the US, coal power kills twenty thousand people a year. As entertaining as the fear-mongering is, its destructive (fear-mongering kills people and costs a ton of money) and mind boggling.

 

[cronxeh]

Do you think Georgy uses word 'nucular' instead of 'nuclear' to draw a parallel in the herd between the mushroom 'nuke' cloud and anything he wants to make them believe?


Oh and I remember the dihydrogen monoxide scare :rofl:

How it kills thousands of people every year.. an odorless, colorless liquid :rofl:
More fun for today: http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html

 

[russ_watters]

That article just sounds like common NIMBYism.

Yeah, And while nimbyism doesn't directly kill anyone, it does cost a lot of money.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you think Georgy uses word 'nucular' instead of 'nuclear' to draw a parallel in the herd between the mushroom 'nuke' cloud and anything he wants to make them believe?

No, my guess would be that that's a backhand shot at George Bush, who pronounces it that way.

 

[BicycleTree]

Since when are employees not civilians? Many of those nuclear power plants are not military run.

Additionally there are plenty of examples on that page of radioactive material released into the environment.

From the 1980s alone, and _not even counting_ Chernobyl:

February 11, 1981 – A new worker inadvertently opens a valve and more than 110,000 US gallons (420 m³) of radioactive coolant liquid leaks into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah 1 nuclear power plant in rural Tennessee. Eight workers are contaminated with radiation.

April 25, 1981 – More than 100 workers are exposed to radiation during repairs of a nuclear power plant in Tsuruga, Japan.

June 1981 – a 3,000 US gallon (11 m³) leak of radioactive water occurs at the Salem Nuclear 2 reactor in Salem, New Jersey.

February 1982 – A 3,000 US gallon (11 m³) leak of mildly radioactive water contaminates 16 workers at a nuclear power plant in Salem, New Jersey.

August 1983 – 3,700 liters of tritium contaminated heavy water leaks into Lake Huron and Lake Ontario from Canadian nuclear power stations.

January 6, 1986 – At the Kerr-McGee nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Gore, Oklahoma, a cylinder of nuclear material bursts after being improperly heated. One worker dies, 100 are hospitalized.

1986 – The US Government declassifies 19,000 pages of documents indicating that between 1946 and 1986, the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington released thousands of US gallons (several m³) of radioactive liquids. Of 270,000 people living in the affected area, most received low doses of radiation from iodine.


And a few selected incidents:
December 12, 1952 – The first serious nuclear disaster occurred at the NRX reactor in Chalk River, Canada. A massive power excursion destroyed the core, resulting in a partial meltdown. A series of hydrogen gas explosions threw a four-ton gasholder dome four feet (1.2 m) into the air, where it jammed in the superstructure. Thousands of curies (several terabecquerels) of fission products were released into the atmosphere, and a million US gallons (3,800 m³) of radioactively contaminated water was pumped out of the basement into shallow trenches not far from the Ottawa River. The core was buried. Jimmy Carter, then a nuclear engineer in the US Navy, was among the cleanup crew.

October 8–12, 1957 – Windscale Pile No. 1 at Sellafield north of Liverpool, England began an annealing process to release Wigner energy from graphite portions of the reactor. The reactor that burned was one of two air-cooled graphite-moderated natural uranium reactors at the site used for production of plutonium. Technicians mistakenly overheated the reactor pile because poorly placed temperature sensors indicated the reactor was cooling rather than heating, leading to failure of a nuclear cartridge, which allowed uranium and irradiated graphite to react with air. The nuclear fire burned four days, melting and consuming a significant portion of the reactor core. About 150 burning fuel cells could not be lifted from the reactor core, but operators succeeded in creating a fire break by removing nearby fuel cells. A risky effort to cool the graphite core with water eventually quenched the fire. The air-cooled reactor had spewed radioactive gases throughout the surrounding countryside. Milk distribution was banned in a 200 mile² (520 km²) area around the reactor. Over the following years, Pile No. 1 and neighboring Pile No. 2 were shut down, although nuclear decommission work resumed in 1990 and continued at least through 1999. The incident, similar in scale to the Three Mile Island meltdown, was later blamed for dozens of cancer deaths.[22] (http://www.nucleartourist.com/events/windscal.htm)[23] (http://www.lakestay.co.uk/1957.htm)[24] (http://www.british-energy.com/media/factfiles/mn_item57.html)[25] (http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/wp_5-2001/21663.html )

November 19, 1971 – At a nuclear power plant operated by Northern States Power Company in Monticello, Minnesota, a water storage facility overflows, releasing 50,000 US gallons (190 m³) of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some radioactive substances later enter the downstream St. Paul water system.

March 1972 – Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska submits information to the Congressional Record indicating that a routine check of a nuclear power plant showed radioactivity in the building's water—including the plant drinking fountain—which had been cross-connected with a 3,000 US gallon (11 m³) tank of radioactive water.

May 28, 1974 – The Atomic Energy Commission reports that 12 "abnormal events" in 1973 released radioactivity "above permissible levels" at nuclear power plants.

September 29, 1979 – Governor Bruce Babbitt of Arizona orders the National Guard to clean up American Atomics' Tucson plant, which he believes has been leaking. (Reports of problems by the Arizona Atomic Energy Commission had been stalled by a commissioner, who was also a vice-president of American Atomics.) At the kitchen for the public school system across the street from the plant, $300,000 of food is found contaminated by radioactive tritium; chocolate cake had 56 nCi/L, 2½ times the "safe" standard. A nuclear official accuses Babbitt of "greed for publicity."[37] (http://prop1.org/2000/accident/facts4.htm)[38] (http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO10.html)

August 9, 2004 – An accident in the nuclear power plant of Mihama, in the Fukui prefecture 320 km northwest of Tokyo causes five deaths and seven injuries becoming the deadliest nuclear power plant accident in Japan. The cause of the accident was a leak of non-radioactive steam in the reactor number 3 building. The power plant's operator recognized a defect of control procedures in its installations. The broken pipe did not meet the security norms. Local authorities announced that no radioactive leaks occurred outside of the building.


So both you and Russ are in factual error; there have been many nuclear power plant accidents besides Chernobyl that harmed civilians, both civilian employees and civilian non-employees.

 

[Moonbear]

Since when are employees not civilians? Many of those nuclear power plants are not military run.

Additionally there are plenty of examples on that page of radioactive material released into the environment.

From the 1980s alone, and _not even counting_ Chernobyl:

February 11, 1981 – A new worker inadvertently opens a valve and more than 110,000 US gallons (420 m³) of radioactive coolant liquid leaks into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah 1 nuclear power plant in rural Tennessee. Eight workers are contaminated with radiation.

April 25, 1981 – More than 100 workers are exposed to radiation during repairs of a nuclear power plant in Tsuruga, Japan.

June 1981 – a 3,000 US gallon (11 m³) leak of radioactive water occurs at the Salem Nuclear 2 reactor in Salem, New Jersey.

February 1982 – A 3,000 US gallon (11 m³) leak of mildly radioactive water contaminates 16 workers at a nuclear power plant in Salem, New Jersey.

August 1983 – 3,700 liters of tritium contaminated heavy water leaks into Lake Huron and Lake Ontario from Canadian nuclear power stations.

I'll just pull out the first few of your examples here, because they all have similar problems. First, in all those large volumes of water, how much actual radioactivity was contained in it? A few mCi of radioactive material diluted into 3000 gallons of water isn't even going to be detectable.

Also, stating that a handful of employees were contaminated doesn't mean much either. Was it on their clothing, their skin, or ingested? And at what levels? As an example, I work with radioactive materials in my lab. One of my students somehow managed to contaminate the lab floor with radioactivity, and stepped in it before identifying the problem (how she managed to spill onto the floor is a separate issue). The contamination was contained to a small work area and the soles of her shoes. Because we detected the contamination on an article of her clothing, and because it had spread to the floor (i.e., beyond the area where it should be contained), this was a reportable incident, we had to call up our radiation safety office and have them do additional surveys and file an incident report. This gets recorded as personnel contamination, although the student in question did not have any contamination of her body, just her shoes.

Also, compare those incidents at nuclear power plants to the incidence and severity of industrial accidents at any other type of power plant or large manufacturing facility.

I also think Russ' meaning for civilians in this case is similar to mine...non-employees, meaning injuries to those living around the plant, not those working in the plant.

 

[russ_watters]

Since when are employees not civilians? Many of those nuclear power plants are not military run.

Sorry, the way I use "civilians" in that context is anyone not associated with the industry. The reason in-industry accidents aren't relevant to this discussion is all industries have safety accidents and its a risk accepted by the people who choose to work in the industry (and reflected by things like insurance). As long as the risks aren't absurdly high (and in this case, they aren't), the general public's main concern should be how it affects the general public.

Additionally there are plenty of examples on that page of radioactive material released into the environment.

I never said there wasn't and that has nothing to do with my point. With the clarification above, the point remains: Except Chernobyl, nuclear power has never hurt anyone not associated with its production.[edited]

So both you and Russ are in factual error; there have been many nuclear power plant accidents besides Chernobyl that harmed civilians, both civilian employees and civilian non-employees.

The only one of those that says anything about killing anyone not invovled with the reactor is the British one in '57 - and that was not a power reactor, it was a research/weapons production reactor.

I'm sorry, but it is still you who is in error.

And regardless of if you include deaths of workers, are you really prepared to argue that that matters to this conversation? If you do, have a look at some coal mining accident statistics...

 

[BicycleTree]

Point taken about the research reactor.


You can't redefine words after you've used them to suit yourself. From dictionary.com, "civilian," as a noun, means:

ci·vil·ian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-vlyn)
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
2. A specialist in Roman or civil law.


Additionally you did not originally say "killed," you said "harmed." Release of radioactive material and excess radioactive dosage constitutes "harm." As does the deaths of many civilian workers. And, as in the last 1986 case I presented and the November 19, 1971 case, there are some incidents where the released radioactive material was stated as measurable in the environment.

I agree that these nuclear incidents taken together are not a huge screaming deal, and that dangers and pollution from other industries are often much greater (excepting the possibility of terrorist dirty-bombs).

 

[franznietzsche]

Russ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents

Seems like quite a few nuclear accidents, many of them fatal. Moreover, the only possible serious terrorist attack is nuclear (assuming they don't get their hands on a dangerous new disease, which is unlikely) so the material inside nuclear plants represents one of the very few truly dangerous targets by terrorists.

Did you actually read that list?

Almost all of the incidents did not involve power plants, but rather nuclear weapons or people in direct contact with the radioactive materials, and i didn't see any aside from chernobyl, involving power plants, that killed anyone not involved in the accident directly, which is exactly what russ said.

 

[russ_watters]

You can't redefine words after you've used them to suit yourself.

I apologize for not being clearer, but that really is what I meant (Moonbear understood). I'm not trying to decieve you or change my position - if you don't believe me, search the forum for past comments I've made on the subject. Beyond that... [shrug]

Additionally you did not originally say "killed," you said "harmed."

You're right (well, sort of... I said "hurt"). I'll edit the statement in my previous post to fix that. It still works fine that way.

[edit] I guess I should clarify what I mean by hurt: Injured. Physically damaged. Gotten radiation sickness and recovered, gotten cancer and recovered, etc.

Release of radioactive material and excess radioactive dosage constitutes "harm."

On what do you base the assertion that "excess radioactive dosage" has taken place? Also, the release of radioactive material alone does not necessarily guarantee it will "hurt" anyone.

TMI is a good example, and its the worst nuclear plant accident in US history. Radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. Long term studies of the area have shown no evidence of increased cancer concentrations around the site.

 

[Chi Meson]

Someone already mentioned coal. I've heard it siad, and it makes sense, that those huge mountains of coal waiting at coal-fired plants release a hugh amount of radiation due to the natural breakdown of carbon-14. I've heard so many differnt comparisons ("millions of times the radioactivity of what was released at TMI" etc.). Wondering if anyone had more accurate data.

 

[BicycleTree]

Franz, thank you for your tasteless and uninformed interjection. Did you actually read the thread?


Russ, okay, "hurt." Here's a summary of the conclusions so far:
-the nuclear industry is not unusually dangerous in terms of working hazards or pollution
-civilians-specifically workers-incontrovertibly have been hurt in nuclear power plants in accidents other than Chernobyl
-you did not meant to say "civilians" (okay)
-non-workers may or may not have been hurt by many releases of radioactive material in accidents other than Chernobyl. The page did include one incident (three mile island) on which dozens of cancer deaths have been blamed, perhaps illegitimately.

1967 – Livermore leaks plutonium into San Francisco's sewers for three weeks; the city used dried sewage as fertilizer.

In leaks like these, the damage is hard to quantify. But I think we can agree that if someone has been exposed to excess radioactivity, that person's risk of cancer has been increased somewhat. The level is frequently too low for "direct result" sickness, but increased cancer risk definitely constitutes hurt. For example, the Sept. 27, 1979 incident. Detectable levels of radioactive tritium in food--2 1/2 times the safe level in chocolate cake--constitutes hurt. Detectable though low levels of radioactive iodine exposure for the last 1986 incident I listed constitutes hurt.

Well, since no nuclear power plant anywhere, ever, except in the USSR (Chernobyl, with a major, unique design flaw) has had an accident that hurt some civilians - and in normal operation they are perfectly safe, I'd say that they are arguing for LNG and just don't know it! :rofl:

In all seriousness, the only thing to worry about with LNG (they are thinking of building a terminal here in Philly) is terrorism. If terrorists hijack one of these ships, that'd be bad (though not as bad as 9/11).

 

[Moonbear]

1967 – Livermore leaks plutonium into San Francisco's sewers for three weeks; the city used dried sewage as fertilizer.

Livermore is not a nuclear power plant. http://www.trivalleycares.org/pufactsheet.asp

For example, the Sept. 27, 1979 incident. Detectable levels of radioactive tritium in food--2 1/2 times the safe level in chocolate cake--constitutes hurt.

That's also not from a nuclear power plant. From your own reference:

The source of the contamination was American Atomics, a ten-million-dollar-a-year operation employing some two hundred workers in midtown Tucson. The company made a business of buying tritium from the federal weapons program and inserting it into thin glass slivers used in digital watches. The tritium makes the slivers glow without electricity.

Detectable though low levels of radioactive iodine exposure for the last 1986 incident I listed constitutes hurt.

Again (this is getting horribly repetitive), this is not from a nuclear power plant.
From:http://www.zyn.com/flcfw/regdir/FW/291.htm

The primary mission of the Hanford site is environmental restoration and management of the radioactive and hazardous wastes generated there during nearly 50 years of defense production. The broad scope of work also includes management of the East Flux Test Facility and other engineering development and chemical processing facilities; reactor decommissioning; site security; other support services; and management of the radioactive waste materials stored in 177 underground tanks, which account for a large portion of the overall Hanford cleanup effort.

The topic we have been addressing here is the relative safety of LNG compared with nuclear power plants. The question isn't about radioactive materials in general, or nuclear waste reclamation facilities, or watch dial factories, or government laboratories, or experimental reactors, or nuclear weapons development; it's about nuclear power plants.

 

[Data]

For example, the Sept. 27, 1979 incident. Detectable levels of radioactive tritium in food--2 1/2 times the safe level in chocolate cake--constitutes hurt. Detectable though low levels of radioactive iodine exposure for the last 1986 incident I listed constitutes hurt.

The "safe" level for non-radiation workers is several times lower that it is for radiation workers in the first place, and even then it's much lower than it would need to be to do any actual harm. $2.5$ times the "safe" level for the general population is nothing.

As an example: airline employees are classified as radiation workers because they get hit by extra cosmic ray muons. Obviously it's a real occupational hazard.

http://www.whfreeman.com/modphysics/PDF/12-3bw.pdf

 

[franznietzsche]

Franz, thank you for your tasteless and uninformed interjection. Did you actually read the thread?

Tasteless?

What the hell are you talking about?

And no, i hadn't finished reading, i just responded after reading the wiki link.

And our collective point still stands: no one has ever been harmed by a nuclear power plant not involved in its operation. As opposed to coal or natural gas.

 

[russ_watters]

-non-workers may or may not have been hurt by many releases of radioactive material in accidents other than Chernobyl. The page did include one incident (three mile island) on which dozens of cancer deaths have been blamed, perhaps illegitimately.

May not have. Until evidence shows that something has happened, you can't assume it has. No, TMI did not produce an increase in cancer rates around the plant. Its even been decided in court:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

Once more a different way: nuclear power in the US has a perfect health/safety record with regards to its impact on the general population.

 

[russ_watters]

Someone already mentioned coal. I've heard it siad, and it makes sense, that those huge mountains of coal waiting at coal-fired plants release a hugh amount of radiation due to the natural breakdown of carbon-14. I've heard so many differnt comparisons ("millions of times the radioactivity of what was released at TMI" etc.). Wondering if anyone had more accurate data.

http://yarchive.net/nuke/coal_radiation.html

 

[hitssquad]

Coal-burning releasing uranium and thorium

I've heard it siad, and it makes sense, that those huge mountains of coal waiting at coal-fired plants release a hugh amount of radiation due to the natural breakdown of carbon-14.

Carbon-14 beta decays, and it does so into a stable isotope:
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/nuc1.html

Beta radiation isn't very risky, from a distance. The mountain of coal sitting at a coal plant is not where coal-power's radiation comes from. The radiation comes from the burning of the coal whereupon the radioactive isotopes ("mainly, uranium and thorium;" see link below) in the coal are atmospherically released as part of the smoke and ash.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

 

[BicycleTree]

Okay, Moonbear, didn't notice those.

The three-mile island trial result is a fair point. However, deciding that there is not greater than a 50% chance of direct cause of illness from the radiation the plaintiffs were exposed to is very different from deciding that the accident produced no direct or indirect health implications whatsoever.

But there does seem to be a reasonable argument that nuclear power plants have not hurt people other than workers except for Chernobyl. One cannot say that nuclear _power_ (excluding Chernobyl) has not harmed any non-worker (see the incident at Mayak), and one cannot say that civilians have not been harmed several times by nuclear power plants, which is relevant to any community that a nuclear power plant might be built in because members of that community would be workers at the plant. But there seems to be reasonable doubt over whether non-workers have been hurt by a nuclear power plant except at Chernobyl so the reason for discussion seems to be moot; neither position should be asserted.

 

[Astronuc]

One cannot say that nuclear _power_ (excluding Chernobyl) has not harmed any non-worker (see the incident at Mayak), and one cannot say that civilians have not been harmed several times by nuclear power plants, . . .

The facility at Mayak is a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, not a nuclear power plant for electricity production. Some of the practices there can be considered 'sloppy'. Operations in US, Asia and Europe are much tighter than those is Russia.

 

[russ_watters]

The three-mile island trial result is a fair point. However, deciding that there is not greater than a 50% chance of direct cause of illness from the radiation the plaintiffs were exposed to is very different from deciding that the accident produced no direct or indirect health implications whatsoever.

Well let's just have it then: what direct evidence is there that it harmed someone? You can't simply assume that it did.

But there does seem to be a reasonable argument that nuclear power plants have not hurt people other than workers except for Chernobyl.

You're asking us to prove a negative, BT. That's impossible and unscientific. Look at it from the other direction: there is no evidence that nuclear power has ever harmed anyone not associated with its production (besides Chernobyl).

But there seems to be reasonable doubt over whether non-workers have been hurt by a nuclear power plant except at Chernobyl so the reason for discussion seems to be moot; neither position should be asserted.

No, there is no reasonable doubt: there simply is no evidence that anyone has been hurt.