Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:22:59 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: Paul Robinson <paul@akita.co.uk>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <3BA97D33.976CBEFD@mindspring.com> References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAMEFMCDAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> <xzpelp9s9ga.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3BA33CB6.FE0102C8@mindspring.com> <20010919132340.D306@blossom.cjclark.org> <20010919220407.A43466@jake.akitanet.co.uk> <20010919153116.G306@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Crist J. Clark" wrote: > > > I am wondering what type of hazardous chemical wastes from coal > > > cumbustion you are speaking of. > > > > Google for hazardous wastes of coal combustion (note the difference in > > spelling to the one you use) and see what you get. Coal combustion is > > considered by the US Government (or rather EPA) as non-hazardous, but > > contains toxic metals that get land-filled - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, > > lead and mercury all feature in the lists I've seen. > > Ah. Trace metals that happen to be there in the minerals. When I think > coal combustion, I think about the actual products of combustion going > up the stack. The bulk is water and carbon dioxide. The pollutants of > primary concern in the off gasses are SOx's and NOx's (the old acid > rain culprits). Getting particulates, which most of the trace metals > will be (possibly exculding mercury of course), out of the stack is > considered the easy part. "Nuclear waste" Ah. Trace metals that happen to be there in the pitchblende. When I think of nuclear energy, I think about the actual products of the decayed nuclei going into vitreous containers. The bulk is much less radioactive than the original refined Uranium. The pollutants if primary concern in the byproducts are things that, if you mixed them with the original mining tailing from which the Uranium was refined, and buried them back in the same hole, would, in general, be safer than what started out there. Getting rid of the waste that way would be easy and preferrable (excluding politicians trying to dictate the laws of physics of course) to the alternative. > Anyway, you are going to get that same bunch of metals and others, in > higher quantities actually, when you process uranium ore. You need to > do something with the uranium tailings and other processing wastes and > you need to dispose of the coal ashes, which all have concentrations of > these metals higher than the usual background level. Luckily, we have these holes, called "Uranium mines", where we know that they would be safe, since they've already been safe there for billions of years so far. > They are not really by-products since they are all there in the coal > when you start. Benzene? Long chain hydrocarbons? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BA97D33.976CBEFD>