A new Duke University-led study has revealed the presence of radioactive contaminants in coal ash from all three major U.S. coal-producing basins.
The study found that levels of radioactivity in the ash were up to five times higher than in normal soil, and up to 10 times higher than in the parent coal itself because of the way combustion concentrates radioactivity.
The finding raises concerns about the environmental and human health risks posed by coal ash, which is currently unregulated and is stored in coal-fired power plants' holding ponds and landfills nationwide.
"Until now, metals and contaminants such as selenium and arsenic have been the major known contaminants of concern in coal ash," said Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment. "This study raises the possibility we should also be looking for radioactive elements, such as radium isotopes and lead-210, and including them in our monitoring efforts."
Radium isotopes and lead-210 occur naturally in coal as chemical by-products of its uranium and thorium content. Vengosh's research team revealed that when the coal is burned, the radium isotopes become concentrated in the coal ash residues, and the lead-210 becomes chemically volatile and reattaches itself to tiny particles of fly ash. This causes additional enrichment of radioactivity in the fly ash.
"Radioactive radium and lead-210 ends up concentrated in these tiny particles of fly ash, which though individually small, collectively comprise the largest volume of coal ash waste going into holding ponds and landfills," said Nancy Lauer, a Ph.D. student in Vengosh's lab who was lead author of the study.
Vengosh, Lauer and their colleagues published their peer-reviewed paper Sept. 2 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The study comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's first-ever regulations on coal ash disposal are set to go into effect in October.
Currently, coal ash disposal sites are not monitored for radioactivity, Vengosh noted, "so we don't know how much of these contaminants are released to the environment, and how they might affect human health in areas where coal ash ponds and landfills are leaking. Our study opens the door for future evaluation of this potential risk."
Smokestack scrubbers installed at U.S. power plants keep these contaminants from escaping into the air when the coal is burned, he stressed. But if the contaminated coal ash is spilled, or if effluents leak from ponds or landfills, it may pose a hazard.
"Because of the tiny size of the fly ash particles, they are much more likely to be suspended in air if they are disposed in a dry form. People breathing this air may face increased risks, particularly since tiny particles tend to be more enriched in radioactivity," Lauer said.
Vengosh said this study is the first systematic study to compare radioactivity in coal and coal ash from the Illinois, Appalachian and Powder River basins. The researchers collected multiple samples of coal and coal ash from all three coal-producing basins and then measured the radioactive elements in each sample.
Their tests showed that coal and coal ash from different basins exhibited different levels of radioactivity - the Illinois basin had the most, followed by the Appalachian and then the Powder River, which is in Wyoming and Montana. The tests also showed that the ratio of radium to uranium in the parent coal was consistent with the ratio found in its residual coal ash.
"This means we can predict how much potential radioactivity will occur in coal ash by measuring the uranium content in the parent coal, which is easily discerned," Vengosh said. "This analysis can be applied to all coal ash worldwide, and is useful information for regulators, industries and scientists alike."
Because the isotopic ratios of the coal and coal ash varied between basins but were consistent within each individual basin, researchers can also use them to determine the source of environmental contamination. "They allow us to not only distinguish between the three basins, but also to determine whether contaminants are coming from coal ash or some other naturally occurring source in the local environment," Lauer said.
Explore further:
New tracers can identify coal ash contamination in water
More information:
"Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in Coals and Coal Combustion Residuals in the United States," Nancy E. Lauer, James C. Hower, Heileen Hsu-Kim, Ross K. Taggart, Avner Vengosh. Environmental Science & Technology, Sept. 2, 2015. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01978

gkam
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2015Nukes and coal are killing us, and threatening the safety and health of all our descendants, since much of this nasty stuff lasts forever in Human terms.
How can their supporters face themselves?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2015mytwocts
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2015Good news. I would not be surprised if a burnt slice toast is also 5 times more radioactive than soil. As long as we do not swallow or breath in too much of it, compared to soil, we are ok. Car exhaust is far more dangerous.
docile
Sep 02, 2015MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2015http://www.radiat...ion.html
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2015ab3a
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2015Do note: many well water supplies have naturally occurring radium and uranium. Filters have been developed to take out those contaminants.
Like many things, radioactivity rises and sets with the sun every day. Safety is a matter of degree. Five times a very small number is still a small number, though perhaps a number worth paying more attention to. Remember that we're dealing with a logarithmic scale here, not a linear one.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 02, 2015NoTennisNow
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2015ab3a
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2015I'm not belittling this hazard, but we do need to consider it in context of other risks. I'm far more concerned about the sulfur dioxide than I am about a slight amount of radium that one may detect going up the stack.
In fact, coal ash may prove quite lucrative if someone were ever to find a way to safely and inexpensively extract the heavy metals from it.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2015------------------------------------
Exactly right. Meantime, it is a toxic nuisance. But whoever has it for a few years might just turn that liability to an asset.
NoTennisNow
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2015MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2015NoTennisNow
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2015gkam
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2015NoTennisNow
1 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2015Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2015Cher, if you would try the Google-Skippy every now and then, you would see that the Duke-Skippys had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing something about it and are still resisting doing all that they should. PLEASE change sides, you are really not helping any of the causes you slogan on.
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2015"In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama.
The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area"
http://pbadupws.n...0447.pdf
NoTennisNow
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2015kenglick
not rated yet Sep 03, 2015TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2015nkalanaga
5 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2015And, since fly ash contains other heavy metals as well, why not separate them? Might even be some of the valuable stuff that we have to import now. Or maybe not, as I don't know how much of the "other stuff" there is. That would be a good study for someone to do, maybe even a coal company.
Several people: This study was by Duke University, not Duke Energy. They're different organizations. Duke U. Used to be Trinity College, but was renamed in 1924 after receiving a large endowment from the Duke family.
https://en.wikipe...and_will
gkam
1 / 5 (11) Sep 04, 2015NoTennisNow
1 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2015WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2015gkam
1 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2015-------------------------------
Yes. "traces" of, not substantial parts of, compared to hundreds of tons of intensely-radioactive materials we get from nuclear powerplants each fuel cycle.
NoTennisNow
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2015philstacy9
1 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2015gkam
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2015-------------------------------------
We are really sorry to take away your right to another Republican Religious War.
But you haven't paid for the last several.
AGreatWhopper
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2015Sorry, gkam, that was supposed to be "5". Duh, me.
AGreatWhopper
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2015Hysteria has caused more mortality and morbidity in the Chernobyl area than the radiation did. The radiation is not innocuous, but that was an accident. The fear mongering is deliberate.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2015"To put this in perspective, if we were to take all the nuclear waste produced to date in the United States and stack it side-by-side, end-to-end, it would cover an area about the size of a football field to a depth of about thirty feet."
http://www.americ...aste.asp
While construction of a 25-turbine wind facility clears enough trees to fill 100 football fields; 4-6 acres of forest is clearcut for each turbine.
Furthermore, "..one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste.."
nkalanaga
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2015I'd like to see a source for that. Based on that statement, rare-earth ores are nothing but radioactive waste, which seems unlikely. And, if they are, maybe we should be mining them for nuclear fuel.
As for clear cutting to build wind farms, most I've seen, across the US, are in areas with few or no trees. Many are in the middle of farms or grazing areas, and agricultural activities continue around them.
NoTennisNow
2 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2015NoTennisNow
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2015WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2015http://itheo.org/...e-Earths
"..11,000 truckloads of radioactively contaminated material.."
https://en.wikipe...erations
"The ore tends to carry uranium and thorium, the most radioactive element on the planet.."
http://www.livesc...ica.html
"..but also radioactive elements such as thorium which, if ingested, cause cancers of the pancreas and lungs, and leukaemia."
http://www.thegua...ollution
http://institutef...inerals/
http://web.mit.ed...ent.html
http://blogs.ei.c...-enough/
Wind/solar pollutes much more than nuclear.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2015---------------------------------
Really? I do not see any long-term cleanup at Altamont.
Now, let's look at Fukushima and Chernobyl, and some of the weapons sites. All nuclear technology is dangerous.
NoTennisNow
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2015gkam
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2015Go to Fukushima Diary and see the reports from TEPCO and the other sources.
http://fukushima-diary.com/
or go to:
http://enenews.com/
Both are news aggregators, with the sources listed.
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2015WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2015gkam
1 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2015We should just buck up, go to Fukushima, . . . and walk into the glow.
nkalanaga
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2015WillieWard
3.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2015http://scienceblo...tricity/
Osiris1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2015When you think of it, what is coal but the sum of all the offal, shit, pee, rotten veggies, putrid bodies, and other organic material that ever fell to the ground and rotted away...or fossilized...; and was covered up with more layers..rinse, lather, repeat for eons until some event covered the whole layer. But of course that was only for ONE coal seam from land deposition. Earth the serial changer soon had many more in the space of geologic time.
As new generations are not told of past sins, we repeat them!!
Osiris1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2015NoTennisNow
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2015If you (or anyone else) want to really worry, look up the term Banna Equivalent Dose:
"Is an informal expression of ionizing radiation exposure, intended as a general educational example to indicate the potential dose due to naturally occurring radioactive isotopes by eating one average-sized banana. One BED is often taken as 0.1 µSv, however, in practice this dose is not cumulative, as the principal radioactive component is excreted to maintain metabolic equilibrium. The BED is only an indicative concept meant to show the existence of very low levels of natural radioactivity within a natural food and is not a formally adopted dose quantity".
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2015richard_f_cronin
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2015