引用:
|
作者benjamine
我還真是孤陋寡聞了，竟然google到大陸新聞：
據悉，煤或天然氣都有相當成分的放射性釷(Th-232)、鉀(K-40)、鐳(Ra-226)及微量的鈾(U-238)。數據顯示，煤灰中放射性強度可以濃縮10到20倍，如果人們照常呼吸，每年造成的輻射劑量，比住在核電廠附近要多上1到10倍不等。
又G到這：
《科學》雜誌1978年的一篇論文中，美國橡樹嶺國家實驗室的麥克布賴德（J.P.McBride）及其同事研究了田納西和亞拉巴馬州的燃煤火電廠產生的粉煤灰中鈾和釷的含量。為了搞清楚浸出作用的危害有多大，科學家對火電廠周圍的輻射進行了估算，並和核電廠使用的沸水反應器和壓水反應器周圍的輻射值做了對比。
嗯！煤渣應該超級值錢！
啊系金a啊系假a！別嚇我捏，有沒有比較明確的証明？還有我是支持德國方向，電費可以帳，不過要先殺台電肥貓！
|
很像以前跟人討論過1978橡樹嶺那篇
再重貼一次
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
要論該段文章Radioactivity from Coal Combustion的話,末二段算是小結
All studies of potential health hazards associated with the release of radioactive elements from coal combustion conclude that the perturbation of natural background dose levels is almost negligible. However, because the half-lives of radioactive potassium-40, uranium, and thorium are practically infinite in terms of human lifetimes, the accumulation of these species in the biosphere is directly proportional to the length of time that a quantity of coal is burned.
Although trace quantities of radioactive heavy metals are not nearly as likely to produce adverse health effects as the vast array of chemical by-products from coal combustion, the accumulated quantities of these isotopes over 150 or 250 years could pose a significant future ecological burden and potentially produce adverse health effects, especially if they are locally accumulated. Because coal is predicted to be the primary energy source for electric power production in the foreseeable future, the potential impact of long-term accumulation of by-products in the biosphere should be considered.
你聽過150~250年使用的燃煤電廠嗎?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
附帶一提,那還是1978年的集塵科技下的結果