India's generation of children crippled by uranium waste -- from coal.

Their heads are too large or too small, their limbs too short or too bent. For some, their brains never grew, speech never came and their lives are likely to be cut short: these are the children it appears that India would rather the world did not see, the victims of a scandal with potential implications far beyond the country's borders.

...

But it was only when a visiting scientist arranged for tests to be carried out at a German laboratory that the true nature of their plight became clear. The results were unequivocal. The children had massive levels of uranium in their bodies, in one case more than 60 times the maximum safe limit.

The results were both momentous and mysterious. Uranium occurs naturally throughout the world, but is normally only present in low background levels which pose no threat to human health. There was no obvious source in the Punjab that could account for such high levels of contamination.

...

But an Observer investigation has now uncovered disturbing evidence to suggest a link between the contamination and the region's coal-fired power stations. It is already known that the fine fly ash produced when coal is burned contains concentrated levels of uranium and a new report published by Russia's leading nuclear research institution warns of an increased radiation hazard to people living near coal-fired thermal power stations.

The test results for children born and living in areas around the state's power stations show high levels of uranium in their bodies. Tests on ground water show that levels of uranium around the plants are up to 15 times the World Health Organisation's maximum safe limits. Tests also show that it extends across large parts of the state, which is home to 24 million people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/30/india-punjab-children-uranium-pollution

that existed in 1964.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium. ..snip"

... please remember Uranium is a deadly heavy metal poison.. it isn't just the radioactivity.. google: Extreme Birth defects-depleted uranium.. some articles contain graphic photos.. we dumped about 3000 tons of DU in iraq..

Mercury from coal plants will be responsible for 1/3 of americans having Diabetes.. and worse.. within 30 years

Puts it into perspective as one of many many pollutants we create that are mutagenic and otherwise toxic, having nothing to do with radiation.

dont scroll below this line, there are horrable things there that we have done to the Iraqi people.. an its FOREVER.!!!!!
AND IT'S REAL, REAL BAD, DOESNT GET MUCH WORSE.

"SNIP...The pictures below, which are extremely disturbing, show exactly what does...SNIP"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

That would be to fission it.

:patriot:

2.46% of thermal fissions of Pu-239 yield non-radioactive Nd-146?

http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/nuc7.html

Nah. Some folks go ballistic when you mention science around here.

Ignoring for a minute the fact that most of the OP article is
talking about "uranium" poisoning not "radioactivity" (and thus
ignoring your deliberate attempt to deflect criticism away from
coal-fired power stations onto nuclear ones), you are not being
supported unanimously even in your cover-story:

> Their concerns are bolstered by a report from the Kurchatov Institute in
> Moscow, Russia's leading state organisation for nuclear research, published
> last month in the Russian Academy of Sciences' Thermal Engineering journal.
> The report's author, DA Krylov, raised serious doubts about the safety of
> coal-fired thermal power stations (TPSs), concluding that radiation from ash
> residues and from chimney emissions built up around coal-fired power plants
> and posed an additional risk to those living and working in the area.
>
> "Natural radionuclides contained in coals concentrate in ash-and-slag wastes
> and gas-aerosol emissions as these coals are fired at TPSs, with the result
> that an elevated man-made radiation background builds up around TPSs," the
> report stated. The situation became worse, the report said, if ash was used
> as a construction material or as a filling material for roads.
>
> A previous report in the magazine Scientific American, citing various
> sources, claimed that fly ash emitted by power plants "carries into the
> surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant
> producing the same amount of energy", adding: "When coal is burned into fly
> ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original
> levels."

:shrug:

Meanwhile, back on the subject of the thread,

> Scientists in Punjab who have studied the presence of uranium in the state
> have dismissed the government denials as a whitewash. "If the government says
> there is a high level of uranium in an area that would create havoc – they
> don't want to openly say something like that," said Dr Chander Parkash, a
> wetland ecologist working at Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.
>
> Both he and Dr Surinder Singh, who works at the same university and has also
> carried out tests on the state's ground water, said it was clear that uranium
> was present in large quantities and should be investigated further.

Shouldn't take long before the local coal interests manage to bribe their way
around mere health matters - just as would happen in Appalachia for example ...