Interesting about the coal's radioactivity. Up in the air, I suppose? Incineration wouldn't destroy the radioactivity, would it?
Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard > Sent: Sat, May 31, 2003 12:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] Lovely low level radiation? Proposal for new > Whitehouse dinnerware > > > Lawry, > > The casualty rate for uranium miners is about the same as coal miners. > However, far less uranium is required than coal than for same wattage. > > I'm not sure how much less, but I do know that the wattage that fills one > truck of uranium waste, fills 35,000 trucks with coal waste. > > Oh, yes. There's more radioactivity in the coal waste than in the uranium > waste, but who knows where it goes? > > Harry > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lawrence wrote: > > >I would guess that if uranium miners are radioactive, it would be because > >they inhaled radioactive particles that are embedded in their lungs. But > >irradiated food does not take in any radioactive particles, as I > understand > >it: it just receives radiation that kills germs (I guess?) but is left > >uncontaminated itself, after the exposure. E.g. when I have an > x-ray, I am > >not left contaminated. If I inhale a plutonium particle, I am in serious > >trouble. > > > >Cheers, > >L > > > **************************************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > **************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
