Think for just a moment. Does coal have a high uranium concentration? It's mostly carbon.... When it burns it just reduces to the concentration of the soil of the forest that made the coal. Since the uranium prefers to stay at the bottom, the escaping fly ash has a reduced concentration compared to even that soil, so when it lands, it may even screen people from the soil background radiation below it more than that soil self-screens.

There is quite a lot of uranium in the crust of the Earth, but we are not subject to radiation from any of it except from that mixed with a very thin layer at the surface. Fly ash is just like that layer or even less concentrated. So, nothing is really changed in terms of radiation from that.

You forgot also to account for the screening effect of piling the coal ash as well. That makes the change in radiation zero. You may also be confusing permil with percent. We know about 30% of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels so that is about the dilution amount presently. We really only care about the atmosphere since that is where the carbon in our food comes from.

You should consider carbon-14 incorporated in a cell nucleus I think.

You are mistaken. Uranium in coal ash is in the same concentration as in soil. There is no increase in background when the screening is the same. Fossil fuels do dilute carbon-14 in the atmosphere so our food is less radioactive as a result.

RTFA

Doesn't go into the atmosphere, it is scrubbed or remains at the bottom. You've likely been bamboozled based on your comment. The nuclear industry put out some false info on this a while back. Fossil fuel use reduces rather than increases radiation exposure.

Part of the EPA's instructions are to consider the costs of regulations. Since new reactors are supposed to be safer, it should be free of cost to tighten regulations. This would be the time to tighten rather than loosen regulations.

Bogus. We are adapted to background radiation but it still causes cancers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Many were killed by the evacuation.

You use this phrase but don't seem to understand what is means, "significant associations" is the opposite of what you are saying.

Some higher altitude cities in the US show lower average performance in Luminosity's tests. http://www.dailytech.com/Lumos... Though Provo and Ft. Collins are doing OK.

Standards for small reactors should be stronger to avoid greater exposure for the public. Replacing one large reactor with fifty smaller reactors increases public exposure by a factor of fifty unless the standard is strengthened by a factor of fifty for the small reactors.

Strip mines do get returned to grade and much faster than exclusion zones can be re-inhabited. So, you don't really have a point here. Turns out Germany is managing much butter than Japan. http://www.forbes.com/sites/am...

Compare the uranium content of coal ash and low carbon soil. It's the same. It is well known that carbon-14 comes from thermal neutron absorption by nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. Isolating carbon from the atmosphere causes the fraction of carbon-14 to fall. This is how radiocarbon dating works. Diluting the atmospheric carbon with fossil carbon reduces the carbon-14 content of food and thus our internal radiation load.

So, in Brussels there is a office to subsidize food production and another to destroy the food surplus according to Minister Hacker. Now we will have oil spills to destroy all the effort put into restoring the Chesapeake Bay. It used to be funny on TV, but in real life it just looks stupid.