This Diary summarizes and posts links to scientific info about coal ash and health effects; puts the spill in some long term perspective; and notes the lack of MSM coverage. No story yet on CNN-- just a 10 second blurb yesterday. Samza wants to know -- has this story been in the MSM news you’ve seen? Quick Poll.
What is in Coal Ash?
According to
National Research Defense Council
This waste contains toxic chemicals such as aluminum, arsenic,
boron, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, molybdenum, selenium and sulfate—pollutants that can cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive
problems, damage to the nervous system and kidneys, and learning disabilities in children.
There are several potential risks...
contamination presents a serious risk to drinking water supplies near landfills and impoundments, whether they are public
water systems, domestic drinking water wells, or springs. According to an EPA draft report, pollution from coal combustion waste dumps and lagoons has contaminated surface water and groundwater at up to 24 sites in 13 states.
The site also has an easy to read table of the contaminants and health effects
Coal Ash is also radioactive. It is not so much that a small amount is highly radioactive, but that it is slightly radioactive coupled with such great quantity being produced. Inother words, it is not like a handful of coal ash is like a handful of nuclear waste, but a cubic mile of the stuff might be. This article in
Scientific American puts in perpective.
So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
The TVA officials first played it way down, underestimated the spill by four-fold.
Dec 26 New York Times
A coal ash spill in eastern Tennessee that experts were already calling the largest environmental disaster of its kind in the United States is more than three times as large as initially estimated, according to an updated survey by the Tennessee Valley Authority.
But aerial pictures showed otherwise. The spill is clearly several fold larger than what the pond was supposed to be holding. Incredibly to Samza, officials have said the dead fish probably died from the cold and not the toxins, and they detained persons for trying to take photos. The size of the spill is larger by far than the Valdez spill, and an earlier diary documented the beauty of the area on stunning photgraphs. One resident told the New York Times (same link as above) "This is not a thin coating of ash," she said. "These are boulders. There’s one in our cove that’s probably the size of our home."
There are pictures that are worth a thousand words, and perhaps millions of dollars in clean coal advertising down the drain...
So why isn’t houses being washed away by a fossil fuel spill larger than Valdez a major news story?
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/...
Samza has been typing this with CNN’s HeadlineNews on, earlier today I watched CNN for a couple of hours. I am seeing a lot of coverage on Isreal/Gaza, also the Santa Clause murderer. As I started typing there was an extended story on single men adopting children, some coverage about a crash at a Hannukah party, a Maryland family held hostage during a robbery, a family who had some things stolen by way of an attic entry, some veterans getting makeovers, a Portland Oregon grocey store roof that collapsed (no one injured)... but so far nothing about the Tennessee Spill all day long. I saw a brief mention yesterday (like 10 seconds)-- but it wasn’t a something you would call a real story... Nothing like the time devoted to the young women selling their eggs to infertile women (at least a five minute story with interviews, etc) that is being covered by CNN’s Randy Kaye and is on HNN as I type this ...