An estimated 500 million gallons of coal-ash sludge are seeping along the I-40 Knoxville-Nashville corridor in eastern Tennessee, after an earthen wall gave way on Dec. 22 at the TVA Harriman coal-fired plant. While no casualties were reported, the coal-ash spill—the refuse left over after the plant burns the coal—should be a terrifying toxic wake-up call about the thousands of coal-fired plants and refuse-pile accidents waiting to happen across the county.
According to numerous studies, coal ash contains mercury, lead, and arsenic. And nearly 800 Olympic-size swimming pools of that toxic mix is flowing into the waterways of Tennessee now. As the Knoxville News Sentinel reported Tuesday:
Viewed from above, the scene looked like the aftermath of a tsunami, with swirls of dirtied water stretching for hundreds of acres on the land, and muddied water in the Emory River.
The Emory leads to the Clinch, which flows into the Tennessee. Workers sampled river water Monday, with results expected back today, but didn’t sample the dunelike drifts of muddy ash."
For the millions of people downstream in Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky, a spill estimated to be several times bigger than the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska is creeping into their waterways and aquifers.
Footage of the spill can be seen here and below the fold.
But here’s the nightmare coda: Coal ash is more toxic and radioactive than nuclear waste. According to recent studies:
... the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.
According to some surveys, people living near coal-ash dumps have 900 times the national cancer rates.
Let’s hope not only that the TVA, EPA, and appropriate government agencies deal with this spill in a swift and wise manner, but also that the new Obama administration recognizes the dangers of dirty coal and accelerates its clean energy program.
Comments
View as Flat
Erik Hoffner Posted 9:15 am
23 Dec 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 9:53 am
23 Dec 2008
So, where are the political leaders of West Virgina, Tennessee, when they are needed to protect the people. I know. They are off seeking bailout money for Massey Energy.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 10:57 pm
23 Dec 2008
Charles Barton
Permalink
tnrkitect Posted 12:37 am
24 Dec 2008
Monday afternoon, a TVA Spokesman said they were not aware of any fish kills and were working with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to examine and mitigate any environmental damage that it may have caused.
When asked specifically about the hundreds to thousands of dead fish found near the steam plant in the Clinch River, TVA Spokesman Gil Francis said the sudden dip in temperatures could have played a role.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:59 am
24 Dec 2008
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radi ...
"fly ash--a by-product from burning coal for power--contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste"
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
JCS Posted 2:33 am
24 Dec 2008
But Jeff and Erik, you either misunderstand or misrepresent the research about radioactivity. Fly ash and other coal by-products contain only trace amounts of radioactive material, while nuclear waste is almost entirely radioactive.
Yes, the article Erik linked does say that people living near coal plants get more radiation from those plants than people living near nuke plants do. That's because nuke plants have such excellent shielding. Exposure to people living near coal plants is negligible. From the article:
McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.
Let's not lose perspective. This coal ash spill is horrific enough without incorrect reports that overstate the radioactivity.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:07 am
24 Dec 2008
Cows prevented from grazing on approximately 1,000 square feet of land for a week until crane lifts tower....
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:10 am
24 Dec 2008
Nuke plants have shielding, but does the entire downstream area of the spill have that? The stuff is dilute, and we live on an already irradiated planet, but how many toxic insults are we willing to bear to boil water?
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 4:43 am
24 Dec 2008
Report From Matt Landon at the spill site in TN:
Contact (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[29]='\"';l[30]=' 109';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 99';l[33]=' 46';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 111';l[36]=' 104';l[37]=' 97';l[38]=' 121';l[39]=' 64';l[40]=' 49';l[41]=' 48';l[42]=' 48';l[43]=' 50';l[44]=' 110';l[45]=' 111';l[46]=' 100';l[47]=' 110';l[48]=' 97';l[49]=' 108';l[50]=' 116';l[51]=' 116';l[52]=' 97';l[53]=' 109';l[54]=':';l[55]='o';l[56]='t';l[57]='l';l[58]='i';l[59]='a';l[60]='m';l[61]='\"';l[62]='=';l[63]='f';l[64]='e';l[65]='r';l[66]='h';l[67]='a ';l[68]='
Permalink
dwalters Posted 2:45 am
26 Dec 2008
Charles is correct: if TVA had build nuclear plants instead of coal plants the thousands of coal attributed deaths a year, and maybe this disaster, would of been averted.
Yes, coal ash is not dangerously radioactive, because low doses of radioactivity are basically irrelevant to human development. What IS dangerous is uranium and thorium as a heavy metal where heavy metal toxicity is a real and present danger. Coal produces the majority of the worlds mercury releases today. Nasty.
If you oppose nuclear, and no it's NOT FUNNY, nor meant to be, then you are objectively supporting the continued use of coal plants and its effects. YOU are responsible for not taking a stand against coal because you have NO plan to substitute out the coal plants with reliable non-intermittent electrical generation. This is what convinced me, in part, to support building new nuclear plants around the world. And the world is building new nuclear plants. Each plant representing at least one coal plant NOT being build.
David Walters
Permalink