I must agree with David. I have used flyash on major environmental cleanups to stabilize many and various sludges. We used it because it was cheap and worked exceedingly well. I have used it at both an auto wrecker and at a nuclear generating plant. If there had been any radioactivity in the flyash alarms would have gone off all over the place but they did not.
I have not been able to try it on papercrete because LeFarge cement has bought up all the flyash in
Nick
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:34 AM
To:
Subject: [papercreters] Misleading Headline...Re: Interesting reading for flyash users
The article body does not say that flyash is more radioactive than
nuclear waste!! I
It says THAT FOR PEOPLE LIVING AROUND A POWER PLANT, exposure to
radiation from flyash in CoalPlant stack emissions is greater for
that group of near the plant folks than exposure to stray radiation
that manages to pass through the walls of a NuclearPlant is for folks
living close to a nuclear plant.
Two way different conclusions.
--- In papercreters@
wrote:
>
> nurl.us/7nb
>
> Scientific American says that coal ash (fly ash) is more radioactive
> than nuclear waste. Food for thought...
>
> Spaceman
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
