Deadly Nuclear? How About Deadly Coal!

Re: Coal Smoke

PostBy: Gary in Pennsylvania On: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:43 pm

blueduck wrote:Hi Gary, Your artice got me researching the net for coal smoke.



WHOA! Lets be clear....That's not my article. I found it trying to look for coal stove pics. I shared it....but I CERTAINLY don't agree with the authors sentiment!
Gary in Pennsylvania
 

Re: Coal Smoke

PostBy: Richard S. On: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:47 pm

Both of those conditions are far from real world examples here in the US. Mice in enclosed chamber or the air pollution in China are far worse. Someof those cties in China are so bad they have to wear masks.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

PostBy: Berlin On: Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:31 pm

understand that coal in much of china has undergone a process called mineralization that results in extremely high levels of toxic and dangerous minerals and metals in their coal, there is no comparison to US coal or coal in most of the rest of the world. also understand that when you read obout horrible things happening to some people in china because of coal smoke, it is happeneing because they are heating and cooking over UNVENTED coal fires in their homes! they are living in a chimney; it's amazing they make it to 40 in the first place, especially with such toxic coal that they are using.


In addition that study raises some questions in my mind because wood smoke contains very high levels of about 12 or so known carcinogens that coal smoke contains very low levels of compared to wood. of the PAH's coal contains lower levels of many of the known carcinogens that are in both coal and woodsmoke. and this was a number of samples of different eastern bituminous coals; i would think because of anthricite's very low volitile content there would be virtually nonexistant PAH's and thus almost no known carcinogens in the smoke at all. but much chinese coal is not of the purity of USA eastern bituminous and thus the carcinogens due partly i'm sure to mineralization may be quite high and thus the results of that study that has been all over the internet for years.
Berlin
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: Will-Burt Combustioneer 77B
Coal Size/Type: Ohio BITUMINOUS pea stoker coal


PostBy: coaledsweat On: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:30 pm

coaledsweat wrote:I may be wrong but I think that Bituminous coal is what this is all about. Hey Coalman am I off track or is Anthracite being lumped in with its dirty brother here?
In Connecticut DEP approves Anthracite, all others are banned.


That was my point here, Anthracite is much cleaner than wood, and other coals by far.
coaledsweat
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Fumes

PostBy: blueduck On: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:07 pm

Berlin, Thanks for posting... I've burned wood for years, I would always wait until it was good and cold out because if I didn't the house would be 90+. It was an old stove and the flue gas temp was always 300 to 400 F I would never smell any smoke in the house unless I was lighting a fire.
This Mark I is a bit different. I been using it because it's new to me and I'm trying to sort it out. Its been warm out and raining so the flu gas lingers outside and leaks back in house. I let my coal fire go out and I'm going to wait until its colder out. The one good thing is, coal fumes stink.
So If I can smell it inside something is wrong.
I had a stoker stove for about a month and personally I think they may be the worst thing combined with a power vent at ground level. That combustion fan must keep the concentrations of pollutants at high levels always mixing the fly ash. The smell is 100 times as strong as anything that has come out of my Mark I.
I hope once it gets cold out I'll like my stove....

http://www.smfrancis.demon.co.uk/airwolvs/24expos2.html

(edit do so long post of link...)
blueduck
 


cron