Just Wondering wrote:


From December 13, 2007 Scientific American article, "Coal Ash Is More
Radioactive than Nuclear Waste",

... the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive
than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly
ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for
electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more
radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of
energy. ...
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."
...
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a
power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via
water or dry cask storage.


Context is everything. The article is talking about radiation in normal
use - which for both fuels is miniscule. Others here have been talking
about nukes versus other technologies when things go wrong. The above
article and the previous comment you made which this attempts to defend are
true - but meaningless in context. The better analogy would be to compare
the radiological results of a train full of fly ash derailing and spilling
all its contents, and a nuke station going through what is happening in
Japan right now. Make that every train car in America on any given day,
derailing, full of fly ash. When it goes wrong - it goes wrong in a much
bigger way with nukes. Maybe Scientific American has an article you can
post on the environmental affects of a melt down.

--

-Mike-