Why are people worried about nuclear energy radiation when coal plants produce even more radiation?

Question

To those who disagree, I beg to differ: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.

Answer 1

Mostly because people are ignorant.  When people think about nuclear... well nuclear anything, they think about bombs like the one dropped in Hiroshima.  They think about nuclear fallout and deformities and mushroom clouds.  They just don't know enough and aren't seeking the facts.

Answer 2

Nuclear is not as sustainable as coal, though that is not completely sustainable either.  I would rather breath some extra CO2 and have spring come a little sooner than get my skin ripped off by a nuclear radiation release!

Answer 3

That's a very good question:  There ARE some people in the environmental movement who recognize that nuclear energy is by far the lesser of two evils because of the huge contribution to global warming that coal-burning plants make.

(I think you meant to say "when coal plants produce even more greenhouse gases.")

Answer 4

coal power plants dont produce radiation.  Thats why.

Answer 5

Words are extremely important in any written, or vocal communication. While it is interesting that coal does have radioactive waste in it from burning to fly ash, the article points out some issues with your position. No absolute terms were used in the portion that I read. With that in mind, phrases like "up to" means that there is a chance that there are multiple levels that range from barely detectable, to the given levels of 10 times their natural level of concentration. So, lets be fair, coal COULD be a source of radioactive waste sent into the environment, IF it is present in the coal being burned which the article offered that as a possibility, and IF the coal is burned to fly ash. If the power plant is NOT burning coal to fly ash, then what is the risk then. Also, what engineering changes are in use to limit such discharge? I know for a fact that coal fueled power plants use electrostatic cleaners in the exhaust from their furnaces to capture as much as they can before that fly ash gets into the atmosphere. That fly ash is then collected and buried, or washed into sediment ponds. So-o-o-o, let's be fair, #1, and tell the complete story for point #2.

Now let's get over to nuclear power. As for coal, once it is burned, and the fly ash collected, thus allowing as little as possible into the atmosphere, has little further pollution affect on the atmosphere. While there is the issue of green house gases, plants do absorb at least some of that. So, there is not that much lingering pollution from the coal fired plants. Nuclear, on the other hand produce deadly radioactive fuel rods which will stay deadly for many thousands of years, Would you really want to be a neighbor of the burial site for nuclear waste ar Barnwell, SC, or SRP which is close by, or perhaps the nuclear facilities in the state of Washington, or Denver, CO? Let's see here, the Savannah River Project, where we were making nuclear weapons grade material for many years has tanks of liquid radioactive waste that are beginning to leak. That means that unless properly contained, nuclear material that is VERY radioactive, and equally deadly is getting into the area water supply, as well as into the river. The plutonium processing buildings there are so "hot", by radiation that no one can enter them for any long period of time, unless suicide by radiation poisoning is your "thing". The same thing is true for the facilities near Denver, CO. As for the facilities in Washington state, they have tanks of liquid waste that are not only leaking, but are so thermally hot from the radiative waste dumped in them over the years, which is making them act like low power reactors, that the liquids are SELF boiling. Nuclear is safer than coal???? Yes, I do disagree. What you have failed miserably at, is to consider waste disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Sorry boys and girls, it just doesn't go away, or cool off after a few days. It sticks around for thousands of years. If this bad part of the nuclear energy genie gets loose, it is a demon that will be, not could be, will be far worse than all of the coal plants combined. There has yet to be a way to safely contain and store spent nuclear fuel rods from reactors. All efforts have ended in failure. Concerns for geological activity, like earth quakes, unearthing or breaking the encasement devices makes it difficult to find suitable locations. If one is found, you then have governors saying that they will not allow transport of such material across their state. As for other uses, such as the SNAP generators used to power satellites, the same technology could be used to power homes. That has already been proven to be a viable way of using spent rods to make heat, and then make electricity by using thermocouples at the electricity generator. The issues there are, safety, what if someone gets such a unit open, terrorist activity, such generators would be a great source for material to make a "dirty bomb", and the power companies nixed the effort as well. They did want the competition. So, while coal is not the best source of energy, it does not have the hazards that nuclear energy has associated with it.