Reply #43: Couldn't disagree with you more...

[PamW]

That when the full fuel cycle for nuclear is examined, it's impacts re all issues with radioactive externalities is far greater than the threat posed by coal; and that showing coal to be "bad" does not logically make fission "good".
=====================================

I couldn't disagree with you more. According to the Oak Ridge report:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colma...

Each year coal power plants discharge some 14,000 tons of uranium and thorium
into the atmosphere. In NO part of the nuclear fuel cycle, or the cycle
taken in total, is there the discharge of that much radioactive material to the
environment.

In addition, and not addressed by the study, coal fired power production spews
mercury and other heavy metals and toxins into the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Coal is responsible for thousands of deaths each year.

Nuclear is NOT responsible for thousands of deaths each year, so I would
say that nuclear is NOT a greater threat than coal. Never was, and never
will be.

Nobody is saying that coal burning is "good". However, the burning of coal has been
"accepted". There are not a bunch of anti-coal wackos marching and protesting at coal
plants and filing lawsuits to stop coal plants to the same degree as nuclear.

Nuclear is more benign than coal, but it is nuclear and not coal that gets all the
opposition and obstruction from the hypocritical wackos in the name of environmentalism.

PamW