Who's More Radioactive?

Nuclear Waste vs. Coal Waste.... which is worse? Most folks probably think coal waste is worse since we use so much of it compared to nuclear, it blows into the air we breathe, coal ash gets in the water we drink, and coal is generally seen as "dirty". And they're right, coal is a dirty business no matter how you look at it. But did you realize that coal waste has more radiation than nuclear waste does? Well, this article from Scientific American claims it to be so, and they seem to have the science to back it up.

"Among the surprising conclusions: 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."

Is it odd that the radiation around us is more likely to be from coal plants, than from all of the nuclear bomb tests and nuclear accidents over the years? This makes nuclear look even better, no?

Ounce-for-ounce, nuclear waste does have more radiation, but it is contained, while we just let the coal fires burn and spread radiation about the air and into "fly ash". I'm not saying nuclear is completely safe, but is it safer for us and the planet than coal? I'd have to say yes, and I'd have to say that we need to start building more nuclear plants now, because that's the cleanest & best way we have to make lots of energy for now.

Fearrorism

"Then I came across an article -- penned in 2004 actually -- that brought up a few things I don't remember seeing in my frantic hunt for information in the past several days.

According to the piece, lightning strikes, accidents caused by deer and allergic reactions to peanuts have killed more Americans than terrorism has. And, the number of U.S. citizens that drown in bathtubs each year is more than those who die annually worldwide because of terrorism.

You don't hear stats like these too often, and I'm not sure how relevant they even are ..."
From Alternet

I know it's like comparing apples and oranges, but these stats are worth noting.... Maybe we have overreacted and attacked the wrong enemy? Maybe it is better to stand tall, defend our own borders and take care of our own security first, while setting a "shining city on the hill" example for the rest of the world?

And the nukes....that's the thing that could mess up the aformentioned stats....

That's why the people and Congress allowed the Iraq invasion...fear of the nukes. But they didn't have them, at all....no, it was their neighbors who were about to get the bomb. Oops.
Oh, and Pakistan has it too, but that's OK for them and oh yeah, India too, yeah, they're in. Israel anyone?
I fear the genie has escaped the bottle, and I fear that one day, terror will overtake bathtub drownings.

Nuclear Explainer

WN: Wired News:

"Sixteen percent of the world's electricity is supplied by nuclear power, according to the World Nuclear Association. The electricity is produced by 440 nuclear reactors in 31 countries.

The United States has the most reactors with a total of 104, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The reactors are responsible for producing nearly 20 percent of the country's electricity.

The country that gets the highest percentage of its electricity from nuclear power is France. Its 59 reactors generate more than 78 percent of its electricity."

We haven't built a new one since the 70's, but it may be time to look at the advantages of nuclear energy again as part of our overall plan for energy independence.

The Nuclear Option

Simpler - and safer | csmonitor.com:
"Climate scientists trace warming temperatures largely to greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, or natural gas. The nuclear industry has long argued that nuclear energy must remain an option to reduce those emissions. But it's been a tough sell. Accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986 still echo in public discussions. These memories are kept fresh by many environmental groups who see nuclear energy as too dangerous and too expensive. They push instead for greater energy efficiency and increased reliance on renewable energy sources.

Yet faced with global warming, some groups, such as the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Environmental Defense, appear willing to give nuclear energy a reluctant second look.

Support for new reactors also appears in a bill introduced last Thursday in Congress. Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D) of Connecticut and John McCain (R) of Arizona offered the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005. It would require the Environmental Protection Agency to set limits on emissions of greenhouse gases and set targets for achieving them. The duo has introduced similar bills in the past. But the latest measure outlines a mechanism to fund the development of new technologies to help achieve those targets. Among those technologies: three unspecified new nuclear-reactor designs."

We need to do this. No, it's not perfect, but Nuclear is the best way to quench our unrelenting energy thirst at this time. Couple it with cleaner coal burning applications, biomass ethanol, and advancing battery technology and we can begin to prepare ourselves for the end of cheap oil. Yeah, solar and wind power would be great, too, but in real life, these technologies have not been able to produce enough power for their size & cost.
I've long wondered if it would be possible to harness the power of lightning (each strike can power a city for so many days....). If we could store that energy in some new kind of battery....an instant charge that could power an entire grid....OK, I'm dreaming, but this is why I think battery power is the future. There is plenty of energy out there to harness, it's the "holding" of the energy that is difficult.