Fun fact:  both are utterly fucking irrelevant.<p>There&#x27;s a Scientific American article from a few years back which points out that coal ash is radioactive. It turns out that, yes, it is, rather mildly. But it&#x27;s still thousands of times below the the lowest clinical significant level.<p>The problem with nuclear arises, say, should a core failure occur the radiation exposure received in a few minutes would exceed that of a very long time (I believe it was millions of years) of fly-ash exposure.<p>Or, when in <i>normal operation of a nuclear power plant</i> you are creating waste products, <i>including the plant structure itself</i> which are deadly for tens of thousands of years.  Far longer than <i>any</i> human institutions <i>or even extant languages</i>.<p>Of the various noxious consequences of coal-fired power generation (and there are many), radioactive emissions are simply not a concern.