I find it hard to argue that the original post is wrong to say that Coal is safer than Uranium. By the way, I'm invested in both Uranium and Coal stocks.
You can take this argument on many levels but without specifics each side has a valid point. Statistical levels or conventional levels or related deaths attributed to mining or related deaths to actual Coal Vs Uranium harming you or the end result from the energy each one produces?
Put it this way, I can physically pick up a handful of Coal, I can hold it in my hands no problem, invite some friends around to my house and use it to fire up the BBQ then eat a nice steak from the heat it produces. When I think about it like that Coal seems pretty safe to me.
Uranium on the other hand, is not something I can just pick up in my bare hands. Methods are in place not only to control the safety of how it is used but the ways that it is mined considering there are slight levels of radiation emitted.
Clearly when there are a strict level of procedures and protocal in place it demonstrates that Uranium has a level of risk unlike Coal.
Sure as a clean energy Uranium is safe and friendly but when things turn pear shaped then what do you do? We are only at the mercy of mother nature, no safety procedures are 100% certain especially against earthquakes. What if there are more severe earthquakes around the world possibly in USA or EU that could affect these reactors?
If I worked in an underground Coal mine then I may think differently but hey, there are plenty of ways to debate each point of view.
Coal, while it may not be the cleanest of energy will not be going away anytime soon, but give us a couple of global meltdowns will Uranium still be considered a safe energy?
