wodmarach: Your kidding right? The radiation exposure of the common man is 3-100x! greater from a coal plant than a nuclear plant.
Infact you get more radiation from eating a banana than you do living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant Lets talk carbon then, you want to create what is basicly a giant rock soda bottle under huge pressure(carbon sequstration) and hope it's never accidently breached releasing all that CO2(etc) I can just see the headlines now "5000 die at drilling operation from asphyxiation police suspect foul play... In other news an unexpected spike in greenhouse gases has been noted it is not known how this will effect global temperatures"
Annual "normal" radiation exposure for most people is around 310 - 350 millirems. Average annual exposure from living near a coal plant: around 0.03 millirems. Average annual exposure from living near a nuke plant: 0.01 millirems. Sure, it's three times that which you would get from a nuke plant, but as long as we are talking about sources of radiation exposure like bananas... one chest x-ray: 10 millirems; using a computer with a CRT monitor: 1 millirem annually; smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day: 18 millirems annually; having false teeth: 0.07 millirems annually; annual exposure from simply being inside your house, regardless of how close you are to any power plant: 200 millirems. Talking about the radiation produced by a coal fired plant as if it somehow horrifically worse than a nuke plant is, as I said, completely moot in the larger picture.
As for your thoughts on carbon sequestration, now you're just starting to sound hysterical. There are absolutely no facts to back up your claims in the slightest, just fear-mongering sound bites produced by the likes of Fox News. The reality is, we've already been using this as a method of pumping oil out of the ground for for nearly 40 years without any significant problems. The processes behind carbon sequestration actually occur naturally and the only time those natural processes fail is just before a volcano erupts. As long as we don't make the monumentally stupid choice of trying to do it in a volcanically active area, or better yet, make the much smarter choice of only doing under the deep ocean (another thing we've already been doing for over a decade) where the pressure of the water would act as a natural backup in the event of a catastrophic tectonic event releasing it from the ground, it is infinitely safer than anything we currently have available for nuclear waste. However, as I said, carbon sequestration is only one method of getting rid of the CO2 anyway. There are about 15 different other methods, all either already in use or being tested right now that are just as safe and reliable, they just aren't used all over the world or even consistently in any single industry or country.
