> the core claim is that coal ash contains more uranium and other radioactive metals No, the core claim is that coal ash contains more radioactivity. That is,

> the core claim is that coal ash contains more uranium and other radioactive metals No, the core claim is that coal ash contains more radioactivity. That is, there are more nuclear disintegration events per second per kg of mass in coal ash than in spent reactor fuel. And it is wrong by many orders of magnitude. The thorium and natural uranium in coal ash have fairly low levels of radioactivity, nothing like the levels of spent fuel rods. Simple numeracy will tell you it is fact. But in case that's not accessible, ask yourself: what is a person's radiation exposure by standing upon a coal ash mound 1 year after it is deposited? Now ask yourself: what is a person's radiation exposure if they were able to stand next to a spent nuclear fuel assembly 1 year after it is removed from the reactor? You could literally live on top of a coal ash heap and never suffer any radiation consequences. You would have suffered a fatal does from the spent reactor fuel in about a minute. I'll leave the citations to you, since most of the published works assume basic knowledge of how radioactivity works and I'm not certain are appropriate to your question. If you want to know about spent fuel, the Swedish report [1] is fairly good for lay persons. I'm not going to dig out any studies on ash ponds, but I'm sure there are some. [1] https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/587853 https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/587853