There's enough radiation released as a result of the activity of operating nuclear plants for your emphasis to be a bit off.
"usually do not directly emit radiation" is pretty defensible.
"usually do not directly emit radiation" is pretty defensible.
"An operating nuclear power plant produces very small amounts of radioactive gases and liquids, as well as small amounts of direct radiation. If you lived within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, you would receive an average radiation dose of about 0.01 millirem per year. To put this in perspective, the average person in the United States receives an exposure of 300 millirem per year from natural background sources of radiation."
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.htm...
"As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage." (emphasis mine)
By adding the qualification "shielded" the comparison becomes meaningless. Brazil nuts, bananas, beer, carrot juice and drinking water [2] all release more radiation than shielded nuclear waste.
Nowhere in the SA article they compare coal ash with Chernobyl of Fukushima.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
[2] https://www.thoughtco.com/common-naturally-radioactive-foods...