Ray, yes you are right, radiation does come from coal and the ash surrounding a power station can be 100 times more radioactive than the surrounding area of a nuclear power plant. (see
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste). But don't get me started on coal! Brown coal produces 130 times more CO2 than methane (which can come from fossil fuels, or even better from sustainable biomass). So good news for all those around Kingsnorth that the new coal fired station is on hold.
Bear in mind though that this stat only refers to a secure and efficient nuclear power station where escape of radiation is heavily guarded against. A disaster at one of them is a disaster in every sense of the word.
And we could go nuclear free. Germany is a heavily industrialised country and generates its electricity using a much higher percentage of renewables than the UK. It has renounced nuclear and is not, as far as I know, going to build replacement plants (see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/791597.stm) If they can do it, and generate lots of jobs along the way in green energy, then why can we not? I'm sure nuclear scientists are very clever people and would be able to adapt or learn new skills to work in the renewables industry.
Colin, if I had plans to stay in this country then I would definitely be putting up solar. Its crazy not to, with the generous feed in tariff offered by the Government. I haven't looked into it too closely due to my future plans, but I would imagine that there are grants available too, to help with the initial cost. You say you can't comment on costs in the nuclear waste programme, but in this day and age costs are important. Now I know that a Government only has a five year life span, and they are not going to look at the costs of nuclear storage after 30 years, but you and I have a commitment to our children not to allow these costs and problems to escalate in their lifetime.