Burning coal does not produce more radioactive waste. It is just that under normal operating conditions more is released into the atmosphere from burning coal.
However, if there is an accident, then you are talking orders of magnitude more radiation in a nuclear accident. http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410
Ah, so it's one of those moments when there are contradicting studies and without getting a PhD on the subject one can't have a meaningful opinion. I just wish there was a good way of settling such situations.
Actually in this instance that is not the case.
It is the case of misrepresenting the actual data and making a more sensational misleading headline.
See the editor's note in the original Scientific American article. It simply confirms the statements made by CEJournal.
Some say that coal is not the only alternative and it can be processed in a safer manner, but this is wishful thinking. Renewable sources involve a costly manufacturing process that is not necessarily green [2] and there is still no good, scalable solution for a cloudy, not-windy day. And don't get me started on hydro power and how we have at best no idea about the long-term environment impact of it. Then add to it the way politics works and that dirty coal works just fine for your common Joe, as long as it's burned elsewhere.
Nuclear power scale well, can be safe when done properly, and if nothing literally explodes is the cleanest option out there. Compare the victims of coal mining accidents alone with those of nuclear disasters [3] - and those do not include the air pollution victims.
[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disaster...