It should be noted as well that coal is a low Eh, reducing environment as is an oil and gas deposit.
Naturally occuring uranium and thorium compounds are mobile, soluble in water, in high Eh oxidizing environments, but they precipitate out in a low eh reducing environment. This means that if present in the ground water they would preferentially precipitate out in coals and oil and gas deposits.
It is hard to imagine an undergrad geology student who didn't know this since it is the reason for the occurence of uranium roll front deposits.
Wma-minelife.com
Also well known in the petroleum industry by anyone using borehole geophysical logs since the presence of uranium or thorium in a reservoir can lead to the misinterpretation of that reservoir or even missing it completely. It's the reason the natural gamma ray spectroscopy tool and log were developed in the 1970s.
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=nat...
BTW which do you think emits more radiation a coal fired power plant or a properly operating nuclear power plant? If you guessed coal you would be correct.
Now the question really is are the people at ICR so stupid that they don't know coal is a "magnet" for uranium and thorium or did they decide not to tell people that so it looked like C14 being present would disprove science and an old earth?
I let you decide.
(BTW I know someone who knows John Morris personally and worked with him on the dinosaur/"human" prints in Texas. He knew it was bogus but published it anyway. So much for the character of the "scientists" at ICR)
™ Version 4.2