Report Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes

[tom_mai78101]

Using nuclear power in place of fossil-fuel energy sources, such as coal, has prevented some 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths globally and could save millions of more lives in coming decades, concludes a study. The researchers also find that nuclear energy prevents emissions of huge quantities of greenhouse gases. These estimates help make the case that policymakers should continue to rely on and expand nuclear power in place of fossil fuels to mitigate climate change, the authors say (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es3051197).

In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, critics of nuclear power have questioned how heavily the world should rely on the energy source, due to possible risks it poses to the environment and human health.

“I was very disturbed by all the negative and in many cases unfounded hysteria regarding nuclear power after the Fukushima accident,” says report coauthor Pushker A. Kharecha, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

Working with Goddard’s James E. Hansen, Kharecha set out to explore the benefits of nuclear power. The pair specifically wanted to look at nuclear power’s advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html

 

[FireCat]

Until something goes wrong

 

[Fatmankev]

Working with Goddard’s James E. Hansen, Kharecha set out to explore the benefits of nuclear power. The pair specifically wanted to look at nuclear power’s advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

You should never conduct a study with preconceived notions of what you'd like the results to be. If I weren't so lazy I'd read the study to see if there was any merit to it, but for now I'll just ignore it altogether.

 

[Varine]

That's exactly why you conduct a study. It's called the hypothesis dude; the entire point is to confirm or deny, and obviously confirmation is preferable. That is basically how every study works, unless it's in a totally new field without remotely enough information to develop an adequately sufficient conclusion to base research on, in which case usually you just make something up (which is how we got that M-Theory bullshit, but typically the method stands).

Plus nothing in it is all that new. It's the same shit anyone that's looked at it without ceteris paribus assumptions has been saying forever.

 

[Fatmankev]

Guess I worded that kinda stupidly. Regardless, approaching it this way can often lead to a biased interpretation of the study's results, and given that the majority only see their interpretation and not the actual study, it can offer just as much misinformation as it can actual fact.

 

[Varine]

Which is why it's usually judged by peers before being accepted as accurate.

 

[Fatmankev]

Which is why it's usually judged by peers before being accepted as accurate.

I'm pretty sure that the journalists could care less about accuracy as long as they get their headline.

 

[Varine]

And this case, is for the most part correct.

 

[Fatmankev]

I tend to agree.

 

[Accname]

I am a fan of nuclear power. Ever was.
I see nothing wrong with that. Everything can go horribly wrong if the people behind it are stupid. But nuclear power plants yield high benefits if it goes right. High risk -> High reward.

 

[tom_mai78101]

High risk -> High reward. IN THE LONG RUN.

Tell that to the stock market if you leave out the boldfaced text...

 

[camelCase]

Until something goes wrong

The glass is also totally empty.

 

[FireCat]

The glass is also totally empty.

Are you sure? Btw: the glass might not even be a glass!

 

[Varine]

Are you sure? Btw: the glass might not even be a glass!

You're right. It's a cup.

 

[FireCat]

No, It's a trap!