3 ms·
Yes they could equally say increased use of solar results in increased birth weights. Really the take away here is simply "coal is bad" - there's correlation b
by Taniwha 10y ago
Yes they could equally say increased use of solar results in increased birth weights.
Really the take away here is simply "coal is bad" - there's correlation between coal plants and lowered birth weights.
Anything that supplants coal (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, tidal, etc) will result in increased birth weights. Replacing them with coal will result in lowered birth weights.
It's a bit weird their pushing nuclear this way right now, didn't Westinghouse just go belly up?
- ju-st 10y agoThis is a recurrent topic on HN. Somebody posts an article about "coal is bad". Then somebody mentions that nuclear is safer/better than coal. A third person then claims Germany is evil because they are replacing nuclear with coal. The next person shows evidence that this is not the case. Then a discussion about energy imports & exports of Germany starts. Literally every fucking topic about renewables/nuclear/coal ends up with the same content.
- ZeroGravitas 10y agoSimilar to the "EVs use coal powered electricity, therefore EVs are bad" argument. A weird distraction from the fundamental "Coal is bad, pretty much everything is better than coal, let's use much less coal" argument that you'd think everyone (but Trump) could agree on together.