This is the problem with popular statistics - these people don't understand it. As an analogy, let's say they come out with another article about weapons. Perh

This is the problem with popular statistics - these people don't understand it. As an analogy, let's say they come out with another article about weapons. Perhaps they compare knives, guns, grenades, and nuclear weapons. By their line of thinking, nuclear weapons are the safest because they have killed the fewest number of people (roughly 1/4 million, depending on how you count it). But I think everyone would agree that nuclear weapons are incredibly dangerous. If for no other reason than the fact that they are the only weapon that can create an extinction event. Likewise, nuclear power is "safe" according to this article because it's killed the fewest number of people. It's this type of mentality that gets us into bad situations. Even the 2008 financial crisis was created by this lack of understanding of the potential damage that certain (widely used) financial instruments could do. If the authors want to be really honest, then answering their question (they asked "If we want to produce energy with the lowest negative health impacts, which source of energy should we choose?") would include potential issues as well. A simple example of this is "What would have happened if Fukushima's reactor fell into the sea?" (please ignore the poor wording for simplification of the issue.) The answer is not good. And if it didn't kill many people in a short period of time, it sure as heck would have ruined a good part of the food supply which would have affected many more people. So when you are doing statistics, please consider how you frame the question, because otherwise you're just spouting nonsense.