Corrections

Every correction to published analysis, with the original wording kept legible.

This site's argument is that claims should be sourced and checkable. That obligation applies hardest to its own mistakes, so corrections are published rather than quietly edited: each entry records what the text said, what it says now, and why the original was wrong.

Entries are never removed. Where a correction weakens a point the original was making, it says so.

  1. Air pollution section

    deaths per terawatt hour nuclear safety

    Was
    The 40,000 people who die from air pollution in the UK every year die invisibly, one at a time, their deaths attributed to heart disease, stroke, or lung cancer rather than to the power station emissions that contributed.
    Now
    The 28,000 to 36,000 people who die early from air pollution each year … Power generation is a minority share of that total, roughly 2,500 deaths a year, but it is the share energy policy actually controls.
    Why
    The 40,000 was uncited and sat in the same article as two cited figures it contradicted: 28,000-36,000 for ALL UK air pollution, and 2,500 for power generation specifically. It attached the largest number to the narrowest cause, inverting our own sourcing. The 40,000 traces to the Royal College of Physicians (2016) and refers to all outdoor air pollution, not power generation; the RCP itself now publishes roughly 30,000.
  2. Nuclear accident death tolls

    deaths per terawatt hour nuclear safety

    Was
    Using [official internationally-recognised statistics](world-nuclear.org): Three Mile Island 0 … Chernobyl ~60, up to 4,000 … Fukushima 0 …
    Now
    Each figure is now cited to the body that produced it — Our World in Data for Three Mile Island and Fukushima, the WHO-convened Chernobyl Forum for Chernobyl — and the World Nuclear Association is named as the nuclear industry trade association, with its stated goal of tripling capacity by 2050.
    Why
    Two failures at once. Presenting a trade association as "official internationally-recognised statistics" is exactly the framing we criticise other outlets for, and we apply incentive notes to the RSPB and CPRE while giving our own side none. Worse, the cited page did not support the claims: it does not mention Three Mile Island at all, and gives 46 deaths for Chernobyl rather than the figures we published.
  3. Fukushima section

    deaths per terawatt hour nuclear safety

    Was
    **Radiation deaths**: Zero. No workers or public members died from radiation exposure.
    Now
    **Radiation deaths**: One. In 2018 the Japanese government recognised a single worker’s death from lung cancer as caused by radiation exposure.
    Why
    The sentence contradicted the Our World in Data page cited beside it, which states that one death has been attributed to the disaster. A pro-nuclear claim that overstates the case by rounding one death to zero, against our own source, is the kind of error that costs a site its standing to criticise anyone else.
  4. Raptor mortality section

    wind turbines birds red kites debate

    Was
    Research from the United States has suggested that eagle mortality at wind facilities may be underestimated by a factor of 20.
    Now
    The claim is attributed to the Campaign for the Protection of Moorland Communities, which campaigns for driven-grouse moor management and against the RSPB, and the multiplier is traced to Save the Eagles International, an advocacy group rather than a study.
    Why
    "Research from the United States" concealed a partisan host in the citing sentence itself — the linked post’s own URL ends "yet-rspb-turn-blind-eye". No peer-reviewed source for the 20x multiplier could be found, so the claim is now presented as a claim in circulation rather than as research, and the surviving argument rests on raptor recovery rates instead.
  5. Cost section and opening

    germany energiewende lessons britain ignores

    Was
    According to a 2024 study by Jan Emblemsvåg in the International Journal of Sustainable Energy [linked to foronuclear.org] … the results are in: €696 billion spent … The Fraunhofer Institute criticized aspects of the methodology, arguing the analysis doesn’t adequately account for alternative scenarios.
    Now
    The paper is cited by DOI, Foro Nuclear is named as the Spanish nuclear industry forum and as how we found it, the opening presents €696bn as one prominent accounting rather than a settled result, and Fraunhofer’s actual objection is stated: that the method double-counts subsidies against the expenditure they paid for, leaving €387bn standing and €696bn disputed.
    Why
    Attributing a paper to its author and journal while linking a nuclear industry body concealed the route in the citing sentence. Separately, we had softened a criticism of a source that supports our own argument into something vaguer and easier to dismiss than what Fraunhofer wrote.
  6. Agricultural pollution sections and source list

    english rivers 16 percent good ecological status

    Was
    The NAO found that the EA spent just £8 million per year … The biggest source of pollution receives a fraction of the regulatory attention … The NAO provides the most structurally impartial assessments cited here. [A second NAO claim linked to nao.org.uk, the homepage, with no date.]
    Now
    The 2010 date is stated in the body, the NAO’s own wording is quoted, present-tense inferences are qualified to "when it was last independently audited", and the undated second claim is now cited to the NAO’s April 2025 report on regulating for investment and outcomes in the water sector.
    Why
    A July 2010 audit was carried into present-tense conclusions with its date appearing only in the source list, and a second NAO claim pointed at the organisation’s homepage rather than any report, which made it uncheckable. The 2025 report behind that claim was found and verified, so nothing had to be weakened.
  7. Opening paragraph

    meadow loss 97 percent nobody talks about

    Was
    406 square miles … That's less than the 66,825 hectares we'd need to replace Hinkley Point C with solar panels.
    Now
    That is about 105,000 hectares — more than the 66,825 hectares we'd need to replace Hinkley Point C with solar panels.
    Why
    406 square miles is approximately 105,154 hectares, which is roughly 57% MORE than 66,825 hectares, not less. A unit conversion error reversed the comparison — and the corrected figure weakens the rhetorical point the sentence was making, which is why it is stated plainly rather than quietly dropped.
  8. Title

    solar land use nuclear comparison

    Was
    Solar's Land Problem: Why 382 Square Kilometres Can't Match 1.75
    Now
    Solar's Land Problem: Why 668 Square Kilometres Can't Match 1.75
    Why
    382 is the land-area RATIO between solar and nuclear, not an area. The article body correctly gives the area as 66,825 hectares = 668 km². The title stated the ratio in square kilometres.
  9. Description and conclusion

    offshore wind marine life knowledge gaps

    Was
    Britain's offshore wind capacity could reach 95 GW by 2030 … We can build 95 GW of offshore wind by 2030.
    Now
    Britain's offshore wind pipeline runs to 95 GW … We can build out the 95 GW pipeline.
    Why
    95 GW is the development pipeline, not a 2030 target — as the article's own opening paragraph correctly said ("a pipeline of 95 GW in development"). The description and conclusion coupled the pipeline figure to a 2030 date it does not belong to.
  10. Policy recommendations

    britain imports energy crisis

    Was
    If 95% of fuel is imported, it's import dependency regardless of the carbon accounting gymnastics.
    Now
    If more than 80% of the fuel is imported, it's import dependency regardless of the carbon accounting gymnastics.
    Why
    The 95% figure contradicted this article's own body, which correctly cites ONS for 81% of wood pellets coming from North America. "95% of biomass is imported" is listed explicitly in our editorial guidelines as a known-wrong claim to avoid, and it had been published in the flagship article regardless.
  11. Cumulative cost section

    interconnector economics britain pays france nuclear

    Was
    The lost 64 TWh of British nuclear output, the gap between 100 TWh and 36 TWh, is remarkably close to the 43.7 TWh Britain imported via interconnectors in 2024.
    Now
    British nuclear output fell by about 59 TWh … Britain imported 43.7 TWh … The two are of comparable magnitude — the decline is larger by about a third.
    Why
    Two errors. 64 TWh and 43.7 TWh differ by 46%, which is not "remarkably close". And the 36 TWh endpoint contradicted the 41 TWh (2024) figure used elsewhere in the corpus, inflating the decline.
  12. Cumulative cost section

    interconnector economics britain pays france nuclear

    Was
    Hinkley Point C, at an estimated £33 billion [cited to DESNZ Energy Trends Section 5] for 3.2 GW of capacity …
    Now
    Hinkley Point C, at 3.2 GW of capacity generating roughly 25 TWh per year, looks expensive as a single project on any of the published cost estimates.
    Why
    The £33 billion figure was cited to DESNZ Energy Trends Section 5, which is an electricity-generation statistics release and contains no construction-cost figure. A citation that does not support its claim is worse than no citation, so the figure was removed rather than re-pointed at a source not verified at the time of correction.

Spotted something wrong? badger@hostile.eco.