41–50 of 258 posts
As the article states, nuclear explosions are unlikely as we would be hearing about seismic measurements too like in the case of N. Korean detonations.
My bet is on a small accident on a nuclear vessel or another small reactor around Europe (e.g. university research reactors).
Watchout, this site is a disgrace... maxes out my CPU, it's just text for fuck sake what are they doing bitcoin mining in javascript?
I'm betting on Russian scrap yard accident. I'm sure the CIA knows what's really up.
A rare example where the answer to the headline's questions is not "no," although neither is it "yes."
WOW I'm impressed. I literally never open headlines with rhetorical questions because the rule of thumb for media headlines is that the answer is always 'no'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did i miss something? The only mention i can see to Trump in the piece is: > There has been some talk about even the US restarting its nuclear testing under President Trump, but this is largely speculation mixed with hyperbole.
> Did i miss something? I guess; Trump is thrown out in the context of speculating about where this isotope is coming from, as if the US might be conducting surreptitious tests on behalf of a nuclear war mongering Trump. Timing is way off though; the first reports appeared before he had any authority. It's a gratuitous mention and overlooks the fact that Trump probably ordered the 135 to Europe to investigate, someth…
I do have to complement the authors of this article. It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise. I'm pleased with the title too; if the article were featured on a mainstream news site in the USA, it would have declared it as a definitive event and give a list of what products to buy from their advertisers.
I do have to complement the authors of this article. It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise. I'm pleased with the title too; if the article were featured on a mainstream news site in the USA, it would have declared it as a definitive event and give a list of what products to buy from their advertisers.
Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty.
More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not "authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in preparation for the hurricane...")
I'd also like to point out that the "mainstream media" is doing an excellent job regarding these reports: not reporting on them. By now, they have certainly seen these reports. The excitement that grips HN and your comment speak to the fact that it would make for excellent clickbait. But there's nothing anywhere.
On the other end of the spectrum, there's alarmist clickbait with "nuclear incident" in quotes that make it appear as a euphemism for a meltdown (otherwise it'd just be a nuclear incident), posted in a series called "The War Zone".
Here are some other issues I find with the article. It's splitting hairs in a way, but I wish people had a bit of an appreciation for the work of professional journalists and editors:
- The article is tagged "nukes" and "atmospheric testing" when it's almost certainly not a nuclear test. Because that would be stupid. And it would have been picked up by seismographs.
- "Because of the low levels of concentration, there is no health risk to the public or the environment, at least on a wide scale." This leaves open the possibility of smaller-scale health hazards, falsely sensationalising the available data. OTOH, "Levels of concentration" is a phrase capable of inflicting some serious health effects among english language teachers.
- "The highly unique aircraft are specifically designed to respond to nuclear incidents—especially those that include the detonation of nuclear warheads." There is so much wrong with this sentence:
- There's only one WC-135, so the plural is wrong.
- Everything that's "designed to..." is "specifically designed to..."
- Which "nuclear incident that involves the detonation of nuclear warheads" is not described more succinctly as "the detonation of (a) nuclear warhead(s)"?
- The latter half of the sentence seems designed to fuel speculation
- "There has been some talk about even the US restarting its nuclear testing under President Trump..." If this is speculation mixed with hyperbole, do not bring it up! Any mention, no matter how dismissive, just serves to legitimise such speculation. In this case the best argument against it isn't even mentioned: you don't set up a nuclear test in 3 weeks.
- " The Russian submarine K-27 [...] is said to be literally a ticking time bomb." If the evil media conspiracy saves me from such uses of the word "literally", I think I'm ok with their control of my thoughts.
I do have to complement the authors of this article. It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise. I'm pleased with the title too; if the article were featured on a mainstream news site in the USA, it would have declared it as a definitive event and give a list of what products to buy from their advertisers.
I feel this vilification of the media is far overblown. Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not "authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in preparation for the…