71–76 of 76 posts
Singapore just grounded all their 737 Max flights. Aeromexico and GOL grounded their 737 Max planes today. Soon we’ll (U.S.) be the only country left flying these.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/australia-grounds-...
Singapore just grounded all their 737 Max flights. Aeromexico and GOL grounded their 737 Max planes today. Soon we’ll (U.S.) be the only country left flying these.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody with a full command of the language uses "fallout" to refer to a debris field. It is most commonly used in the abstract sense, to refer to negative after-effects, or else in the technical sense, for radioactive pollution.
The 'fallout' isn't the field itself, but toxic stuff that falls from the sky after an explosion. No competent headline writer would use that figurative language around an explosive incident where there might be literal 'fallout'. (The NYT uses 'fallout' to refer to the literal toxic materials thrown off from a non-nuclear explosion, as in stories like https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/world/asia/cyanide-levels... .…
I know... "radioactive pollution."
The public would not expect a civilian airliner to be nuke-powered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'fallout' isn't the field itself, but toxic stuff that falls from the sky after an explosion. No competent headline writer would use that figurative language around an explosive incident where there might be literal 'fallout'. (The NYT uses 'fallout' to refer to the literal toxic materials thrown off from a non-nuclear explosion, as in stories like https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/world/asia/cyanide-levels... .…
> toxic stuff that falls from the sky I know... "radioactive pollution." The public would not expect a civilian airliner to be nuke-powered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> toxic stuff that falls from the sky I know... "radioactive pollution." The public would not expect a civilian airliner to be nuke-powered.
As noted in my examples, the NYT regularly uses 'fallout' to refer to non-radioactive toxics emerging from explosions and other activities as well. This usage is also confirmed by many dictionaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As noted in my examples, the NYT regularly uses 'fallout' to refer to non-radioactive toxics emerging from explosions and other activities as well. This usage is also confirmed by many dictionaries.
The Times in the first (and only working) link uses fallout in the "problematic aftereffects" sense, although I can see how this might be confusing.