81–90 of 124 posts
What? So Russians would have warning signs in English?
Indeed, the article overall sounds like anti-Russia propaganda. What's going on with the NY Times about Russia and China? Just grasping for clickbait?
> Inside, the floating reactor is a warren of tight corridors, steep staircases, pipes, wires and warning signs in Cyrillic letters. What? So Russians would have warning signs in English? Indeed, the article overall sounds like anti-Russia propaganda. What's going on with the NY Times about Russia and China? Just grasping for clickbait?
I'm not seeing an anti-Russian slant here. The criticism is tame for an article on nuclear power, and they'd likely have the same concerns if this was a US project.
Why not go one step further and make it fully submerged off the coast, to protect it from a bad weather?
I mean, this is pretty much just running an extension cord to a nuclear sub. Why not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m very pro-nuclear, we almost certainly need it while we improve renewables. However, 25,000 years or 500 years... it’s pretty much the same problem for us as a species. 500 years is significantly longer than the US has been a country, and represents a period of time measured in many many generations. 500 years of storage is a hard problem, and from the perspective of us, our kids, their kids, and their kids and a…
I agree, it's a bit ridiculous talking in these terms. Primarily I just want to have my facts reasonably straight if I'm going to have a debate. Shakespeare was born approximately 500 years ago, Cambridge University was founded 800 years ago where as 25,000 years ago was in the depths of the last ice age (11,000) and Wooly mammoths still existed (4,000). I can visualise the first couple in my head, not the last two.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the article notes that, "The United States used a barge-based reactor to generate electricity for the Panama Canal Zone from 1968 until 1976, and Westinghouse, the American reactor builder, planned — but never built — two floating plants off the New Jersey coast at around that time" 1968! The interesting story is why the NYT's is running this and running with it now [not trying to be tin-hat, maybe it was just a…
I dream of a time when there is a slow news day so they publish less content. Also dream of a day when you turn on a new station and breaking news is in fact breaking news.
> Inside, the floating reactor is a warren of tight corridors, steep staircases, pipes, wires and warning signs in Cyrillic letters. What? So Russians would have warning signs in English? Indeed, the article overall sounds like anti-Russia propaganda. What's going on with the NY Times about Russia and China? Just grasping for clickbait?
Cyrillic is the writing system Russian uses, English is one of the many using the Latin system. I'm not seeing an anti-Russian slant here. The criticism is tame for an article on nuclear power, and they'd likely have the same concerns if this was a US project.
> Inside, the floating reactor is a warren of tight corridors, steep staircases, pipes, wires and warning signs in Cyrillic letters. What? So Russians would have warning signs in English? Indeed, the article overall sounds like anti-Russia propaganda. What's going on with the NY Times about Russia and China? Just grasping for clickbait?
I took a broader look at Russia's nuclear power program here - https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/08/02/the-world-relies...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cyrillic is the writing system Russian uses, English is one of the many using the Latin system. I'm not seeing an anti-Russian slant here. The criticism is tame for an article on nuclear power, and they'd likely have the same concerns if this was a US project.
OK, I wasn't clear enough. The language is darkly evocative, of sloppiness and danger. I mean, "warren of tight corridors". And "steep staircases", which are very typical for ships, by the way. And "pipes, wires", which again is pretty typical, even for your average trendy restaurant. And "Cyrillic letters"? I'm not sure what to make of that. It rather states the obvious.
They're just trying to paint a picture for the reader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cyrillic is the writing system Russian uses, English is one of the many using the Latin system. I'm not seeing an anti-Russian slant here. The criticism is tame for an article on nuclear power, and they'd likely have the same concerns if this was a US project.
OK, I wasn't clear enough. The language is darkly evocative, of sloppiness and danger. I mean, "warren of tight corridors". And "steep staircases", which are very typical for ships, by the way. And "pipes, wires", which again is pretty typical, even for your average trendy restaurant. And "Cyrillic letters"? I'm not sure what to make of that. It rather states the obvious.
Sure, a claustrophobic architecture is not surprising for a ship, but most readers' experience of large boats--if any--is likely to be with cruise ships. Should the author have omitted a physical description of the ship's features because a reasonable reader could have guessed them? Personally, I appreciate these kinds of small details.
The article does flirt with open skepticism of the project, and I'm open to the possibility that this stance is unfair, but I don't think these atmospheric details cross any line when they seem quite apt looking at the accompanying pictures.
Also, I agree with the comment above that says the critical tone is unsurprising for an article on nuclear tech, domestic or foreign.