>... I'm not one of the "OMFG LOOK AT THE NUCLEAR ANGEL OF DEATH" people, but can we wait for this crisis to reach some resolution before we make loud proclamations either way?
Well you could see this as a calm article to balance those with cries of the nuclear angel because lets face it, they sure are making something of this.
It's not a calm article though - it's as bad as the ones proclaiming the death of nuclear and the upcoming atomic apocalypse... just in the complete opposite extreme.
Where one side is "fire! brimstone! death!" this side is "lalalalala NO PROBLEMS KEEP CALM CARRY ON". Both are unnecessary, unproductive, and dogmatic.
But the question isn't who is being extreme in which direction. The question is, who's right? If the facts in this article are accurate, then they're not being extreme, they're just plain right. If the facts aren't accurate, then they are wrong.
This isn't a "(D) say -10, (R) says 10, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle" situation. This is engineering and reality. If the worst "nuclear" injury that has occurred is a dose equivalent to a year of background radiation and another of 1/10th of a year, the right answer is that nothing resembling disaster has happened, heck nothing you could even notice without sensitive instruments has happened, and it's not an "extreme" to say so if it's true.
Applying the political template to the story is immediately a fail, at least in terms of understanding the truth.
Well you could see this as a calm article to balance those with cries of the nuclear angel because lets face it, they sure are making something of this.