Journalism
Here is the title of an article found on CNBC.
a) the Exxon Valdez disaster happened in Alaskan waters
b) there is still oil shipping going on in Alaskan waters, thus
c) another disaster is going to happen in Alaskan waters
As any student of logic will recognize, this is sheer, unadulterated poppyhorsecockshit. The risk to Alaskan waters is no different than it is in any other navigable waterway on Earth today and it is in no way comparable to the risk of same in 1989. (In response to the Valdez disaster, nearly 100% of the crude oil tanker fleet is now double-hulled, greatly reducing the risk of a full-scale leakage in the case of a hull breach.)
But hey, gotta fill the news pages and the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster is as good an excuse as any to strike fear in the hearts of the rubes, no?
The next Exxon Valdez? Remote Alaskan waters, experts fearI read the article looking for some description of the risk. It is nowhere to be found. The premise of the article is simply this ridiculous, failing syllogism:
a) the Exxon Valdez disaster happened in Alaskan waters
b) there is still oil shipping going on in Alaskan waters, thus
c) another disaster is going to happen in Alaskan waters
As any student of logic will recognize, this is sheer, unadulterated poppyhorsecockshit. The risk to Alaskan waters is no different than it is in any other navigable waterway on Earth today and it is in no way comparable to the risk of same in 1989. (In response to the Valdez disaster, nearly 100% of the crude oil tanker fleet is now double-hulled, greatly reducing the risk of a full-scale leakage in the case of a hull breach.)
But hey, gotta fill the news pages and the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster is as good an excuse as any to strike fear in the hearts of the rubes, no?
posted by Donny Baseball at 10:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home