> I do have to complement the authors of this article.
Why? for blatantly lying and misrepresenting facts such as Trump was president when these "tests" took place?
> It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise.
It does the exact opposite: it portends to lay out facts, but instead it lies about which president under which these "tests" occurred, so everything else they state is suspect.
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.
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, something for which the US deserves credit. But hey, indulging Trump Derangement Syndrome makes for better copy.
Anyhow, the most likely source of lofted iodine-131 is a damaged power reactor. The proximity of the detections to Russia -- a nation with a long history of failing to report their nuclear incidents -- means it's not far fetched to suspect they've melted something down. Russia has an incredible legacy of nuclear facilities, most badly engineered and badly neglected and all very old. Sites like Kola (first gen VVER) and Bilibino (unique EGP-6 reactors) go for years without scrutiny by the outside world. Then there is the Russian nuclear navy and other nuclear assets, such as nuclear ice breakers, some of which have had the barnacles knocked off and been redeployed on behalf of Putin's desire to rattle rusty old Soviet sabers.
Who knows. Unless it gets worse and somebody fesses up we may never know. The world didn't know about Kyshtym for three decades.
I mean, the mention of Trump was in the context of speculations that Russia had tested a nuclear bomb, as an example that commitment to the nuclear test ban has weakened. The article rejects this idea, and it certainly never suggests that the U.S. had tested a bomb.
Why? for blatantly lying and misrepresenting facts such as Trump was president when these "tests" took place?
> It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise.
It does the exact opposite: it portends to lay out facts, but instead it lies about which president under which these "tests" occurred, so everything else they state is suspect.