The New Your Times has an article today headed "Radiation Plume Reaches U.S., but Is Said to Pose no Risk" The article itself goes on to explain that all the experts and all the measuring equipment agree that the amount of radiation in the plume is miniscule, detectable only because the instruments are extremely sensitive, and that it poses no health risk.
Why then include the words 'is said to' in the headline? They dramatically weaken the message, implying that, although someone says that the plume poses no risk, we don't know whether or not it actually poses any risk.
I realize that the article's author, William Broad, probably had no say in the headline. But the Times editor responsible should be ashamed of misleading the public in this way.
Why are unfalsifiable beliefs so attractive?
2 days ago in Epiphenom