Quake/Tsunami

[Lamplighter]

How about ....

...start the delicate and risky task (untested and dangerous)
...to release radioactive materials beyond the plant(environmental disaster)
...very big risks involved(extremely dangerous)
...a more dangerous chain of events (environmental disaster with lethal/genetic damage to people)

etc., etc., etc.

What point are you making ?
Mine was very simple
... most every sentence and paragraph was written in such styles
which tend to down play or minimize the reader's responses.

[BigV]

My point is that the language in the article is factual and neutral, just how I expect a journalist to convey the information. I find your substitutions not neutral, and some are hyperbolic.

...start the delicate and risky task (untested and dangerous)

so, you're saying "dangerous" is more apt than "risky". Ok, a judgement call, I'm fine with your choice I guess. Delicate vs untested? How do you know it's untested? I'm certain, we're all certain the task is delicate, requiring care. I don't think your choice is better, and I'm not even sure it's true. I think the things required to accomplish this task have been tested, element by element even if it hasn't been done end to end.

...to release radioactive materials beyond the plant(environmental disaster)

Your choice of "environmental disaster" is hyperbole and speculation. The sentence as it stands is not euphemistic, it's just factual.

So in other accident scenarios that are not the worst case, no release beyond the plant, no "environmental disaster". I'm not saying what will happen, I'm only parsing the text of the article, just as you did when you found so many euphemisms.

...very big risks involved(extremely dangerous)

very big vs extremely and risks vs dangerous... Ok, a wash. I don't find your choice noticeably better, but I don't find the original phrase euphemistic either.

...a more dangerous chain of events (environmental disaster with lethal/genetic damage to people)

substituting "environmental disaster with lethal / genetic damage to people" for "more dangerous chain of events" is a problem for me for two reasons. firstly, that story's quoting someone involved in the project--changing their words in the story would be dishonest. Now maybe you're quarreling with the words spoken by the person imagining what might happen, but he chose his words, expressing his thoughts. secondly, it seems quite plausible that there might be an accident that wouldn't have the dramatic results your de-euphemism suggests. **could** it be the end of the world as we know it? I guess so. to define a range of what could happen that way is one way of couching it. but it doesn't seem like a neutral way, it seems like the opposite of a gentle, bland euphemism; it seems like hysterical scaremongering.

My point, since you asked, is that I like my journalism fair and balanced. I don't like it too bland (filled with euphemisms) or too spicy (filled with inflammatory language). I found the article neutral, fact based and unemotional.

[Lamplighter]

I found the article neutral, fact based and unemotional

That's part of the reason I try to always give a complete reference to articles I post,
so everyone can read the original writings and decide for themselves.

V, you could have just expressed your feelings in your first posting.
Instead, you played it out, asking for "plainer, blunter, more precise and direct language",
not for language that is "unemotional, balanced, and suitable" for an non-political news article.
What I responded was not (necessarily) the way I would write such a news article.

But part of the reason I have been following the situation in Japan
is a frustration within myself about the future of energy production
For me, it is not un-emotional; instead it is a serious question
with an emotional component, as from the following...

If I assume, and I do, that "global warming" is real and caused primarily by increased C02,
which at this time is caused/aggravated by the activities large, industrial nations, then
where are all the future energy needs going to come from ?

Half of the energy in the US is from coal... that's not a sustainable solution.
Natural gas may be cleaner, but it still yields CO2 ... likewise not a solution
Solar/wind may be feasible but do not seem to me to be efficient enough to meet world needs.
So... right now I tend to agree that nuclear reactors may well become the most likely path followed.

But having lived through 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl in a career of public health,
I believe the general public has been and is being soft-soaped
about the state of the art and the current safety of reactors.

We are seeing this acting out in Fukushima... technically, politically, and financially.
The U.S. and other world authorities are openly expressing doubt about the competence of Tepco.

Yet, of all countries we might expect to do a really great job of engineering for efficiency and safety,
and from the only people who have actually suffered, not one but two, nuclear explosions
on their land, we still see that bad things do happen... really bad things.
Eventually, I'm confident we will learn of men who died working to remedy this disaster.

So when it comes down to it on nuclear power, emotion cannot be left out
just for the sake of being "fair and balanced"

I feel people need the words to enable them to visualize the problems.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

So when it comes down to it on nuclear power, emotion cannot be left out just for the sake of being "fair and balanced"

Emotion means a reader added information not intended by the author. Maybe 20 different adjectives the author could have used. All mean same to an unemotional reader. Emotional readers assume hidden inferences. For example, think a difference exists between risky and dangerous. If you 'feel' the two words have a different meaning, then you are assuming a perspective that the author did not specifically define.

Unless an author says 'risky' and 'dangerous' have two different meanings, then a reader can only be logical - assume both words define a similar concept.

The report does not even discuss a greater fear and unknown during rod removals. Rods might be cracked or broken. Dropping a rod is not a major fear. Trying to remove a rod that might be shattered or about to shatter (especially when moving it) makes this more dangerous.

This 'dangerous' move from Reactor 4 building is really quite trivial. Much greater risks still remain unaddressed in the other 'melted down' reactors. Peril in reactor building 4 is less compared to the hazards that remain elsewhere. Danger, risk, peril, and hazard are four words that connote same; that define a same threat. Only a reactionary or sensational reader would disseminate confusion or misconstrue meaning by assuming those four words have different implication. Which says: all four words mean same.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter
So when it comes down to it on nuclear power, emotion cannot be left out just for the sake of being "fair and balanced"

Originally Posted by TW
Emotion means a reader added information not intended by the author.

tw, please do not miscontrue the quotes.

My sentence does not refer to wording in the NY Times article.

I am the author, not the reader, of the sentence adding "emotion" to my discussion of nuclear power.
As such, it is quite valid for me in include emotion in the discussion... if I so choose.

My discussion of nuclear power came after I responded to a question from BigV,
according to his criteria ("plainer, blunter, more precise and direct language")
My preceding responses to BigV's question were not at all a "re-writing" of any part of that article.

[Beest]

I haven't delved into the background of the original speaker, but in my training in safety assessment of equipment and processes risk and danger (hazard) are two seperate concepts.
Risk is the lilekyhood that an event will occur and the danger is what the result will be if it does occur.
That's not a common perspective, but if the speaker was an engineer then maybe that is how they used the words and a reporter editorialising and substituting would alter the meaning, possibly deliberately.

Quality in engineering does not mean something is good, just that is the same as specified