Turducken or a chuckey?
Quote from the New York Time's article "The Zero-Energy Solution:"
"It is one thing to extol or doubt the cost-effectiveness of solar panels, the primary component of the solar-hydrogen house, but what about the hydrogen? It is unfair, for instance, to mention the Hindenburg disaster, the fiery destruction of the hydrogen-filled dirigible over Lakehurst, N.J., in 1937. Although new evidence suggests that hydrogen was not the primary cause of the disaster, the Hindenburg’s spectacularly filmed crash cast a long shadow in the public mind over hydrogen as a dangerous and tricky material to handle. Is adding hydrogen to solar power a complication of an already complex idea — the technological equivalent of stuffing something tasty like a turkey with a duck and a chicken and adding, for good measure, a stick of dynamite? Arguments about efficiency losses, cost-benefit analyses and the like are more or less beside the point if hydrogen is a substance that might blow you to smithereens."
I think it's funny, don't get me wrong, but when did it become okay for the New York Times to reference turduckens in rather serious investigative journalism pieces?
"It is one thing to extol or doubt the cost-effectiveness of solar panels, the primary component of the solar-hydrogen house, but what about the hydrogen? It is unfair, for instance, to mention the Hindenburg disaster, the fiery destruction of the hydrogen-filled dirigible over Lakehurst, N.J., in 1937. Although new evidence suggests that hydrogen was not the primary cause of the disaster, the Hindenburg’s spectacularly filmed crash cast a long shadow in the public mind over hydrogen as a dangerous and tricky material to handle. Is adding hydrogen to solar power a complication of an already complex idea — the technological equivalent of stuffing something tasty like a turkey with a duck and a chicken and adding, for good measure, a stick of dynamite? Arguments about efficiency losses, cost-benefit analyses and the like are more or less beside the point if hydrogen is a substance that might blow you to smithereens."
I think it's funny, don't get me wrong, but when did it become okay for the New York Times to reference turduckens in rather serious investigative journalism pieces?
posted by Adrienne Dye at 8:55 PM
1 Comments:
its a funny word either way but interesting note to the hindenburg. I was watching myth-busters the other day and it is very possible that the cause of the fire had to do with a chemical that was used to paint the fabric used to build the blimp. It actually made it burn quicker and spark unlike the fabric alone.
-Becca
Post a Comment
<< Home