6 ms·

The whole story can be shortened down to two sentences: > Investigators traced a series of internal communications in which the specifications for “kitty litte

The whole story can be shortened down to two sentences: > Investigators traced a series of internal communications in which the specifications for “kitty litter/zeolite clay” were transformed into “kitty litter (clay),” the report says. Combined with inadequate technical review, this resulted in LANL workers filling waste containers with a mixture of nitrate salts and sWheat Scoop, a cat litter that is 100% wheat, according to its manufacturer.

brudgers 9y ago
Removing "zeolite" is consistent with just about every popular piece of advice on how to write: 1. Don't use jargon. 2. Remove unnecessary words. 3. Write a third grade level. So someone comes along and sees the phrase "kitty litter/zeolite clay" and decides that its author does not know how to write based on its author not following the rules and applies syntactic rules without understanding the semantics (in this case the semantics of nuclear chemistry).
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  Item 1 is especially bad because the whole intent of jargon is to be clear to readers of the same or similar technical level. There's an engineer at work who occasionally tries to harangue me into applying these rules to technical documents and emails to other engineers because she thinks they're "unclear." They're not unclear, she just doesn't have the technical aptitude in my field to read them.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Agreed. As anyone exposed to the media in general knows, we do have a very strong preference for "clear but mistaken" and "false as stated" utterances. Any nuance is quickly labeled a "mixed message" and eliminated - as if the universe never contained a mix of anything that one might want to talk about.
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  you'd think that at the level of nuclear chemistry, "kitty litter" would be considered a pretty inexact term for a very serious role.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Well, it is what you have to actually buy unless you want to pay far more.
  - brudgers 9y ago
    Traditionally, it has been exact. Physicists are ordinary people and use ordinary language to talk to other physicists. It became inexact when the low bidder bought wheat waste and called it "kitty litter" and ignored "(clay)".
    - ScottBurson 9y ago
      Um -- as someone who has bought Swheat Scoop for my cats for almost 20 years -- I can assure you it's not the low-cost option. Clay is much cheaper.
      - brudgers 9y ago
        I'm not disagreeing. However, I would not be surprised if the price ratios at retail differ from those at bulk wholesale and at moments in the spot market. My suspicion is based on some experience with the spot market for fill dirt and the evidence here that kitty litter made from wheat byproducts was supplied by the low cost bidder and the premise that the low cost bidder was a rational economic actor.
        ScottBurson 9y ago
        I could believe that Swheat Scoop was the low bidder once someone in the purchasing chain had ruled out the clay options, but I'd be very surprised if any of the organic materials could compete with clay.
- waqf 9y ago
  Writing "kitty litter/zeolite clay" certainly was bad style — it left ambiguous what the relation between "kitty litter" and "zeolite clay" is, which invited the editor to assume that they were synonyms and to just pick one. Remember, kids, if you receive a sentence that's ambiguous, you can't edit it to make it less ambiguous if you don't have an extrinsic reason to know what was meant. Blindly editing can only destroy information, not create it (also known as the autocorrect problem).
  - Gibbon1 9y ago
    Should have been written as 'Zeolite Clay conforming to Specification 239.11' Specifying a generic or branded product for an off label use is just a bad bad idea. Because the manufacturer of kitty litter can't be counted to control for any properties other than those reflecting use in a cat box. Fatcat(tm) Unscented Kitty Litter might be fine until one batch shows up that's 95% zeolite clay / 5% sawdust.
    - kortex 9y ago
      This is exactly key. In GMP pharmaceutical manufacturing, you have to spell EVERYTHING out - chemical compound, the manufacturer, the batch. I'm quite surprised that the nuclear industry doesn't follow the same level of rigor - there ought to have been some sort of SOP document for which sorbents to mix with radioactive nitrates.
- gumby 9y ago
  Which is one of the reasons government purchasing specifications are famously absurdly complicated. First, if you really need zeolite clay you can't use the shortcut term since someone will complain to the IG that you stupidly overpaid and wasted the taxpayer's money. Second, relatedly, some vendor will sue because you specified a "hammer" but didn't specify the material, thus overlooking their cheap plastic hammer. And as a result we end up with the $600 toilet seat.
- HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
  However, it's inconsistent with the training given in writing Technical Communications. Where 1. Jargon is acceptable 2. What words are "unnecessary" is quite context dependent 3. You write to your intended audience.
- kobeya 9y ago
  This is the exact opposite of what is taught in technical writing classes, however.
- gwbas1c 9y ago
  "zeolite clay" is not jargon, it's the exact material required.

brudgers 9y ago

Removing "zeolite" is consistent with just about every popular piece of advice on how to write: 1. Don't use jargon. 2. Remove unnecessary words. 3. Write a third grade level. So someone comes along and sees the phrase "kitty litter/zeolite clay" and decides that its author does not know how to write based on its author not following the rules and applies syntactic rules without understanding the semantics (in this case the semantics of nuclear chemistry).

jschwartzi 9y ago
Item 1 is especially bad because the whole intent of jargon is to be clear to readers of the same or similar technical level. There's an engineer at work who occasionally tries to harangue me into applying these rules to technical documents and emails to other engineers because she thinks they're "unclear." They're not unclear, she just doesn't have the technical aptitude in my field to read them.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Agreed. As anyone exposed to the media in general knows, we do have a very strong preference for "clear but mistaken" and "false as stated" utterances. Any nuance is quickly labeled a "mixed message" and eliminated - as if the universe never contained a mix of anything that one might want to talk about.
beaconstudios 9y ago
you'd think that at the level of nuclear chemistry, "kitty litter" would be considered a pretty inexact term for a very serious role.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Well, it is what you have to actually buy unless you want to pay far more.
- brudgers 9y ago
  Traditionally, it has been exact. Physicists are ordinary people and use ordinary language to talk to other physicists. It became inexact when the low bidder bought wheat waste and called it "kitty litter" and ignored "(clay)".
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    Um -- as someone who has bought Swheat Scoop for my cats for almost 20 years -- I can assure you it's not the low-cost option. Clay is much cheaper.
    - brudgers 9y ago
      I'm not disagreeing. However, I would not be surprised if the price ratios at retail differ from those at bulk wholesale and at moments in the spot market. My suspicion is based on some experience with the spot market for fill dirt and the evidence here that kitty litter made from wheat byproducts was supplied by the low cost bidder and the premise that the low cost bidder was a rational economic actor.
      - ScottBurson 9y ago
        I could believe that Swheat Scoop was the low bidder once someone in the purchasing chain had ruled out the clay options, but I'd be very surprised if any of the organic materials could compete with clay.
waqf 9y ago
Writing "kitty litter/zeolite clay" certainly was bad style — it left ambiguous what the relation between "kitty litter" and "zeolite clay" is, which invited the editor to assume that they were synonyms and to just pick one. Remember, kids, if you receive a sentence that's ambiguous, you can't edit it to make it less ambiguous if you don't have an extrinsic reason to know what was meant. Blindly editing can only destroy information, not create it (also known as the autocorrect problem).
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  Should have been written as 'Zeolite Clay conforming to Specification 239.11' Specifying a generic or branded product for an off label use is just a bad bad idea. Because the manufacturer of kitty litter can't be counted to control for any properties other than those reflecting use in a cat box. Fatcat(tm) Unscented Kitty Litter might be fine until one batch shows up that's 95% zeolite clay / 5% sawdust.
  - kortex 9y ago
    This is exactly key. In GMP pharmaceutical manufacturing, you have to spell EVERYTHING out - chemical compound, the manufacturer, the batch. I'm quite surprised that the nuclear industry doesn't follow the same level of rigor - there ought to have been some sort of SOP document for which sorbents to mix with radioactive nitrates.
gumby 9y ago
Which is one of the reasons government purchasing specifications are famously absurdly complicated. First, if you really need zeolite clay you can't use the shortcut term since someone will complain to the IG that you stupidly overpaid and wasted the taxpayer's money. Second, relatedly, some vendor will sue because you specified a "hammer" but didn't specify the material, thus overlooking their cheap plastic hammer. And as a result we end up with the $600 toilet seat.
HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
However, it's inconsistent with the training given in writing Technical Communications. Where 1. Jargon is acceptable 2. What words are "unnecessary" is quite context dependent 3. You write to your intended audience.
kobeya 9y ago
This is the exact opposite of what is taught in technical writing classes, however.
gwbas1c 9y ago
"zeolite clay" is not jargon, it's the exact material required.