4 ms·
Did you see the pictures? I'd say the description is accurate. The ship lacks the brightly-lit, clean, polished interior I would expect to see in a European, As
by istjohn 8y ago
Did you see the pictures? I'd say the description is accurate. The ship lacks the brightly-lit, clean, polished interior I would expect to see in a European, Asian, or American nuclear facility. It's kind of dingy looking to be blunt.
Sure, a claustrophobic architecture is not surprising for a ship, but most readers' experience of large boats--if any--is likely to be with cruise ships. Should the author have omitted a physical description of the ship's features because a reasonable reader could have guessed them? Personally, I appreciate these kinds of small details.
The article does flirt with open skepticism of the project, and I'm open to the possibility that this stance is unfair, but I don't think these atmospheric details cross any line when they seem quite apt looking at the accompanying pictures.
Also, I agree with the comment above that says the critical tone is unsurprising for an article on nuclear tech, domestic or foreign.
- mirimir 8y agoHave you spent much time in industrial facilities? Especially prototypes?
- boomboomsubban 8y agoIt still looks dingy even if dingy is usual. So from my perspective it seems like a description rather than a criticism. Not a necessary paragraph, but more likely included to justify the reporter's visit to the ship than some attack.
- mirimir 8y agoOK, fair enough. It's just that we've seen a lot of stuff here lately about China and Russia which is arguably propaganda.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoThe media has been full of anti-Russian propaganda lately, so I understand being suspicious. And this topic isn't essential news, so there likely is some interest that wants it written. I'd guess nuclear lobby given the "dingy but safe" take on the plant.