3 ms·

The article references language in section 1508 of NEPA to as a possibility of why the FCC might have needed to perform an environmental review; however, if you

• jerf 7y ago
  "“Astronomers are having these issues [and think] there’s nothing they can do legally,” says the paper’s author Ramon Ryan, a second-year law student at Vanderbilt University." Emphasis mine. And that's their lead-off quote. The sense I get from the other quotes in the article is that the people in question probably really did say that, but that they probably don't believe this is a viable legal avenue either, the journalist is just selectively quoting the "But I suppose with the right combination of unlikely events it could be a possible legal avenue" hedging they made. But I admit that's a personal impression of mine, not something I can prove. I'm just inferring it based on the tepidness of the other quotes. However, I don't blame a student for putting out a paper. I blame the Scientific American for constructing such a thinly-based article, because the real reason is that they want the controversy stirred up, or it's what they personally wanted to say even though the factual basis isn't really there to support it. This sort of crap is why journalists aren't trusted. Story-first, evidence later; it's like they're the equal and opposite reaction to scientists existing in the world.