3 ms·

They do indicate the region, and it does include sweden, finland, large parts of baltics and certain areas in russia: https://mobile.twitter.com/SinaZerbo/statu

by norenh 6y ago

They do indicate the region, and it does include sweden, finland, large parts of baltics and certain areas in russia: https://mobile.twitter.com/SinaZerbo/status/1276559857731153921/photo/1 https://mobile.twitter.com/SinaZerbo/status/1276559857731153... Had you included the full quote you would have known why they did not point out the exact location: "We are able to indicate the likely region of the source, but it’s outside the CTBTO’s mandate to identify the exact origin" If I interpret it correctly it means that they do not know the exact location and other organisations will now have to investigate it further to get the exact origin.

unnouinceput 6y ago
The article itself lacks the region. As I don't have twitter I don't care about following links to it and furthermore, because of NoScript that I have, it didn't even appeared in the first place. In order to see the twitter link I had to temporarily allow it to see that as well. And including the entire quote would've made no difference on the region, but the origin. I differentiate between source region (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Russia as indicated in the twitter post) and origin (a nuclear plant, a mining operation etc - that's for me meaning origin of radionuclides).
ip26 6y ago
If I interpret it correctly Sounds more like they are pretty sure where but aren't allowed to say.
- beervirus 6y ago
  Yeah that wording was strange. If they don’t know, they should just say that.
  - _-___________-_ 6y ago
    The wording seems really clear. They know, but identifying the source would be an inherently political action, and it's not part of the purpose of their organisation to take that sort of action.
- davrosthedalek 6y ago
  I think that's the point. They are only "pretty" sure. There is always room for error, and not pointing out the likely culprit protects them from retaliation.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Or they are sure, but relations with the guilty party are not conducive to revealing it.

by norenh 6y ago

unnouinceput 6y ago

The article itself lacks the region. As I don't have twitter I don't care about following links to it and furthermore, because of NoScript that I have, it didn't even appeared in the first place. In order to see the twitter link I had to temporarily allow it to see that as well. And including the entire quote would've made no difference on the region, but the origin. I differentiate between source region (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Russia as indicated in the twitter post) and origin (a nuclear plant, a mining operation etc - that's for me meaning origin of radionuclides).

ip26 6y ago

If I interpret it correctly Sounds more like they are pretty sure where but aren't allowed to say.

beervirus 6y ago
Yeah that wording was strange. If they don’t know, they should just say that.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  The wording seems really clear. They know, but identifying the source would be an inherently political action, and it's not part of the purpose of their organisation to take that sort of action.
davrosthedalek 6y ago
I think that's the point. They are only "pretty" sure. There is always room for error, and not pointing out the likely culprit protects them from retaliation.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Or they are sure, but relations with the guilty party are not conducive to revealing it.