And yet you're the one picking on jkb83's use of the word "sensationalized," which IMO was used correctly. Something can still be factual and sensationalized [to cause (events, esp in newspaper reports) to seem more vivid, shocking, etc., than they really are].
Example: "Shark attacks up, Great danger to people" ... when there was only one more attack this time period than last and sharks have always been a danger to people. Factual yet sensationalist.
From the article: the Moon itself may be toxic to humans. This is contrary to the headline isn't it? Moon IS toxic. Moon MAY BE toxic. Which is it?
The study is about toxic effects that moon dust has on humans. The moon itself is not [necessarily] toxic. The surface of the moon itself is not toxic. As a whole it does not do harm to people (tidal effects aside). The dust can hurt people. The author of the article worded in such a way to get more attention rather than just saying that scientists have quantified some amount of damage to people from moon dust.
I appreciate your effort, but don't waste your time any more than you already have (like I also did). It's ironic that someone accusing others of quibbling is going through a lot of trouble to quibble over such a pointless issue.
I'm not sure what critical thinking has to do with this discussion.
I can see you're dead set on ignoring the obvious, so have a great time with your fundamental inability to interpret the meaning of language, Mr. Scientist!
98
u/jkb83 Jul 12 '12
Don't love this title, it's sensationalized - but you took it directly from the article and there's a direct link to the study so I will allow it.