New York TimesThe scientists previously described some of the most significant findings reported in the Science papers — that the water on the comet does not resemble that found on Earth, probably ruling out comets as the source of the Earth’s oceans, and that a diverse stew of molecules streaming off the surface includes those found in the odors of rotten eggs and urine.

I get that the typical reader of the New York Times probably has absolutely no memory of, say, high school chemistry. My own memory of high school chemistry is shaky enough, but I know how to use google to remind myself of things I am interested in. And I get that the typical New York Times reader is probably more interested in knowing that a comet smells like rotten eggs and urine than knowing that the comet possibly has hydrogen sulfide, and there's way too much stuff in urine to be able to guess what "smells like urine" means.

But why couldn't they just... put the chemistry in a footnote or something? Or at least link directly to the actual results that indicate that the comet surface is organic rich?

This entry was published Mon Jan 26 11:52:03 CST 2015 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2015-01-22 22:39:28.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.