Talk:Moscow Signal

Offensive Sentence
This article (as of 20th July 2018) contains the sentence "The microwave transmissions were only five microwatts per square centimetre[2], which is well below the power level of microwave ovens, and well below what would be needed to heat anything[4]." That is highly offensive and sounds like the public-relations spin we get from all business-entities who discharge radiation. By saying "this can't cook anyone" (which is true) they ground their statement on a TACIT assumption "The only way radiation hurts you is by cooking you, so if we disprove that it's cooking you we've proved it's safe." And the resort to a TACIT assumption is that they dare not state aloud the laughably false assertion that "the only way radiation hurts you is by cooking you" for fear of looking monstrous. This is the textbook use of the tacit assumption: don't STATE it, but, rather, use it as a basis, by implication established as true, for something that IS factually true. (It IS true that radiation like this doesn't cook anyone.) Since the statement propped upon the tacit assumption is unassailably true, those of us who are less than vigilant will let the false tacit assumption itself get through the door inside the jacket of the true statement. This is by fare the most common way people lie, and certainly the most common way people lie in Wikipedia. Make no mistake: the radiation beamed at this embassy, if it was 10 times the Soviet's own standards, was doing harm to the embassy personnel, whether it was cooking them or not. Period. And if you disagree with that, then why doesn't the article make the statement NON-tacitly, with the sentence "The only way radiation can harm you is by cooking you"? It's because that statement, if OVERT, would reveal the deceitfulness instantly.2604:2000:C682:2D00:C1EA:3481:A02:629B (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson