Still, its way better compared to wandering yetis or murderous aliens.
Why is it way better ! ? All theories are on the table.
Because NO2 exists on Earth, unlike yeti. The theory is meant to explain what happened (or what may have happened), not to explain one mystery by another.
How do you know that there are not such creatures on Earth ! ? Plenty of witnesses. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is one of a group of gases called nitrogen oxides. Road transport is estimated to be responsible for about 50% of total emissions of nitrogen oxides, which means that nitrogen dioxide levels are highest close to busy roads and in large urban areas. Its a wonder that we havnt had thousands of Dyatlov Incidents if NO2 is playing a part.
It is a logical fallacy to demand a proof of non-existence of an entity that is not even defined (yeti, unicorns, dragons etc.) We cannot just claim that a random statement is true until proven wrong because it defies the very essence of logic. Burden of proof is on people who claim to have seen or otherwise experienced a "yeti" and they failed to provide a single ONE in whole history. Such approach is not applicable in law or anywhere. There are too many variables to prove basically any of the theories but we should stick to logic and science to move forward.
As for the NO2/gas poisoning, there are millions of deaths related to "gas poisoning", mostly as a result of strong pollution, then we have some deliberate poisonings, random ones etc...perfecty possible cause of death. The source of the gas is a problematic issue. But same rules apply, we cannot claim the PRESENCE of NO2 as a fact until we can explain the source, but the EXISTENCE of NO2 as such is a proven fact. Then even if we could possibly prove PRESENCE, the next step would be to prove enough concentration to be dangerous.
Agreed. Logic is the way. Here are a couple of pieces of logic. They are not indisputable but they are reasonable:
NO2 poisoning
Can explain the deaths of some of the group and some of the peculiarities of those deaths such as Edema of Yuri D. It can explain the lack of urine in bladders which is normally high with hypothermia, because they may have died of No2 poisoning before the cold got them. It explains why they died, even though they had a good fire, and many of them had good insulation, and why they left many items of clothing unused near the cedar and ravine. Gloves in pockets, jackets unzipped etc. yes they removed the clothes of the two Yuris but this should have given them even more protection. They could have survived the cold if they used their own bodies to insulate each other with some people on the outside, and rotating with those on the inside. If you look at the evidence there doesn't seem to be a good reason why they would freeze to death.
The injuries - can be explained by NO2 becaause it could have led to hypoxia and ultimately affect cognitive skills, resulting in falls.
During autopsy samples of body tissue were taken for histology and chemical analysis. Oh they must have misplaced or lost the toxicology report because it's not in the case file. Isnt that unfortunate.
Source of nitrogen dioxide:
9 people die ona cold mountain in the middle of nowhere - obviously as a part of the investigation you would request a radiation survey to be carried out. It's a standard part of any investigation right?
A low yield nuclear weapon detonated to the south west of Kholat Syakhl, has the potential to create a toxic radioactive dust cloud of NO2 of significant proportion, tens of square kilometres of toxic gas >>100ppm? This would be up wind of the camp and directly opposite the direction they went.
It still needs evidence though.
Topic: Specific detail - Ignat Ryagin (Read 14362 times)
