Note that the comment "debunking" the article is by the author of the article itself (or so he claims). The debunking seems to consist of repeating what is in the article: the FAA doesn't allow large amounts of mercury, as is present in a professional barometer.
The scariness of the article seems to reside mostly in the comments here and choice of headline. (although the picture of the dissolving I-beam isn't particularly reassuring...)
Re:Why mercury is forbidden aboard airplanes
by Xichekolas on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @05:13PM
(#520631)
Well the comment biohacker24 linked to wasn't really debunking it, but it was by the popsci author (supposedly).
Both of these comments (in the same thread) do debunk it:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/85clw/why_mercury_i...
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/85clw/why_mercury_i...
Re:Why mercury is forbidden aboard airplanes
by JacobAldridge on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @09:47PM
(#520983)
Wow. That was my first Reddit experience in a long time - I appreciate the links, because I wouldn't have come close to trawling through the conversational inanities to find the nuggets of perception buried in a shit-storm of self-flagellation.
Dear HN - I love youse guys.
Re:Why mercury is forbidden aboard airplanes
by Xichekolas on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @10:25PM
(#521029)
Yeah the whole thread of Sherlock Holmes quotes totally threw me... I knew reddit was bad... but that bad? Wow.
PopSci from 2004, no less. Did Atwood finally break HN?
And yet here we are with popsci near the top of HN. I blame Jeff Atwood.