[sk5t]

Nobody with a full command of the language uses "fallout" to refer to a debris field. It is most commonly used in the abstract sense, to refer to negative after-effects, or else in the technical sense, for radioactive pollution.

[gojomo]

The 'fallout' isn't the field itself, but toxic stuff that falls from the sky after an explosion.

No competent headline writer would use that figurative language around an explosive incident where there might be literal 'fallout'.

(The NYT uses 'fallout' to refer to the literal toxic materials thrown off from a non-nuclear explosion, as in stories like https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/world/asia/cyanide-levels.... And also to refer to toxic off-gassing from other processes, as in the headline at https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/us/home-drug-making-labor...)

[sk5t]

> toxic stuff that falls from the sky

I know... "radioactive pollution."

The public would not expect a civilian airliner to be nuke-powered.

[gojomo]

As noted in my examples, the NYT regularly uses 'fallout' to refer to non-radioactive toxics emerging from explosions and other activities as well. This usage is also confirmed by many dictionaries.

[sk5t]

The Times in the first (and only working) link uses fallout in the "problematic aftereffects" sense, although I can see how this might be confusing.

[gojomo]

The use of "toxic fallout" in the 1st link is pretty clearly referring to literal toxic chemicals released. And if you remove the '.' from the 2nd link, you'll see the same in the "toxic fallout" headline there.