Letters archive
Join the conversation in Âé¶¹´«Ã½'s Letters section, where readers can share their thoughts and opinions on articles and see responses from experts and enthusiasts across a range of science topics. To submit a letter, please see our terms and email letters@newscientist.com
7 June 2003
From Alan Watson, University of Leeds
Your article about the Pierre Auger Observatory contains an inaccuracy of which your readers should be aware (17 May, p 9) . At present, just over 2 per cent of the Southern Observatory has been constructed and is operating as a prototype instrument, not 10 per cent as you suggest. We expect to have 10 …
7 June 2003
From Chris Busby, European Committee on Radiation Risk
It was unfair of Brian Spratt to dismiss the report of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) as merely some anti-nuclear platform (17 May, p 24) . The Royal Society's own evidence on depleted uranium is arguably irrelevant since DU particles are entirely novel and cannot be equated with uranium ore dust. There are …
7 June 2003
From David Stevenson, University of Leicester
Colin Tudge asserts that scientific discoveries such as penicillin would have been given the green light under the precautionary principle (17 May, p 23) . However, this is accepted with hindsight. Yes, drugs such as penicillin would, were the benefits known in advance, be blindly accepted. However, in an era where mass media can spread …