Letters archive
Join the conversation in New Scientist'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
15 February 2003
From Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University
Congratulations to Rachel Nowak and New Scientist for the accurate and refreshingly balanced account of environmental alarmism on the Great Barrier Reef (4 January, p 8) . The article makes the important point that the allegations regarding damage to the reef are mostly made in unpublished or unrefereed reports, or in media statements and declarations …
15 February 2003
From Peter Ridd, James Cook University, and Piers Larcombe, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
The letter from Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and others (1 February, p 24) ignores the main points outlined in Rachel Nowak's article. These are as follows. • The general public has been deceived into believing that the great barrier reef is in very poor shape. • This deception has been a result of a combination of overzealous …
15 February 2003
From Paul Dear, Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Your editorial and accompanying articles on dark matter puzzle over an apparent paradox in astrophysics ( 25 January, p 3 , p 28 and p 34 ). If galaxies spin as rapidly as they appear to, if they contain only the matter we can see, and if gravity behaves the way it's supposed to, then …
15 February 2003
From Lawrence Clark and Richard Whalley, Silsoe Research Institute, and Bill Finch-Savage, Horticulture Research International
We were pleased to see that you have drawn attention to the interesting work of Stewart Wuest, which shows that seeds take up a large proportion of soil water as vapour rather than liquid (18 January, p 19) . It seems that the accepted wisdom that seeds need good contact with the soil for fast …
15 February 2003
From Anthony Trewavas, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh
There are about 200 published scientific papers detailing GM safety investigations using animal feeding, compositional tests and toxicology of introduced traits. A bibliography by the International Life Sciences Institute is at www.ilsi.org/publications/pubslist.cfm ? pubentityid=60&publicationid=348. None of these give any credence to the BMA or Zambian leadership's position.
15 February 2003
From Alex Avery, Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues
In your article on the link between starving Zambians rejecting genetically-modified food aid and a 1999 British Medical Association report, the BMA's Vivienne Nathanson "denies the association has said that GM crops are harmful" (1 February, p 4) . However, according to an article published in The Lancet (vol 353, p 1769), "BMA head of …