http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:2UL1ZV9MA8MC:www.sciam.com/1998/1098issue/1098scicit2.html+circularly+polarized&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Here's an older article that sort of makes the distinction between left & right circular (it gets it once then seems to forget about it, I used to expect better from SciAm, but it went to hell 5-10 years ago). It seems they found an excess of X-handed circular in infra-red 4 years ago, and just recently found the excess of X-handed-circular UV needed to break down the Y-handed amino acids preferentially. They revisited it here, but didn't shed much more light (ouch) on the subject: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:1rcCc6_QeQYC:www.sciam.com/1999/1199issue/1199letters.html+circularly+polarized+amino&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Here's another article that almost makes the distinction. http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:FwHNdiJ4uy0C:www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/press/life.html+circularly+polarized+amino&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Interestingly, it quotes Dr. Bailey from the _Science_ article and he seems to talk about circular polarization without specifying the handedness -- sloppy. Maybe the journalists aren't the only ones at fault. Anyone have access to Dr. Bailey's article rather than the journalists' regurgitation (it is too bad _Science_ isn't available free; there must be a way to run a good peer-reviewed journal without charging an arm and a leg) -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
