At 11:49 AM 9/7/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
By Peter Golden/Local Columnist
[...] Similarly, a recent article in the Boston Globe on "cold
fusion," a controversial and entirely unproved concept, omitted any
reference to "hot fusion" and burning plasma whatsoever.
Golden's column seems to be long-forgotten, I couldn't find a copy.
Below is a link to the article Golden complains about. It would have
been irrelevant to mention hot fusion in the article, unless the
reporter decided to explore the economics behind the rejection of
cold fusion....
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2004/07/27/heating_up_a_cold_theory/
Good article, in fact.
Only in the world of spin was the 2004 DoE review, anticipated by
critics, according to the reporter, to shut up the cold fusion
researchers once and for all, negative; it showed how far the field
had come since 1989, and clearly took the research seriously (overall).
And all I've seen from cold fusion researchers on that review has
been complaint and criticism. That was a mistake. It effectively
cooperated with the spin that the review was a rejection of cold
fusion. Sure, some individual reviews were preposterous, but that was
to be expected. What's important is the positive aspects to the
review, what should have been surprising to critics, the extent of
support from a panel of neutral experts, even in the absence of a
detailed and careful examination.
We need to get our act together.
