LETTER FROM ANTHONY SUTTON (NEN Vol. 5, No. 10)
Ed., Future Technology Intelligence Report
LETTER FROM ANTHONY SUTTON (NEN Vol. 5, No. 10)
Ed., Future Technology Intelligence Report
The letter from Jim Pardau (NEN January 1998) is correct in its criticism of DOE and nuclear waste but misleading in its interpretation of the SACRAMENTO BEE Editorial on new energy technology.
The BEE Editorial has two key points:
(1) It supported only ONE fusion technology, that of UC Irvine Emeritus Professor Rostoker. The BEE does not recognize the many possible approaches to new energy. To us it looked like a "puff piece" for Rostoker.
(2) It was negative to other approaches and specifically referred to cold fusion as a "hoax".
We wrote two letters to the BEE Editors complaining about use of the word "hoax" in reference to cold fusion and presented confirming evidence for the validity of cold fusion. There was no reply by mail, phone, fax or Editorial correction.
The BEE is a newspaper that boasts about its "corrections" policy.
Our conclusion is that the BEE has no genuine interest in new energy technologies but has some contact or interest in one and only one prototype technology. This is a political choice, not an economic or technical choice.
This attitude is all too common in the Big City media and does not help our objective. We need to look at ALL possible variants of new energy technology whether cold fusion, plasma injection, coated beads or the Rostoker device.
The February FTIR will have a fuller discussion of the BEE Editorial
Antony C. Sutton, D.Sc.
Ed., Future Technology Intelligence Report.
P.O. Box 2903.
Sacramento, CA 95812
www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_5_10_7.html
Feb. 23, 1998.