• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Skeptical Inquirer Letters to the Editor: May 2005

Posted on: Wednesday, 11 May 2005, 03:00 CDT

The Case for Decentralized Generation of Electricity

Regarding your article "Critical Thinking about Energy: The Case for Decentralized Generation of Electricity" (January/February 2005): First off, kudos to SI for publishing such a visionary article that is relevant to our contemporary world in which energy demand is causing increasing environmental and geopolitical challenges. All too often, skeptics act as little more than cynics who resist change and defend the status quo, regardless of the consequences. In this case, the skeptics are actually acting as visionaries and are well out ahead of the rest of society on a vitally important issue-our ever-increasing demand for energy and how to deliver it efficiently.

One criticism I have of the way the issue is framed in the article is that it dwells on old decentralized-power-generation techniques and fails to focus on modern ones. The author relies on the model of decentralized power generation used in the early twentieth century, in which electricity was generated locally from coal or oil, and the waste heat was then used to heat local buildings. The author fails to even casually mention modern, mainstream decentralized-power-generation options that are in use in the real world today, such as fuel cells, solar/wind, tidal, biomass, landfill gas, etc.

There is no controversy regarding whether or not these decentralized-powergeneration technologies are real and viable. I do not understand why the author did not include a broader presentation of the decentralized power generation currently available?

John Coviello

Somerset, New Jersey

The near future of electrical-power generation should be by use of photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines. Solar panels can cover thousands of square miles of deserts in America and Asia. Wind turbines can be installed by the thousands in the Rocky Mountains and the mountains of Europe and Asia. Wind turbines can be installed also on anchored platforms on the ocean just offshore of all major cities and on top of highrise buildings. Solar panels can be installed on the roofs of residences, apartment buildings, factories, warehouses, and schools. The resulting pollution-free electric power will also provide power to produce hydrogen gas by electrolysis from seawater for use in hydrogen-fuel-cell cars. We will have economical and pollution-free electric power and fuel in great quantities.

Martin Annenberg

Huntington Beach, California

Thomas R. Casten and Brennan Downes make an excellent case for decentralized generation of electricity. But a sensible argument doesn't seem to go far in this political climate. It may be that the best way to sell this idea is to stress the security aspects of smaller, distributed plants-fewer big targets make it harder for terrorists to disrupt electrical supplies over wide areas.

David B. Lewis

Hamden, Connecticut

It was great to see SKEPTICAL INQUIRER expand coverage beyond pseudoscience and religion. I was impressed with "Critical Thinking about Energy." I brought the article to the attention of my city government, which owns our local power-distribution company. However, I found that the article was overly complex and a bit confusing. For SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, it should have been more concise and simplified.

I do hope that SKEPTICAL INQUIRER will continue to delve into other subjects where groupthink is taking us in the wrong direction. How about "sustainable growth"?

Roy F. Johnson

Columbia, Tennessee

The fatal flaw in the "critical thinking" of the authors is that the waste heat produced by generating electricity must be used when it is made. There is no way to store it on a large scale. In other words, the demand for waste heat must be directly proportional to the demand for electricity at all times. There are only very specialized applications where this can work. Another "critical" flaw by the authors is trying to identify a physical energy problem as a political problem that can be solved by legislation. If only it were that easy.

George Ascroft

H. Douglas Lightfoot

Montreal, Quebec

Canada

What happened to the laws of thermodynamics in "Critical Thinking about Energy"? For one thing, the heat rejected by a gas or steam turbine is not "waste" heat; it is a requirement of these laws. The efficiency of an ideal heat engine is [T (hot) - T (cold)] / T (hot). T stands for temperature and is counted from absolute zero. This is about - 460F. Modern coal electric plants have a T(hot) of about 1000F, so their best possible efficiency would be 62 percent, if the heat sink (cooling tower or river water) were at 100F. Other losses unfortunately bring this down to just over 40 percent. However, these low efficiencies are not caused by carelessly rejecting waste heat but are the inevitable consequence of obeying Mother Nature.

Two alternatives are used in practice if there is a second use for the heat from a steam or gas turbine. One is to raise the (cold) to perhaps 300F, so useful energy can be extracted from this heat stream. This, of course, reduces the efficiency of the electric plant, and you end up, at best, breaking even. The other is to use heat directly from the boiler or other heat-input device and couple it with a smaller turbine. The electricity generated is less, but you have a source of high-temperature heat that is often required at a factory, such as a chemical-manufacturing plant.

The reason why efficiencies for electrical generation haven't improved since Edison's day is that the laws of thermodynamics have not changed since then. This is not a utility conspiracy. Edison may have been able to use the waste heat because the technology of getting to a low T (cold) had not yet been invented, or perhaps he didn't understand the ramifications of attempting this.

Another important factor not brought up is the subsidies that decentralized electricpower plants get. The electricity they produce, but don't happen to need, their utility is forced to buy. This is a terrible penalty to the utilities, because they don't want or need the additional electrical capacity at night or on weekends any more than the decentralized producers do. How would the decentralized power scheme fare if they had to shut down and sell their power to the utilities during the afternoon electrical demand peak? This would be great for consumers, since supplying the peak is the most expensive part of electrical generation. It forces you to overbuild to meet it. This is also the main reason for the surge in the use of gas turbines in the last twenty years. They're cheap to build and expensive to run, but you only need to run them at times of peak demand.

I think the authors also underestimated or ignored how much more expensive oil and natural gas are compared to coal and nuclear power. Their use would be contrary to the goal of energy independence, and their widespread use is sure to create shortages and substantially raise the price of these fossil fuels for homeowners.

Thomas R. Freeman

Columbia, South Carolina

Thomas R. Casten responds:

Regarding the Covidlo and Annenberg letters, deployment of current solar photovoltaic and wind-generation technologies involves deep analysis of government subsidies and their economic effect, which goes beyond the article's examination of whether utilities have made optimal economic choices. Solar and wind generation, while technically proven, have all-in costs substantially above central fossil generation and four to six times the all-in costs of power generated by recycling waste energy. Off-grid or remote solar power is often cost effective, but on-grid wind or solar receive significant subsidies or cause electric users to pay more for power. Yes, governments also use taxpayer dollars to subsidize fossil fuel, hydroelectric projects, and nuclear power and do not require old fossil plants to pay for the environmental damage they cause. Analyzing the economic distortion and resulting damage to standards of living of these subsidies is a fascinating topic but also beyond the scope of our article. Our focus was to show that deploying existing technologies locally would dramatically reduce current power costs and associated pollution by enabling energy recycling.

Ascroft and Lightfoot are largely correct in stating that waste heat from electric generation must be used instantaneously. Thermal energy can be stored economically as hot water, and such storage is widely used in Scandinavian countries to feed hot-water district- heating loops. These hot-water tanks store heat from weekday peak electric generation for use the following night or weekend to heat homes. But storage is not key to recycling heat to most industrial plants, university and medical campuses, and urban district-heating loops. More than 200 combined-heat-and-power plants developed and operated by organizations we have led or helped manage recycle waste heat by feeding base thermal loads and displacing boiler fuel. Extracting more value from fossil fuel by siting appropriately sized generation near thermal users is technically and economically feasible. The power industry fails to optimize because of regulatory systems that tie utility profits to invested capital, ignore or penalize efficiency, give grandfather emission rights to old central plants, and shelter electric generation and distribution from competition.

Contrary to Thomas Freeman's letter, there are no violations of t\he laws of thermodynamics in the article. The major assertions have been through something better than peer review-extensive and repeated market review. There are multiple examples, often with decades of operating experience, of local generation with energy recycling of every generating technology described. These plants save fuel. They use less fuel to produce heat and power than would be used to produce the same useful energy in separate thermal and electric plants. In spite of many barriers to efficiency, power entrepreneurs have deployed more than 70,000 megawatts of combinedheat-and-power plants in the U.S., producing roughly 8 percent of U.S. power. In Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands, where many regulatory barriers were removed, roughly 50 percent of all power is generated in combined-heat-and-power plants. The problem is not thermodynamics.

Optimizing the power system is a technoconomie issue. Freeman claims that extracting 300 Fahrenheit energy from an electric plant "reduces the efficiency of the electric plant and you end up, at best, breaking even. " Let us be more precise. Steam-turbine plants will generate more electricity as the temperature of heat rejection is lowered. The very best electric-only steam-turbine plants are located next to very cold bodies of water-the North Sea or Lake Ontario-and reject their heat at a few degrees above freezing. Removing the heat at a higher temperature will reduce the amount of electricity produced, but heat at that temperature is useful and can displace boiler fuel. Overall efficiency increases dramatically when 40 percent to 60 percent of the energy in the fuel displaces boiler fuel instead of warming lakes and rivers. Our research, which matches our operating experience, shows that power plants that extract and recycle useful-temperature heat save $10 to $20 per megawatt-hour versus electric-only plants, not exactly "at best breaking even. "

Finally, Freeman wrongly assumes that all decentralized generation will use oil or natural gas. The article demonstrates that every fuel, including coal and nuclear, will produce more value in decentralized plants that recycle thermal energy than in central plants that heat lakes and rivers. More important, the cheapest power, which causes no incremental burning of fossil fuel and no incremental pollution, is generated from presently wasted industrial energy-from gas that is flared, heat from process exhaust, and gas or steam-pressure drop. A draft EPA study identified nearly 100,000 megawatts of power-nearly equal to the U.S. nuclear fleet-that could be generated by recycling industrial-waste energy. But U.S. DOE statistics show only 2.5 percent of that potential or 2,500 megawatts of generation based on recycled energy currently being used. Nearly 15 percent of all U.S. power could be produced out of thin air-from industrial-waste energy.

What is the article "Critical Thinking about Energy: The case for Decentralized Generation of Electricity" doing in SKEPTICAL INQUIRER? I read the Editor's Note; I understand you are "applying critical inquiry to science-related claims and issues of public importance," but this seems far, far removed from the mission and unique role of SI that I, at least, am subscribing for-which is to serve as an expert critic of pseudoscience in our culture.

Michael Abrahams

Boyds, Maryland

Kendrick Frazier responds:

Our main task is-and will always remainas Mr. Abrahams aptly puts it in his letter, "to serve as an expert critic of pseudoscience in our culture. " But we have never been limited to just that role. And for reasons stated in that Editor's Note and in my editorial in our January/February 2004 issue, we will also continue to apply critical inquiry and investigative analysis to certain wider issues that affect society-especially when we have knowledge-able authors with something unique and important to add that is not available elsewhere, as was the case with this article.

Responding to Demagogues

The article by Vitaly Ginzburg ("Demagogues against Scientific Expertise," January/February 2005) contained a disturbing suggestion near the end that I would hope scientific minds in general will sensibly reject. After spending much of the atticle bemoaning the advance of pseudoscience, Ginzburg shares an anecdote of how he once informed a journalist he would no longer answer the journalist's scientific questions while his publication continued to promote pseudoscience in the form of horoscopes. He goes on to suggest that a majority of members of the scientific community should take similar stands.

Perhaps I am too uneducated to see the logic here, but it seems to me this is a remarkably poorly thought-out strategy. Surely, the most effective way to combat pseudoscience lies in trying to spread science and rational thinking to the masses as often as one can in order to offset the avalanche of misinformation being promoted. To take the attitude that these publications are unworthy of the benefit of a true scientist's time is hard to see as anything but intellectual elitism. If those who oppose them retreat from the field, the demagogues Ginzburg so disdains simply win the war of ideas by default.

Charles Fusner

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Piltdown and Science

Massimo Pigliucci is quite correct to insist that the Piltdown affair should be celebrated as a scientific victory ("Piltdown and How Science Really Works," January/February 2005). Nevertheless, he omits a crucial element that grants the story greater significance. The real hero of the Piltdown story is an infant-hominid fossil found by Raymond Dart. Australopithecus africanus fundamentally contradicted the interpretation of hominid evolution represented by the Piltdown skull. The large cranium was not the first hominid characteristic to evolve. Although Dart's interpretations were legitimately questioned by the scientific community, further discoveries of fossils in South Africa corroborated them. By the 1940s, many prominent anthropologists accepted the radical idea that the first hominids were small-brained bipeds. Although few anthropologists today accept Australopithecus africanus as a direct human ancestor, the lesson it taught us about early hominid evolution remains valid to this day.

The fact that the Piltdown forgery was falsified by its fundamental contradiction with the fossil record demonstrates the way in which paleontology is conducted. With the discovery of new fossils, an initial hypothesis is proposed to establish their place within the present understanding of evolution. Each claim will be skeptically evaluated relative to the quality of evidence that supports the claim and will always be subject to the challenge of the discovery of still more new fossils. Within the evolving paradigm of hominid evolution, Piltdown became a serious anomaly that did not fit the evidence and therefore warranted re- evaluation. It would be reasonable for the antievolutionists that cite the Piltdown forgery to acknowledge the role that authentic fossils played in exposing the forgery. If they are unwilling to be reasonable, then it is our obligation to remind them of these facts.

Dennis C. Shaw

Instructor of Anthropology

Lower Columbia College

Longview, Washington

Early Humans' Ability to Talk Key

Regarding Ralph Estling's comments about the organization of Cro- Magnon brains compared with those of Neanderthals ("Stupid Things," January/February 2005): Estling speculates that the Cro-Magnons' main advantage was a brain evolved to a state of superior organization, making it possible for them to "conceive vastly more."

He does talk about their sophisticated linguistic abilities, but attributes this to their better-organized brains, which, he says, made this talk possible. It is at least as likely that the cause of the more sophisticated CroMagnon culture is simply the ability to talk. There has been speculation that the Neanderthal had a more limited vocal apparatus that was more like that of apes. If this were so, then-no matter how well organized their brains-the Neanderthals would have been unable to pass on their acquired skills to others beyond the simple imitation shown by apes. There would have been no cumulative development of culture-no "standing on the shoulders of giants." They would have been left continuously reinventing the wheel, while the skills of the CroMagnons were steadily improving.

This is consistent with the relative stability across hundreds of thousands of years of pre-sapiens human cultures compared with the explosive advance of Homo sapiens. It is the ability to learn from the mistakes of others rather than our own that makes a complex civilization possible.

Paul K. Brandon

Psychology Department

Minnesota State University

Mankato, Minnesota

JFK Assassination Car

In the photograph of a presidential motorcade in the article by Massimo Polidoro, "Notes on a Strange World: Facts and Fiction in the Kennedy Assassination" (January/February 2005), the open-top Lincoln Continental in the photograph on page 22 is white. The Zapruder film and other contemporaneous photographs clearly show the president, Mrs. Kennedy, and Governor Connally riding in a black, open-top Lincoln on November 22, 1963. Other details also make it unlikely that the published photograph was taken in Dallas on the date of the Kennedy assassination: i.e., the unidentified person seated to the left of the First Lady, and the absence of Governor Connally in the jump seat just in front of the president.

In defense of the SI editors, the published photo caption is vague but not, technically speaking, wrong, in that it identifies the date as November 1963, not specifically November 22, 1963. While the photo and caption are not technically wrong, SI readers who are too young to remember the Kennedy assassination could easily be confused by the publication of a "stock" photo linage in a conspiracy-debunking article. The \photograph and caption should have been as carefully vetted as the text.

Robert J. Coffey

Thousand Oaks, California

Kendrick Frazier responds:

Mr. Coffey is correct. The photo we used was not of the presidential motorcade on that fateful day of November 22, 1963. We should have published a photo from that day.

Images and Expectations

As a boy growing up in Spain in the 1970s, I was subjected to many TV discussions of the "inexplicable" faces in Belmez de la Moraleda, and I used to be scared by sensationalist radio shows exploiting this "mystery." Somehow, I grew up to be generally skeptical of such phenomena. That is why I enjoyed Joe Nickell's piece titled "Rorschach Icons" (November/December 2004). May I suggest one more reason for skepticism? If our brains are rigged to see what we expect to see, that explains why no Protestant ever claims to have seen the Virgin Mary but only Jesus, while Catholics report seeing either of the two.

Jose Antonio Cabo

Villaviciosa

Spain

Ghost Ship Mary Celeste

Terence Hines's review of Brian Hicks's Ghost Ship (January/ February 2005) implied that the book presents a new theory about what happened to the crew of the Mary Celeste. I have not read Hicks's book, but based on the review, his theory is a rehash of the one presented in great detail by Charles Edey Fay in The Story of the Mary Celeste (Salem, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum, 1942; reprinted in 1988, New York: Dover Books). Fay carefully analyzed the testimony of the eyewitnesses who found the ship, the prevailing weather patterns in the Atlantic, and nineteenth-century maritime practice in general. His conclusion was the same as the one that Hicks proposes: that the crew temporarily took to the boat because they were concerned about leaks in the ships cargo of alcohol.

In particular, Hines incorrectly stated that Hicks is the first to make the point that the crew apparently intended to return to the ship. Fay described in detail how they (apparently) rigged the main peak halyard as a towline, presumably because it would be quicker than breaking out a new line from the lazarette.

Hines opined that Hicks "has written the definitive work on this case." Based on the review, Ghost Ship actually adds nothing to Charles Fay's exhaustive work.

Peter Ansoff

Alexandria, Virginia

The alcohol theory of the Mary Celeste was described by John Harris in his book, Without a Trace: A Fresh Investigation of Eight Lost Ships and Their Fates (New York: Atheneum, 1981, pp. 42-79), in which he credits Sir William Crocker. This can be found in an article by H.H. Trotti that appeared in the Georgia Skeptic electronic newsletter (January/February 1991) and was reprinted in The Skeptic (March/April 1991). I wonder whether Brian Hicks has been decent enough to mention this earlier source just as Harris and Trotti did.

Jan Willem Nienhuys

Waalre

The Netherlands

The theory that the ship was abandoned because of alcohol vapors has been around in one form or another since at least J.G. Lockhart's A Great Sea Mystery (1927). And Hicks is certainly not the first to suggest that Captain Briggs and associates intended to leave the ship only temporarily and return later, as the review states. Captain Morehouse, who found the Mary Celeste back in 1872, offered this interpretation.

And it isn't correct to say that Briggs and others took nothing with them. The ship's papers were not on the Mary Celeste, and (as the most reasonable explanation) they must have been taken along by Briggs. This poses a problem: Why did Briggs take the papers if he intended to return in a few hours? And why not the log, which is usually considered prime?

Everett F. Bleiler

Interlaken, New York

Terence Mines responds:

Hicks does mention Fay's 1942 book, calling it a "fine work of scholarship" (p. 9) and discusses that author's theory at some length. Hicks's theory, however, differs from Fay's in several respects, based on new evidence uncovered since Fay wrote.

Hicks does not mention John Harris, his 1981 book, or Sir William Crocker.

ID's, Raelians' 'Designer'?

Re: "Raelian Update: Sex, Pseudoscience, and Sacrilege" (News and Comment, January/February 2005):

Here's an idea: host a debate between Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science and Culture and Rael of the Raelians concerning the nature of the "designer" in Intelligent Design. That way, the Christian believers in ID can see who they've ideologically "shacked up" with and Meyer can point out the obvious flaw in the Raelian's view, that it only begs the question of life's origins to say it was brought here from an alien civilization. You could kill two birds with one stone-and provide skeptics with a memorably bizarre and entertaining event.

Kent Barnett

Fayetteville, Arkansas

History of Science: H. Pylori and the Making of a Myth

This is Kimball Atwood's response to letters in our March/April 2005 issue about his article "Bacteria, Ulcers, and Ostracism?: H. Pylori and the Making of a Myth" (November/December 2004).-EDITOR

I am happy that readers seem to have found my article entertaining and instructive. I'm also happy to report that Barry Marshall, the protagonist of the H. pylori story, caught wind of it and wrote me, in part: "I must say that it was well researched and true enough. Given the communication systems in place in the 1980s (pre-Internet) I agree that 10 years was about right for acceptance to occur, as it did in 1994. Also, there is always a discrepancy between what comes out of my mouth and what ultimately appears in the medical page of the Sydney Morning Herald" I grant the last point and apologize to Dr. Marshall for not having given him more benefit of the doubt.

Donald Weitzel wonders if the considerable time that elapsed between early reports of bacteria found in human stomachs and the eventual characterization of H. pylori constitutes evidence of ostracism. It does not, for the same reasons that Alan Harris discusses in his letter about continental drift. Over the decades following 1930, there were sporadic reports of bacteria found in human stomachs (demonstrating that investigators paid attention when they found them), but these findings were not necessarily associated with diseases and, more to the point, could not reliably be reproduced. The bacteria that Weitzel read about were streptococci, now known to have been contaminants.

At least two distinct technological advances were necessary to set the stage for the discovery and characterization of H. pylori: first, a simple and safe method for obtaining gastric mucosa specimens from live patients had to be devised; second, the field of bacteriology had to appreciate the existence of highly fastidious organisms and devise methods for growing them in culture. Suffice it to say that these advances were not fully in place until the 1970s, at best.

Harold Scarbro takes issue with my dismissal of "stress" as a cause of peptic-ulcer disease (PUD), offering several pieces of evidence to support the stress hypothesis. Space precludes a comprehensive discussion, but here are a few points:

1. I'm not sure what "stress" is, and neither are those who tout it as a cause of disease. More precisely, its definition varies from study to study.

2. All associations between mental stress and peptic ulcers are complicated by confounding variables, some of which were unknown at the time the associations were noticed. An obvious example from Scarbro's list: "ulcers increased dramatically after disasters such as the London blitz and the Kobe earthquake." H. pylori is transmitted by the fecal-oral or oral-oral route and is far more common in crowded, unsanitary conditions such as occur in disaster settings. Since the organism was unknown at the time of these disasters, it didn't occur to anyone to look for it. Headaches are also associated with "stress," and their most common treatments are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (most notably aspirin)-now known to be the other major cause of peptic ulcers. Cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption are also independently correlated with both stress and ulcers.

3. Prospective studies that define "stress" from the outset and control for confounders would seem to be the most likely to yield reliable data, but these have shown an inconsistent correlation between "stress" and PUD. Scarbro mentions one such study in which subjects who scored "highest on a perceived stress scale were 2.9 times more likely to develop ulcers," but a similar study found an odds ratio of 1.7 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.0-3.1-hardly convincing. Neither of these studies controlled for H. pylori.

Glenn McQuaig was a drug salesman during the "ulcer wars," presumably the 1980s. He writes, "Dr. Atwood apparently underestimates the tremendous pressure put on the medical community by the pharmaceutical industry. . . . Quite frankly, the physicians never stood a chance." He concludes that this pressure delayed acceptance of the H. pylori hypothesis.

My article has already refuted McQuaig's last assertion. Regarding drug salesmen exerting pressure on physicians, this certainly occurs. The question is whether physicians are as vulnerable to such pressure as McQuaig thinks. I argued last year, in my reply to Myra Jones, that "virtually all doctors recognize drug salesmen for exactly what they are: salesmen" (SI, January/ February 2004). A recent study agrees:

Pharmaceutical drug companies spend upward of $25 billion per year on promoting new drugs and distributing free samples to doctors, but new research shows such marketing devices have litde impact on physicians and their prescribing behavior. . . .

Scientific papers, advice from colleagues and a physician's own training and experience also influence prescribing practices and, he said, most physicians view these sources as far more reliable and trustworthy than salespeople. [Gardner 2004]

Not that this has anything to do with the original point of the article, wh\ich is that the story of H. pylori lends no support to the argument that implausible medical claims deserve to be investigated.

Kimball Atwood, M.D.

Waban, Massachusetts

Reference

Gardner, N. 2004. Pharmaceutical marketing tactics hold little sway with prescribing physicians. EurekAlert Web site. Accessed 12/ 04 at: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/uow-pmtl 20604.php.

Off the Mark

Even letter writers should not be allowed to get away with blatant untruths. In the November/December 2004 issue, George Rowell states: "One study found that 10,000 Americans were murdered each year by murderers released from prison." Since there are about 20,000 murders each year in America, he would have us believe that half are committed by murderers released from prison, which seems rather extreme. The only official source I could find in a few minutes on the Internet was a report from the Washington State Department of Corrections, which suggested that about 3 percent of murders are committed by persons previously convicted of that crime. Mr. Rowell seems to be off the mark by a factor far exceeding ten.

Barry G. Clark

Socorro, New Mexico

The letters column is a forum for views on matters raised in previous issues. Letters should be no more than 225 words. Due to the volume of letters not all can be published. Address letters to Letters to the Editor, SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. Send by mail to 944 Deer Dr. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87122; by fax to 505-828-2080; or by e-mail (send as e-mail text, not as an attachment) to letters@csicop.org (include name and address).

Copyright The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (SCICOP) May/Jun 2005

Source: Skeptical Inquirer, The

More News in this Category