Editor's Reply to Plasma Technology Story

[estill@golder.com (Erik Still)]

Radsafer's - I found the plasma technology story posted yesterday 
to be ridiculous enough to send a letter to the editor of 
Environment News Service (ENS), which was responsible for the 
story.  Attached is his reply, followed by my letter.  Perhaps we 
can let this thread drop now, at least until ENS makes a 
correction to their first story.  Enjoy.

Erik Still
Senior Health Physicist
Golder Associates Inc.
4104 148th Ave. NE
Redmond, WA  98052
(206) 883-0777
estill@golder.com
http://www.golder.com
================================================================

Erik Still--

After speaking with Startech this morning I must admit that you 
are absolutely correct in you assertions.  The story contained a 
great many inaccuracies and a story containg the corrections to 
the first story is being prepared with the assistance of Startech 
officials.

I regret any misconceptions that I may have delivered to your 
desk and can only assert that we will be doubly diligent to carry 
only accurate information in the future.

At 11:17 AM 12/5/96 -0800, you wrote: >Dear Editors,
>
>If you hope to become a credible source of environmental 
>information, I would suggest doing a little more homework before 
>publishing a story like your "Plasma Technology Promises Nuclear 
>Cleanup" (12/5/96).  Like most "pie-in-the-sky" solutions to 
>hazardous waste, this article contains just enough techno-speak 
>and references to actual waste sites and regulatory agencies to 
>make it appear to be real (at least to marginally informed or 
>educated people).  Apparently you yourself do not have 
sufficient >education to know that you can't alter the 
radioactive properties >of material.  You can change their phase 
(solid, gas, liquid) or >chemical structure (valence state and 
how the radioactive atoms >combine to form different molecules), 
but you can't alter an >atom's radioactive characteristics.  You 
just can't change a >radioactive atom's half-life.  Similarly, 
any lead, arsenic, or >other "toxic" elements will continue to be 
the elements that >nature has always intended (unless you change 
the nuclear >structure).
>
>Maybe you don't hope to be considered a credible source of 
>information, but if you do, some confirmatory journalistic 
>research is in order.  For example, have you confirmed that 
>California Radioactive Materials Management Forum (CalRad) even 
>exists?.  How long has Startech been around, and what else have 
>they done?
>
>I really don't expect you to take my message seriously.  But if 
>you don't, you are either perpetuating (or are the butt of) a 
big >joke.
>
>Erik Still
>estill@golder.com
>
>Senior Environmental Scientist
>Golder Associates Inc.
>4104 148th Ave. NE
>Redmond, WA 98052
>(206) 883-0777
>
**************************************
Jim Crabtree
Managing Editor
Environment News Service (ENS)
1-800-632-9528
ens@envirolink.org
http://www.envirolink.org
"We Cover The Earth For You."
*************************************