ECHOES AND UPDATES

1) Last month's editorial: Cambridge 1934? No, Oxford 1933. We had spent hours searching for it and finally, with predictable results, relied on memory. Although it makes no difference to the point, we are very embarrassed and apologize. At the same time, we are deeply gratified by the quality of our readership, for we obtained no less than six letters pointing out the error. One of them is by a British F.R.S. (Fellow of the Royal Society, equivalent to Academy of Sciences elsewhere): "As a Cambridge man, I must protest. I'm afraid Cambridge has enough to answer for, having produced Burgess, McLean, Blunt, etc., without being saddled also with Oxford's sins!... I think there is now little doubt that the resolution in the Oxford Union was taken very seriously by Ribbentropp¾then ambassador to the United Kingdom¾ and was passed on to Hitler as being very significant. I agree that very much the same kind of subversion is being carried out amongst students and other well-meaning, but simple-minded people."

4) A preemptive explanation designed to forestall a lot of queries: Why does our editorial mention only the old maids of the EEI when the Atomic Industrial Forum was signed under the same weak-kneed advertisement? The AIF, too, has its share of gutless windbags in the upper management; their semi-annual reports, for example, are unconvincing exercises in self-congratulation (they count it a success that Asselstine¾a technically ignorant, image-polishing bureaucrat - - was appointed to the NRC). But the bulk of the AIF are highly dedicated workers who distribute first-class information that is unfailingly reliable and accurate. For this they have our deep respect, and we would consider it unfair to liken them to the EEI, which largely lacks such redeeming features.

5) We may have been a bit rash and superficial in last month's item "Support Greenpeace¾Starve a Whale;" a dispassionate and deeper reappraisal shows that they not only starve whales, but also kill seals. To "save seals" (and practice exhibitionism before the media voyeurs) they painted baby seals with red enamel paint to destroy their fur value. As any wildlife biologist could have told them, the paint destroyed the fur's insulating ability, and the seals died an ugly death by hypothermia in the cold waters of the North Atlantic.¾So says the Canadian Wildlife Service, and we gleaned the item from program no. 379 of Environment Colorado, an excellent series of one-minute radio spots by biologist Dr H.D. Parker. The program has recently been discontinued by three Colorado stations as "too controversial," which should recommend it to any remaining radio stations in the US that might still broadcast facts rather than cherished fables. Contact Parker Scientific, 333 W. Drake/#30, Ft. Collins, CO 80526; tel. 303-223-3336.