My recent letters to the press

Since moving to Edinburgh in 1962, I have been writing to the press, usually The Scotsman. By now I must have written a several hundred letters on many different subjects. I still do so and will post the most recent ones here (published or unpublished). Later I may have to remove some to make way for new ones. many of my letters to The Scotsman can be found via this link: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com:80/googlesearch.aspx?Keywords=steuart%20campbell%20dovecot

Many of my letters on nuclear power can be found on the SONE website.

[   ] indicates insertions and underlining indicates deletions by editors.

To The Skeptic (23 Mar 2010)

I am shocked that Ray Ward felt able to dismiss Howard Donahue's hypothesis for the shooting of JFK without even reading Bonar Menninger's book Mortal Error (Letters 22/2). Is that why he failed to mention it in his review of Who shot JFK? (21/3)?
    Donahue agreed that Oswald fired two shots, but found that the first missed with only a fragment hitting the President. The second was the one that hit JFK high in the back, exited via his throat and then hit Governor Connally. However, the Warren Commission found that three shots were fired and there was evidence that the third came from street level near the presidential limousine.
    Donahue pointed out that AR-15 frangible rounds are encased in thin copper and tend to break up upon impact, as did the shot that struck JFK in the head, and that Mannlicher-Carcano bullets (Oswald's) do not break up when they hit a target. His expert analysis showed that the bullet's trajectory that hit Kennedy in the head suggested it came from somewhere at ground level behind the Presidents' car and the evidence is that it came from Hickey's gun, no doubt accidentally. Hickey did lose his balance when he stood up during the firing.
    A stronger dose of scepticism is required regarding the generally accepted scenario.

To The International Journal of Meteorology (29 Apr 2010)

The note by me published in the November 2009 issue (34/343) is misleadingly titled. As the note itself explains, the mirages were actually seen from Inverness. As far as I know, no mirages were seen from Kinloss.

To The Times (15 Jul 2010) not published

Your report ('The bill for future generations: £5,000bn', 14 July) claimed that about £40 billion was due to the cost of decommissioning Britain's nuclear power plants (NPPs).
    In fact, as the ONS makes clear, that amount is the National Decommissioning Authority's estimate of the cost it faces in dealing with various radioactive arisings. Most of it concerns the (unrealistic) proposed decommissioning of Sellafield. It also includes the estimated cost of providing a permanent disposal facility for intermediate and high-level waste. Only about 12 per cent of the total cost will be due to decommissioning NPPs, the old Magnox NPPs.
    None of it will be due to decommissioning British Energy's NPPs, for which the company makes separate provision.

To The Scotsman (19 Jul 2010) published 20 Jul 2010

Congratulations to John McTernan for so comprehensively setting out the case for nuclear power and against so-called renewable generation ('Nuclear prejudice will cost our nation heavily'[Comment], 19 July).
    Since energy is a reserved matter, there seems to be no reason why EDF should not apply now for permission to built Hunterston C (I have tried to encourage them to do this), to call the SNP government's bluff. There would be no rational grounds on which the SNP could refuse this; all the evidence is that, without such a replacement, Scotland is heading for blackouts. 
    In any case, there is the possibility that the SNP will cease to govern Scotland next May and the application might succeed.
 

To The Scotsman (23 Jul 2010) not published

George Regan of the UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (Letters, 22 July) asked why Scotland needs to develop 'highly expensive new nuclear power stations'.
    If he does not already know the answer to that question, and also that nuclear power is one of the cheapest methods of generating electricity, then Mr Regan has not been paying attention. We need new stations to replace the ageing ones on which we already rely for base load. We also need more nuclear capacity to replace the fossil fuel stations that will have to close in a few years. Relying on renewable generation is impracticable and unaffordable.

To The Scotsman (27 Jul 2010) published 28 Jul 2010

Tam Dalyell has a point [(your report, 26 July)]. If [Kenny] MacAskill was utterly opposed to release under the [Prisoner Transfer Agreement] [(PTA)], why mention it to Megrahi and explain that a prerequisite was the dropping of the appeal?
   That implies that MacAskill gave Megrahi the impression that he could be released under the PTA, as does the subsequent dropping of the appeal by Megrahi's lawyers.
    The only motive for this subterfuge appears to be the wish to prevent the appeal proceeding. Megrahi's reward was release for compassionate reasons.
    All the more reason why there should be a full inquiry, including whatever the appeal would have revealed. Scottish justice should not hide behind bad law.

To The Times (29 Jul 2010) not published

It appears that The Friends of Jesus (your report, 28 July), apart from ignoring Jesus' female friends, some of whom were actually his sisters, also ignores the fact that some of his male 'friends' were actually his brothers James, Joses, Juda and Simon (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55-6; also Mark 3:31). Because of its belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Catholic Church cannot accept that Mary gave birth to any other children.  

To The Scotsman (30 Jul 2010) published 31 Jul 2010

The new government's authorisation of another inquiry (review?) into the crash of the RAF Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 is depressing [(your report, 29 July)]. 
   Considering that there have already been several different inquiries, none of which have found any evidence to exonerate the pilots (the FAI came to no conclusion at all), i [I]t constitutes a triumph of populism and prejudice over common sense and an example of asking a question over and over again until one gets the required result.
    Unable to accept that the experienced pilots could have made a mistake, their families campaigned persistently for the RAF to change its mind. Then, for what appear to have been political motives, some politicians, especially some in the House of Lords, lent their support. 
   Ultimately, i [I]n the run-up to the last general election, it got onto the manifestos of the opposition parties, who no doubt thought it a vote-winner. Now in government, they are compelled to proceed with a new and unnecessary review in the face of consistent and reasonable resistance from the MO[o]D.
    Perhaps these several campaigners believe that where so many people call for a change of mind, there must be a case for doing so. This is a mistake[.]; as Anatole France put it: 'If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing'. In this case, i[I]t is foolish to ignore the wealth of evidence that the pilots broke safety rules and, because of that, flew blindly into a hillside. Why they did so is another question and one that only I seem to have answered (the RAF did not explain it and appear to have no interest in doing so).
    I hope that Lord Philips will be able to put an end to this debate, but I am not optimistic.

To The Times (8 Aug 2010) not published

Robert Seaney's claim that so-called 'earthquake lights' are the source of many UFO reports (Letters, 7 August) lacks any evidence. Furthermore the very existence of these 'lights' is questionable.
    Most UFO reports are of conventional objects, such as the planet Venus or aircraft lights. Some are of such stimuli distorted by the atmosphere (an example would the one on which Churchill apparently commented). Earth is not being visited by aliens.

To The Scotsman (15 Aug 2010) not published

Simon Hart (POV, 13 August) is right; jellyfish cannot be said to 'attack' bathers. Nor, as I have repeatedly pointed out, does nature kill people. People die in accidents and natural disasters. Please reserve the word 'kill' for human actions.

To Scotland on Sunday (16 Aug 2010) published 22 Aug 2010

Peter Simmons (Letters, 15 August) is mistaken about nuclear power. Although its life cycle does produce CO2, it is only about half that of wind power on the same basis.
    It is not true that there is no uranium (ore) in Scotland; it has been detected in Orkney. Uranium is imported but it doesn't need to be; plenty of uranium is available from reprocessing 'used fuel'. Because uranium is more abundant than tin in the Earth's crust, we are unlikely to run out of it in the foreseeable future.

To Edinburgh Evening News (27 Aug 2010) not published

Anti-nuclear campaigner Janet Fenton ('Torness protesters go critical' 26 August) confuses nuclear power with nuclear weapons (what does she mean by 'transporting these weapons'?). Is that deliberate?
    By all means, let's reduce the number of weapons in the world, although one can't uninvent the technology. However, in order to keep the lights on and reduce carbon emissions, we need nuclear power more than ever; we rely on Torness for about half of Scotland's baseload electricity.
    There is danger everywhere, but nuclear power stations in the UK pose little danger to anyone. Due to the design of UK reactors, accidents like that at Chernobyl could not occur here.

To The Scotsman (31 Aug 2010) not published

Richard Lucas thinks that the evidence for Christianity is 'convincing' (Letters, 30 August). As far as I know, the only evidence is the New Testament, an assorted collection of religious writings, mainly by unknown authors and coming from the first and second centuries.     
    Although there is 'convincing' secular evidence that Jesus existed, there is none that he had any miraculous powers or overcame death; nor is that likely. The delusions of the Early Church are hardly a 'convincing' basis for a modern religious movement.

To The Freethinker (3 Sep 2010)

Robert Morrell (Letters, September) puts himself above the 'learned authorities' I mentioned in my book who believe that Tacitus' reference to 'Christus' is evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Of course he can do that, but he cannot expect us to take him seriously. In any case, what if Tacitus' record did arise from 'hearsay', as he claims? That does not necessarily mean that Jesus did not exist; what Tacitus heard could be reliable and one has to allow that he must have checked his source.
    I do not assert that Suetonius' reference to a tumult among the Roman Jews caused by one 'Chrestus' is evidence for the historicity of Jesus, nor do I claim to be 'better informed'. But I do draw attention to those who believe that this was a misspelling of 'Christus' (perhaps made because 'Chrestus' was a common name) and that it does constitute such evidence.
    I have no argument with the idea that Jesus was a Nazarene and that this sect disappeared in the Jewish War (66-70), leaving Paul a clear field to turn Jesus into a universal saviour god. After all that is one of the themes of my book. But if that is Mr Morrell's belief, why is he challenging the historicity of Jesus?
    Regarding the burden of proof, I refer Robert Stovold (Letters, same issue) to the Wikipedia page that describes the philosophical burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) and I trust that he accepts that this burden is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more extraordinary, i.e is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.
    So which is more extraordinary: that Jesus existed or that he did not? Because the conventionally accepted view is that he existed, the burden of proof must be on those who claim otherwise.
    I fail to see how this confuses practice with principle. The burden of proof has nothing to do with how one approaches a problem. Nor is it helpful to confuse this issue by making it a debate about the alleged divinity of Jesus or any other aspect of the gospel.
    I take your own claim that Christianity 'rests on a bedrock of lies' ('freethinking aloud', same issue) as a bungled attempt to express the idea that it is founded on untruths. However, a 'lie' is 'an intentionally false statement' and we do not have evidence that anyone deliberately lied about the 'bedrock' (the story of the Resurrection?). It is a mistake to presume that if someone tells you something that you know or believe to be untrue then that person is lying. Christians do not lie when they tell you what they believe about their faith, even though they are probably mistaken.
    Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the question of Jesus' historicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus).

To The Times (4 Sep 2010)

The answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing (David Palmer's letter 3 Sept) seems to be that something has emerged from nothing. This is more logical and satisfying than the alternative, which just raises more questions. However, it seems that this nothingness is inherently unstable, resulting in a multiverse and, eventually, the universe we inhabit.

To The Scotsman (4 Sep 2010)

It was inevitable that Stephen Hawking's book would provoke outrage and denial by religious vested interests ('Hawking: There's no god behind universe', 3 September). However, they merely show their ignorance of modern scientific discoveries and compound this with misguided and muddled attempts to place the biblical accounts in a scientific context.
    Rev John Christie's 'soup of nothingness...' is an oxymoron; there can be no soup if there was nothing. Nor is this what Genesis claims. The Rev Iver Martin needs to explain why he thinks that human curiosity is proof that God exists. 
    I see no evidence anywhere of the existence of supernatural entities and I welcome Hawking's attempt to explain the latest cosmological discoveries.