Bob Park says CBS has altered "60 Minutes" story on cold fusion

In his 24 April 09 "What's New," Bob Park says that CBS has Sikahema'd part of the "60 Minutes" piece on cold fusion:

Last Sunday's edition of the CBS News program 60 Minutes was titled "Race to Fusion." It was 1989, Fleischmann and Pons are shown with the "cold fusion" test tube that would have killed them had they been right. Because they lived, the race was called off. Michael McKubre of SRI apparently didn't get the memo; he just kept doing it over and over for 20 years. Lucky for him there's still no fusion, but he says he does get heat – except when he doesn't. How does it work? He hasn't a clue, but he showed a video cartoon of deuterium defusing through palladium and said it might be fusion. In fact McKubre called it "the most powerful source of energy known to man." Whew! But wait, Dick Garwin did a fusion experiment 60 years ago; it worked all too well. Garwin thinks McKubre is mistaken. Just about every physicist agrees, so the American Physical Society was asked to name an independent scientist to examine the claims of Energetics Technology, according to 60 Min correspondent Scott Pelley. An APS statement issued Wed. says this is totally false, and the APS does not endorse the cold fusion claims on 60 Min. (Aside: This morning I thought I should watch the video on the 60 Min web site one more time. Drat! CBS took it off. No matter, there's a full transcript. Uh oh! The part where CBS says the APS picked Rob Duncan to look into the ET SuperWave is gone. CBS can change history? My God, time travel! Now that is powerful.)

IPBiz notes CBS still has the link Cold Fusion Is Hot Again. However, the current version says:

With so many open questions, 60 Minutes wanted to find out whether cold fusion is more than a tempest in a teapot. So 60 Minutes turned to an independent scientist, Rob Duncan, vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri and an expert in measuring energy. and makes no mention of the APS. Sikahema'd.

For future reference, that is one good reason to blog text, and not merely link. History can be re-written.

See also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/04/60-minutes-favorable-to-cold-fusion-on.html

In passing, Lesley Stahl's piece on Joe Biden was pathetically softball. But "Powered by Coal" was worse. To get energy out of coal or petroleum, hydrocarbons and oxygen turn into carbon dioxide and water; coal is neither dirtier nor cleaner than petroleum in that respect. And, yes, there was a comment on "coal" from the cold fusion people:

(...) For those of you who would like to do your own research and investigation into what I?ve said there is a wealth of information in books, journals, videos and CDs, and on the web. Here are a few good resources and topics you can start with by searching the web or visiting your local library or book store:

Brian O?Leary, Ph.D.
Paul LaViolette Ph.D.
Ervin Laszlo, Ph.D.
Eugene Mallove, Ph.D.
Thomas Townsend Brown
Paul Biefeld, Ph.D.
Nikola Tesla
Tom Bearden
Guy Obolensky, Ph.D.
Eugene Podkletnov, Ph.D.
Stanley Pons, Ph.D.
Martin Fleischmann, Ph.D.
Michael McKubre, Ph.D.
Jeane Manning
Zero Point Energy (ZPE)
LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction; aka Cold Fusion)
Electrogravitics
Subquantum Kinetics

Separately-->

"Carbon capture and sequestration"--the only way to make coal safe?
Basin Power Electric Co-operative.
Coal into natural gas, during Carter years