Repairs

Corrections:
A scientific misstatement in the science news article "Earth Design Update: Sulfur in the Core" (v. 12, n. 2, 1998, pp. 4-5) must be corrected, and I hope you will forgive me for the confusion and loss of credibility it caused. I'm not sure how I missed it in the proofing stages, but I did notice it as soon as the printed copy arrived in my mailbox. A number of readers caught it as well and asked about it. Here's the problem, repeated twice with only slight variation in wording: "With such a weak, or possibly non-existent, magnetic field, the Martian surface has virtually no protection from deadly solar x-rays." The insertion of the word "x-ray" constitutes the error. Magnetic fields have no effect on x-ray (or neutral) radiation. Magnetism only affects charged-particle radiation, which is also deadly. Thus, every reference to x-ray radiation in the article should be replaced with the words "charged-particle radiation," but the planet's lack of a magnetic shield is essentially the same; it is destructive. NOTE: Earth's atmosphere, not its magnetic field, protects Earth life from x-ray radiation. The fact that Earth has both types of shielding actually strengthens the case for divine design.—H. R.

Last issue's lead article, "Another Success for General Relativity—And Biblical Reliability," was followed by a production failure. References 10-14 were inadvertently dropped from the list on p. 3. Here are the missing references:

10. Ignazio Ciufolini, et al, “Test of General Relativity and Measurement of the Lense-Thirring Effect With Two Earth Satellites,” Science, 279 (1998), pp. 2100-2103.
11. Ciufolini, et al, p. 2102.
12. K. C. Cole, “Massive Blast in Deep Space Puzzles Experts,” Los Angeles Times, May 7, 1998, pp. A1, A32.
13. Ralph Wijers, “The Burst, the Burster, and Its Lair,” Nature, 393 (1998), pp. 13-14.
14. S. R. Kulkarni, et al, “Identification of a Host Galaxy at Redshift z = 3.42 for the x-ray Burst of 14 December 1997,” Nature, 393 (1998), pp. 35-39.

In the second of the Earth Design Update articles (p. 5), the word opaque is incorrectly used as a synonym for translucent in the description of Earth's atmosphere at a certain stage. A translucent atmosphere, unlike an opaque one, allows light to pass through.