Experts Doubt the Sun Is Burning Coal (1863)
I had absolutely no idea that SA is so old.  New Scientist - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;New_Scientist" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;New_Scientist</a> is a mere whippersnapper.<p>It doesn&#x27;t matter that the article is bollocks.  It is reasoned bollocks.  That is basically what science is all about!  I would prefer if there was some more working shown to back up the article but it seems to imply that some might be available rather than just simple assertions.<p>We live in a world where some people genuinely seem to think that a newer version of a mobile phone comms medium can cause a disease that we know is caused by a virus.  These same people seem to be aware of other viruses and bacteria and their effects just as well as any other layman.  It is only this particular combination that is the current &quot;conspiracy&quot;.<p>We need the likes of Scientific American to carry on their work of delivering the best descriptions of the rather odd workings of the world and the universe.  They are what the rest of the media turn to when they need to cover something they don&#x27;t understand.<p>The sun does not burn coal but frankly that is less embarrassing than admitting that our best theories can&#x27;t explain where most of the sodding universe actually <i>is</i>.  We are so advanced that we do not know where 85% of matter is hiding out. lol