Talk:November 2007 in science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fission reactor

I've removed this item:

• Hyperion Power Generation have developed a bathtub sized fission reactor with no moving parts and would work without a human operator, which could power 25,000-homes for at least five years. (Santa Fe Reporter)

I see reputable sources such as Reuters and BBC News generally feature on this page, which is fine, but we need something more substantial than the Santa Fe Reporter. Also, I think it would be better to include technological developments by notable companies. Why are we giving this item coverage? Even the cited article says:

“This whole idea is loony and not worthy of too much attention,” Los Alamos Study Group Executive Director Greg Mello says. “Of course, factoring in enough cronyism, corruption and official ignorance and boosterism, it’s possible the principals could make some money during the initial stages, before the crows come home to roost.”

I'm afraid that I can't take the whole thing seriously... Johnfos (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call! CE is, in my view, meant to point people that see general news items to the background info contained in WP. To do this, we should use sources that are openly accessible and widely used. Also, an item should not have the effect of advertising for a company. Both this new text and the one that is still in the article (new transistor production) seem to be not of the quality and reach I would look for. Awolf002 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)