The only actual information on collateral damage in the article:

Libya: Coalition rejects claims of civilian deaths

Journalists taken by the Gaddafi government to visit the site shortly after the blast said they saw a bomb-damaged building that appeared to be an administrative center rather than a military barracks or a Gaddafi residence, although the exact nature of the facility could not be definitively confirmed. No casualties were reported, though the government spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, called it "a barbaric bombing."

...Libyan officials and state television have said that dozens of Libyan civilians were killed in the air attacks. But an Indonesian newscaster, Andini Effendi, reported Sunday that she was able to visit two Tripoli hospitals after the airstrikes early on Sunday and found no influx of casualties, only empty ambulances. Libyan officials promised Sunday to bring foreign journalists to a funeral for civilians killed in the attacks. But the funeral turned out to be more of a pro-Gaddafi political rally, and the true number of dead remained a mystery.

It's hard to gauge the number of civilian killed when one doesn1t trust the claims of either side and there are no independent witnesses. But there is one point that makes me more sceptical of the claims of the Ghaddafi regime than NATO in this instance: that the Ghaddafi regime didn't take journalists on propagandistic trips to the site of alleged airstrikes with civilian dead. In contrast, the Saddam regime did take journalists to the site of the 1991 Amiriyah shelter bombing. Ghaddafi himself allowed Western press to the sites where civilians were killed in the 1986 US attempt to assassinate him.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}