[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: CORRELATIVE AND CAUSITIVE SCIENCE WHEN DEALING WITHEXTINCTIONSCENARIOS -Rep



In a message dated 98-08-12 14:42:41 EDT, SUTTON.JAMES@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV writes:

<< Note: Tunguska was not an impact.  The probable comet or ice body 
 exploded at a considerable distance above the planet, probably 6 km
 when internal heat buildup became so great that the forces holding it
 together were overcome. >>

Technically correct, but for all practical purposes it was an impact event
even though the object itself was destroyed in the atmosphere before hitting
the ground. You might say it impacted the atmosphere only. There's an
interesting instance on photographic record of a bolide that skimmed through
the atmosphere without being destroyed and then headed back into space. Quite
a near miss; >that< one I wouldn't count as an impact.

<<Manson impact and another Siberian impact crater >100 km diameter
are evidences thereof. Aside: Why do these bodies have such a
tendency to strike Russia? >>

Russia has >lots< of surface area.

I think Manson is now dated considerably earlier than 65Ma.