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

Re: "Report Questions Role of Mexican Crater"

Mary Kirkaldy wrote:
Someone asked me what the official scientific reply is to the paper by Gerta Keller, which is again in the news:

The above article gives Richard D. Norris' comments that "...the group has incorrectly located the K-T boundary and noted it suggests the sediments were deposited mainly in deep, quiet water."

The Wall Street Journal even picked up the story: "Extra: Asteroid Cleared in Dinosaur's Death." Has anyone had someone come up and say, hesitantly, "So looks like it wasn't really
the Mexican thing?" or, "I heard The Scientists don't believe that anymore?"


This is a story that I suspect will not be covered extensively by the savvy science press because it's not real news. One reason is that the PNAS paper by Keller on which the story is based doesn't seem to add much to what Keller has said already elsewhere. A second is the old line to the effect of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It's hard to explain why the biggest impact known in the past half-billion years would just happen to fall at the time of one of the biggest extinctions of that same interval if the one didn't have something to do with the other.

If anyone wants to see the paper, it should be on-line at the PNAS web site, or contact me off-list.

Jeff Hecht, science & technology writer
jeff@jeffhecht.com; http://www.jeffhecht.com
Boston Correspondent: New Scientist magazine
Contributing Editor: Laser Focus World
525 Auburn St., Auburndale, MA 02466 USA
v. 617-965-3834; fax 617-332-4760