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

Re: Antarctic crater

Caution is appropriate, at the very least. Most stories seem based on the press 
release. The only constraints on the date are that the "crater" has to be older 
than a 100-million-year old rift which split it, and must be younger than the 
Precambrian because (the author claims) craters older than the Cambrian don't 
have gravity anomalies. 

Geologists quoted by Nature 
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-11.html are not even 
convinced the structure is a crater. -- Jeff hecht

At 10:54 AM -0700 6/2/06, Richard and Jo Cowen wrote:
>OK, what's this about? First, it's science by poster session and press release 
>(this one's from Ohio State). The research group found in a gravity survey a 
>giant crater in the rock floor a mile under the Antarctic ice sheet. It's 300 
>miles across, apparently, which puts it into the mega-impact category, larger 
>than Chicxulub. The rest is SPECULATION, because we have no data from the 
>rocks. The researchers claim a connection with the Permo-Triassic impact. I 
>wouldn't be surprised, but the evidence for the connection is just not there, 
>even though a large part of the press release is devoted to it.
>Richard Cowen

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