Re: I think I have something ...

[Stan Friesen <swf@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM>]

>From: STEVEN9120@aol.com
 > The scenario of the meteor impact theory poses one question.  Although
 > meteors carry iridium would that not be detected in fossilized bone?

No - remember, in the individuals that were killed by the blast,
or by the aftermath, the bones would have been encased in flesh
at the time, and most other bones would already have been buried.

Only in animals that survived the blast for long enough to lay down
new bone would there be a significant chance that the iridium would
impregnate the bone.  And even there, this would require that the
body mistake the iridium for something that naturally belongs in
a bone.

 >   As well
 > as radiation since the impact would have been more devastating than any
 > nuclear blast recorded in history? 
 > 
You are confusing size of blast with type of blast.

The reason a nuclear bomb makes thing radiaoctive is that the
*nature* of the exposion is such as to release large amounts of
radiation.  A nuclear bomb operates by induced atomic fision
or fusion, both of which generate lots of radiation.  And the
first (fision) has the unfortunate effect of also generating lots of
radiocative *waste* (the smaller atoms that result from the fision
are usually *strongly* radioactive themselves).

A simple meteor strike is simply going to produce a giant kinetic
energy blast.  There is little in such an event to produce large
amounts of radiation.  Oh, some trapped radioactive elements will
be blown loose and scattered about, and some high energy thermal
radiation will be produced (maybe U.V).  But this is nothing compared
to the hard gamma and large amounts of radioactive waste produced by a
fision explosion.

swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.