Re: This McLean Stuff

["Mickey P. Rowe" <mrowe@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom DeVries is not alone; I too have wondered about the deafening
silence that Dewey's messages have received here.  I know that someone
at _Science_ pays attention to this forum because it's been mentioned
there before.  I wonder if anybody there would like to provide an
editorial response here.  I also note that in the September 27th
issue, _Science_ didn't fully review Officer and Page's book, but at
least showed the moral courage to describe it and mention that they
are portrayed badly by the non-asteroid sides of the debate.  Doesn't
anybody have anything else to say on the subject?

Pathological science aside, I'm sure that those of us who still aren't
convinced one way or another would appreciate more discussion of the
data.  The September 20th issue of _Science_ has an article about the
retention time of Ir in rivers and oceans (I think it's entitled
"Iridium in Natural Waters").  The article doesn't purport to show
that the K-T Ir spike is extra-terrestrial in origin, but it does
infer that the boundary layer's thickness does not require a long term
terrestrial source.  The layer's thickness is one of the key arguments
that the Ir came from volcanos rather than a one-shot asteroid, right?
Is there any possibility that we can get going a discussion of the
science underlying the debate?

--
Mickey Rowe     (mrowe@indiana.edu)