At 10:26 AM 10/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Dave,
>
>As I mentioned before, a lot of work would be necessary to characterize the
>potential source regions. I don't know of a method that would allow an
>analysis or two to really answer the questions you pose. But, for the
>actual analyses a few grams would be plenty. Used to be we could do the
>isotopic work in-house, but stable isotopes didn't pay the bills so we lost
>the capability. Most ESR work that I know of is being done in Japan these
>days. Why is it that you want to ignore the sedimentology? A lot could be
>done fairly cheaply and quickly...much of which we could do here.
>
I don't really want to ignore the sedimentology, just separate it from
isotopics for the moment. Actually any way to type and, ideally, date the
sediments is permissible. I see that one of our cohorts has written papers
on dating fluvial deposits for Yucca Mountain. There is nothing like
success to help filter out all the inefficient ideas.
One of the key problems is to determine the nature of some curious "very
high water" sediments in Grand Canyon. Did they come from ponding behind
lava dams or did they come from extreme high water events of the river.
Harding, et. al., have proposed a conceptual 70 million acre foot (maf)
flood in the last 1400 years and we are curious to find evidence of high
waters. It would help determine the flow regime that would accommodate such
a flood. Secondarily, we could map the extent of the lakes.
Dave Y.
====================================================================
To subscribe, send email to majordomo@songbird.com, with "subscribe
gcboaters" as the only line in the message body. To unsubscribe send
"unsubscribe gcboaters". For further information send "info
gcboaters", or see http://www.songbird.com/gcboaters
====================================================================