Quantifying the distribution of nanodiamonds in pre-Younger Dryas to recent age deposits along Bull Creek, Oklahoma Panhandle, USA
Authors:
Bement et al
Abstract:
High levels of nanodiamonds (nds) have been used to support the transformative hypothesis that an extraterrestrial (ET) event (comet explosion) triggered Younger Dryas changes in temperature, flora and fauna assemblages, and human adaptations [Firestone RB, et al. (2007) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(41):16016–16021]. We evaluate this hypothesis by establishing the distribution of nds within the Bull Creek drainage of the Beaver River basin in the Oklahoma panhandle. The earlier report of an abundance spike of nds in the Bull Creek I Younger Dryas boundary soil is confirmed, although no pure cubic diamonds were identified. The lack of hexagonal nds suggests Bull Creek I is not near any impact site. Potential hexagonal nds at Bull Creek were found to be more consistent with graphene/graphane. An additional nd spike is found in deposits of late Holocene through the modern age, indicating nds are not unique to the Younger Dryas boundary. Nd distributions do not correlate with depositional environment, pedogenesis, climate perturbations, periods of surface stability, or cultural activity.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Bull Creek Nanodiamond Spike Does NOT Support the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Actually that's complete bullshit, I can't believe you would be repeating a fraudulent Examiner.com headline by a fraud like Bryan Paul Hakamer here. That's not what the abstract says at all, and I've spoken to Madden directly about this result.
Really bad reporting. Certainly not up to your usual standards here.
Its a PNAS paper. Not an examiner article.
The headline reads exactly like an Examiner.com science report. It's insulting, and it's just plain wrong. In fact on the PNAS website the abstract and summary says completely the opposite. Do you even read this stuff? I'm shocked at your complete lack of due diligence here.
I think you are missing the last two sentences of the abstract:
An additional nd spike is found in deposits of late Holocene through the modern age, indicating nds are not unique to the Younger Dryas boundary. Nd distributions do not correlate with depositional environment, pedogenesis, climate perturbations, periods of surface stability, or cultural activity.
Thomas,
I am going to let you rephrase that last post without the ad hominem. I'll reply to the technical side of things, but the rest is beyond uncalled for. Consider this a warning. I like you, at least until your bad day here, but...don't do this again. I have no time for nonsense.
I'll extract out the rest and reply or reply to your rewritten reply after I get my kiddo to bed.
You do that, and I'll just unlink your blog from my bookmarks, because I don't have time for the uninformed regurgitation of scientific results, or even the rebranding of services.
Harsh? Yes. Good day and good luck.
Post a Comment