AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877

From: stan . <laser_maniac_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Sep 13 11:30:01 2004
Message-ID: <BAY18-F42134IpLcEcL0000dec3_at_hotmail.com>

>Regarding the different procedure for e.g. NWA / Gao-Guenie - this issue
>was addressed
>in an email by Jeff Grossman dated Sept. 9, 2004 (see below).
>
>Gao-Guenie can be treated like Allende or Holbrook in this context as it
>doesn't apply to areas of dense meteorite concentration.


but what about stones like nwa 869? technically each one of them nees it's
own nwa number and must be classified...

my argument against the current guidelines is such:

if a person were to submit 'x' new find comprising of many fragments of a
meteorite, classification can be done based upon a representative thin
section of only 1 fragment (or even a few tinsections) - even if there are
many MANY fragements to the find. all of the fragments get the same nwa
number with little or no testing done to them.

now if more material if found in the exact same place, by the same people,
and is the exact same rare classification as the orginal find - but it's
found after the original stuff is published - then the new material must
have thermoluminecence studies, cosmic ray exposure, and oxygen isotopse
data taken before the material will be considered paired to the orignial
find.

I challange anyone to give me a valid scientific reason why material
sumbited before publishing can all be considered nwa xxx based upon a
cursory visual examination - yet material found after a write up in the met
bul requires exhaustive additional testing to qualify as a pairing - testing
that science make take years to complete for even the most exotic meteorites
such as martian and lunars.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Received on Mon 13 Sep 2004 11:26:39 AM PDT