[meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:00:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <807536.49287.qm_at_web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thank you, Ted for pointing out that a meteorite doesn't care where it lands. I noticed that this bias concerning Antarctic versus NWA finds is disappearing with the current generation of scientists. Years ago at the LPSC in Houston, about one and ten papers concerning planetary meteorites mentioned NWA. The last time I went to this conference, over half the papers that dealt with planetary meteorites included NWA specimens. When talking to the up and coming planetary scientists, I observed that they were equally enthusiastic about specimens and have not developed any bias whatsoever.

I have seen both Antarctic and NWA specimens and I am equally impressed with both. I saw a freezer and a nitrogen filled case full of Antarctic specimens at the Antarctic Laboratory when I visited it a couple of years ago. I failed to see a difference other than the the Antarctic pieces were treated much better in the handling and preservation department. I observed heavy weathering on most of the pieces but they were preserved in the same manner as the few fresh pieces I saw. They just weathered differently then the NWA material with a lot of evaporates and salt clinging to them. NWA material, on the other hand, develops caliche deposits and really weathered examples tend to crack or fragment. In my opinion, both locations are equally capable of producing fresh and desirable specimens.


Best Regards,

Adam

  



----- Original Message ----
From: Ted Bunch <tbear1 at cableone.net>
To: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman at usgs.gov>; Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 7:54:23 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions

Jeff - your statement from below " Also, don't overlook the fact that
Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically
than NWA meteorites" is misleading and somewhat biased. Meteorites of the
various classes are nearly equally represented in the Antarctic and Desert
collections. Some classes are better represented from the desert
collections, for examples, brachinites, angrites, Martians and the Antarctic
collections have more acapulcoites, aubrites, and some carbonaceous. But,
the number of samples doesn't really matter.

The number of scientific publications "> 10X" means little in terms of
scientific significance. The use of Antarctic specimens is largely biased if
you consider the following:

1) NSF funded Antarctic samples are more easily obtained for research
compared with trying to obtain samples from collectors, dealers and
repository collections and they are usually prepared for instant study (thin
sections, cleaned, diced, boxed, etc.).
2) NSF has put pressure on various institutions to either publish more on
the 1000s of Antarctic meteorites, obtained with NSF funding, or lose
support for future Expeditions.
3) There is considerable bias among some researchers to not use Desert
samples for political reasons and the lack of exact find locations (Nomads
do not use GPS instruments, not that this means much). Some museums are
extremely biased against "dirty desert meteorites" and will not let them in
the door, thus depriving researchers for easy access to samples for study -
a very prominent Federally funded museum comes to mind.
4) The Japanese publish almost exclusively on their Antarctic meteorites,
not Desert specimens.
5) More and more research papers deal with both Desert and Antarctic
samples and that tact is becoming more prevalent with time as bias
diminishes and the reality of "desert significance" enters the mind set. I
don't know how you factor that into the "numbers game".
6) A shot at "more valuable scientifically" - if not for the valuable lunar
samples collected from the deserts, we would know much less about the Moon -
see the Korotev web site on Lunars. And, and we know a Hell of a lot more
about Mars from Desert Martians - See Irving web site on Martians.

Bottom line - geography has little to do with a meteorite's significance.
As a colleague of mine said "A meteorite doesn't care where it lands".

Regards, Ted



On 1/19/10 5:46 AM, "Jeff Grossman" <jgrossman at usgs.gov> wrote:

>> Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from
>> Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of
>> USD? 7000.
> This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There
> are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus
> a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European,
> Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic
> meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in
> the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this
> figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its
> 20,000 meteorites come from?
>
> Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be
> vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably
> occur as subjects of scientific publications at >10x the frequency as
> NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't
> locate it at the moment). This is because the main masses are well curated.
>
> Jeff


______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Tue 19 Jan 2010 12:00:51 PM PST