(meteorobs) Meteorite pix

[Bruce McCurdy]

Matt: I believe that is one of the things they are very accurately measuring 
at the University of Alberta this week. They put the largest fragment we 
recovered in some sort of enclosed lead chamber which leaks at an extremely 
slow and well-calibrated rate. As I understood Dr. Herd's description 
yesterday, I think the specimen might be a little more radioactive than they 
expected but not dangerously so. I'm very keen to hear the results but 
apparently it takes them a week to get a sufficiently deep measurement. 
Presumably we will hear eventually. I do know that Dr. Herd was extremely 
pleased to get such a fresh specimen, only 10 days or so after it fell.

For now, my hair isn't falling out and I don't glow in the dark. Besides, if 
I am a dead man this wouldn't be the worst way to go. It's been a pretty 
amazing couple of weeks.

Bruce
*****


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Mundorf" <MattM at trafconinc.com>
To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Meteorite pix


>
> Heya everyone,
>
>
>
> One thing that I'm curios about.  Could any of these crash landed
> meteorites be radioactive?  Or is that really rare that toxic
> radioactivity is a concern when handling newly discovered fallen
> objects?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
> From: meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org
> [mailto:meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org] On Behalf Of Bruce McCurdy
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:07 PM
> To: Global Meteor Observing Forum
> Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Meteorite pix
>
>
>
>
>
>    The meteorites in the initial find, including the one pictured with
>
> Ellen, were frozen into the ice and had to be chipped out with a
> geologist's
>
> hammer.
>
>
>
>    The four fragments that Frank and I discovered the next day were
> also in
>
> ice. The two medium-sized fragments (2-3 cm) were embedded but could be
>
> lifted out, leaving a small depression in the ice with some liquid water
> in
>
> it. The larger fragment was frozen solid with just a portion protruding,
> and
>
> needed to be chipped out. The smallest one was also frozen in, and in
> fact
>
> the entire object was slightly below the surface.
>
>
>
>    We got the distinct impression that there was a freeze/thaw process
> at
>
> play. The afternoon we discovered them the ice was a little soft in
> places,
>
> especially where direct sunlight fell (which was limited by the low sun
>
> angle and the fact the pond was in a valley). By then of course it was
> nine
>
> days after the fall, so this thaw/freeze process may well have been
> repeated
>
> on several occasions.
>
>
>
>    I really have no idea if the meteorites came to rest exactly where
> they
>
> landed, or if they hit and bounced and their encasement in ice all
> occurred
>
> subsequently.
>
>
>
>    I will shortly have access to Frank's pictures from our recovery
> zone;
>
> we only took one camera on that scramble down a rather daunting
> embankment.
>
> If there's a good close-up I will post it to the website.
>
>
>
>    Bruce
>
>    *****
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org
>
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs
>