(meteorobs) Meteorite pix

[stange]

Cosmic rays I believe are quite destructive and to (my) knowledge do not 
routinely form unstable isotopes in elements. So in my opinion,.... that 
would leave Gamma rays as a possible source, or nucleonic bombardment 
somewhere in time (IF) it is of external origin.
My opinion.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Mundorf" <MattM at trafconinc.com>
To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
Sent: 2008/12/03 14:31
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Meteorite pix


>
>
> Hmmm.  Is the radioactivity generally because of the obsorbed radiation
> that is emitted from a number of sources in space or that the material
> in the meteor itself is radioactive?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> From: meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org
> [mailto:meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org] On Behalf Of stange
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:26 PM
> To: Global Meteor Observing Forum
> Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Meteorite pix
>
>
>
> Radiation measurements would be conducted using a scaler. But also
> important
>
> is to determine any unusual or rare emission of surface Alpha emission.
> Most
>
> likely radiation would be Beta or Gamma if it (is?) above background.
>
>
>
> Question then would require an expensive Qualitive analysis of the
> elements
>
> & Isotopes contained in the specimen (if) there is real evidence of a
>
> radiation anamoly. It will probably have to be a high reading to justify
>
>
> going further. I shouldn't think...it will be radioacive because of
>
> half-life in its age.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
> From: "Bruce McCurdy" <bmccurdy at telusplanet.net>
>
> To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
>
> Sent: 2008/12/03 12:30
>
> Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Meteorite pix
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs