PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 118/2001 - 12 November 2001
=================================
"Our Government has made lots of noises about taking the
cosmic
impact threat seriously but produced little hard cash. In
February,
science minister Lord Sainsbury declared that the Government was
seeking to give Britain "a leading role" in tackling
the threat. But this is
a Government that typically does nothing until the need to act is
staring in
its face. Waiting for cosmic Armageddon before announcing a new
initiative is hardly an option, however. This week's meteor storm
might be just the shot across the bows needed to make ministers
take the
cosmic impact threat seriously. For the wrecking of just one
multi-
billion pound spy satellite is likely to impress ministers far
more than a
scary ancient history lesson."
--Robert Matthews, "Is the World on a Crash Course to
Annihiliation?"
Daily Express, 12 November 2001
"The Sloan Survey measured main belt asteroids and assumed
that the
main belt population had the same size dependence as the NEAs. It
is by
no means clear that this assumption is correct, or that main belt
asteroids
are a satisfactory surrogate for NEAs. [...] The Sloan Survey is
an
exciting astrophysics project with great promise in a number of
fields of
astronomy. It has already contributed to our knowledge of the
main belt
asteroids. But it has not measured NEAs, and it has not made an
independent estimate of the impact frequency. It is therefore
probably
premature to conclude from these observations of the main belt
asteroids
that we should revise our estimates of the impact frequency of
NEAs or of
the magnitude of the impact hazard."
--David Morrison, 9 November 2001
(1) NASA BATTENS DOWN HATCHES FOR METEORS
The Sunday Telegraph, 11 November 2001
(2) NOVEMBER 18: THE DAY OF THE LEONID METEORS
Marc Gyssens <gyssens@luc.ac.be>
(3) 2001 LEONIDS: RAPID INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
Marc Gyssens & Vladimir Krumov <marc.gyssens@luc.ac.be>
(4) ASTRONOMERS ANTICIPATE METEOR 'STORM' ON NOVEMBER 18TH
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(5) IMPACT FREQUENCY AGAIN
David Morrison <dmorrison@arc.nasa.gov>
(6) IRAQI CRATER & IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY
John Spiers <WileyCCC@aol.com>
(7) REVIEW OF CATASTROPHE VIDEOS
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
(8) AND FINALLY: CHANCE OF BEING EATEN BY WILD ANIMALS GREATLY
DOWNGRADED
Anonymous CCNet correspondent...
============
(1) NASA BATTENS DOWN HATCHES FOR METEORS
>From The Sunday Telegraph, 11 November 2001
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wcom11.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/11/11/ixhomef.html
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
SPACE shuttle flights have been cancelled and the astronauts in
the
International Space Station are battening down the hatches this
week in
anticipation of the most violent meteor storm in decades.
The greatest risk is to communications equipment among the 600
active
satellites that orbit the Earth.
Nasa, the American space agency, has taken steps to protect the
orbiting
Hubble Space Telescope, which is in the path of thousands of
meteors
hurtling through space at 160,000mph.
The three astronauts on the International Space Station tomorrow
are due to
make their last space walk until the storm has passed.
The cosmic fireworks will begin in midweek as the Earth begins to
cut across
the orbit of Comet Temple-Tuttle and into the blizzard of meteors
it trails
in its wake. The storm will reach a peak by the weekend.
The meteor shower, known as the Leonids, is an annual event. This
year,
however, Earth will cut across an especially dense part of the
Leonid debris
trail. Parts of the Earth should witness a spectacular light
show.
Copyright 2001, The Sunday Telegraph
============
(2) NOVEMBER 18: THE DAY OF THE LEONID METEORS
>From Marc Gyssens <gyssens@luc.ac.be>
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M E T E O R O R
G A N I Z A T I O N
Press release
November 18: the day of the Leonid meteors
==========================================
>From North and Central America, as well as from Eastern Asia
and Australia,
people may see a lot of meteors - "shooting stars" -
between midnight and
dawn of the nights of November 17 to 18 or 18 to 19, provided
skies are
clear. These meteors belong to the so-called Leonid shower.
A first peak, visible from North and Central America, is expected
around
9:55 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time on November 18, which is 4:55 a.m.
Eastern
Standard Time. An activity equivalent to several hundreds to over
one
thousand meteors per hour (or 10-15 meteors per minute) is
expected around
the peak time.
A second and a third peak are visible from Eastern Asia and,
mainly, Western
Australia, around 5:24 and 6:13 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time on
November 18,
which is 1:24 and 2:13 a.m. on November 19. The weaker first
peaked is
expected to flow over into the stronger second peak, for which an
activity
equivalent to several thousand meteors per hour (2 meteors per
second!) is
expected.
Notice that American observers should watch in the second part of
the night
of November 17 to 18, while Asian and Australian observers should
watch in
the second part of the night of November 18 to 19!
The International Meteor Organization, who collects meteor
observations
world-wide for the purpose of analysis, wishes to point the
attention of the
public to this spectacular natural phenomenon.
The Leonids are caused by a stream of predominantly very small
particles,
less than 1 mm in size, which orbit the Sun with a period of 33
years,
together with their parent comet, Tempel-Tuttle. The orbit of the
Leonid
particles happens to intersect the Earth's orbit. Each year
around November
18, when the Earth is at this intersection, Leonid particles may
enter the
Earth's atmosphere and cause meteors, popularly called
"shooting stars."
This year, the Earth will pass through three dense dust trails
ejected by
the Comet, in addition to several fainter ones.
As the predications above are based on models, peak times and
peak rates may
vary somewhat from the ones quoted above. In particular, there
are
indications that the first, American, peak may be stronger than
quoted here,
whereas the second and third, Asian/Australian may be weaker than
quoted
here.
Whereas Europe, Western Asia, and Africa will miss both storms,
observers
there may still see several tens up to one hundred meteors per
hour in the
second half of the nights of November 17 to 18 and 18 to 19.
Actually, Leonid meteors can be seen every year around November
17. Along
the larger part of Comet Tempel-Tuttle's orbit, however, Leonid
particles
are scattered sparsely, so that, in most years, we see only a few
Leonid
meteors per hour. Only in the vicinity of the Comet, the density
of Leonid
particles is much higher. Therefore, we observe much higher
Leonid activity
every 33 years during a couple of years, when Comet Tempel-Tuttle
revisits
our region of the Solar System. In some instances, we even see a
real meteor
storm!
Old chronicles contain references to past Leonid meteor storms
back to the
10th century A.D. The best-known Leonid meteor storms are those
of 1833 and
1966, when tens of meteors per second darted across the skies
during the
peak hour! The 1833 meteor storm was so spectacular that it in
fact launched
meteor research as a branch of astronomy. Since the 1966 meteor
storm, Comet
Tempel-Tuttle has completed another revolution around the Sun.
The passage
of the Comet through its closest point to the Sun on February 28,
1998
marked the beginning of a five-year period (1998-2002) during
which strongly
increased Leonid meteor activity is again possible.
Although 1998 gave us an unexpected (but meanwhile convincingly
explained)
fireball shower, the first storm in the present Leonid epoch
occurred in
1999, with a peak activity around 60 meteors per minute (yielding
an
equivalent hourly rate of almost 4000). In 2000, no storm was
seen, but
several peaks with a few hundred meteors per hour occurred.
Observations in
1999 and 2000 matched the predictions by astronomers David Asher
and Robert
McNaught really well, so that there is more than good hope that
the
predictions for this year are reliable, too.
In order to see meteors, the sky must be clear and the selected
observing
site should preferentially be free of light pollution; the less
light, the
more meteors will be seen! Notice that Leonid meteors occur in
the second
half of the night. Hence, there is no point in starting an
observation much
earlier. Die-hards who do not want to miss anything of the show
should then
continue to watch until dawn. People who cannot afford to stay up
that long
should focus on a period of, say, one tot two hours centered
around the
predicted peak time for their
region.
Mind that it can be very cold in mid-November: warm clothing
adapted to the
local climate is essential! For comfortable observing, use a
reclining
chair, and install yourself in a suitable sleeping bag or under
several
blankets. While observing, do not fix a particular star, but look
relaxedly
and patiently to a wide area of sky and wait for shooting stars
to appear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information on the Leonids can be found in the International
Meteor
Organization's bimonthly journal WGN and on the internet, at
http://www.imo.net and http://www.amsmeteors.org/imo-mirror.
For questions, contact Marc Gyssens at wgn@imo.net or +32-477-64 05 48.
Notice that the International Meteor Organization will send out a
new
release with first results on the Leonids during the European
early morning
hours of November 18, immediately after the event. All recipients
of the
present release will automatically receive the new release.
=============
(3) 2001 LEONIDS: RAPID INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
>From Marc Gyssens & Vladimir Krumov <marc.gyssens@luc.ac.be>
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M E T E O R O R
G A N I Z A T I O N
2001 Leonids: Rapid Information Dissemination
Dear meteor observer,
>From earlier communications, you have learned that the IMO is
setting up a
rapid-communication network to obtain reliable information as
soon as
possible for the three major expected Leonid peaks on November 18
UT. We
invite you to contribute to this effort.
First of all, we want to point out you must DISTINGUISH between
the USUAL
OBSERVATIONAL REPORTS, such as collected by the IMO's Visual
Commission, and
which may be used for detailed, global analyses, and the
"EXPRESS REPORT"
described below which serves as sole purpose the compilation of a
first
rough but reliable picture of the activity within hours after
receipt.
For the USUAL, VISUAL OBSERVATIONAL REPORTS, Rainer Arlt already
sent two
circulars via IMO-News and Meteorobs. Please read these carefully
and try to
apply the instructions given there to make sure the maximum
possible can be
obtained from your observations!
The EXPRESS REPORT should have the following format (do not
forget the
date):
2000 November 17/18
Meteo R. Observer
Fireball City (45N 10E)
Time Interval (UT) Lim. Magn.
Nr. of Leonids Remarks (if any)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
03:15-03:30
5.8
7
None
03:30-03:45
5.9
16
None
03:45-04:00
6.1
56
None
.
.
.
Bin your observations for this "express report" in
reasonable time
intervals, depending on the strength and the variation in
activity (e.g., a
few minutes at the peak time, 15 minutes further away from it).
(Again, the full report of your observations will be different
from this
express report, as in the former shorter intervals may be
required as well
as magnitude distributions and some additional data - see Rainer
Arlt's
visual observing and reporting hints - but the above data suffice
for the
purpose indicated.)
If you wish to collaborate with the IMO in this respect, please
send your
express report ONLY for your peak night (Nov 17-18 in America,
Nov 18-19 in
Eastern Asia/Australia) *** IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE OBSERVATION ***
to both of
the following email addresses:
-------------------------
| visual@imo.net
PRIMARY
| vkru@yahoo.com
Back-up
-------------------------
ESPECIALLY AMERICAN OBSERVERS ARE URGED TO INDEED SEND IN THEIR
EXPRESS
REPORTS IMMEDIATELY AFTER OBSERVATION; IN THIS WAY, IT MAY BE
POSSIBLE TO
COMPILE A FIRST RELEASE BEFORE YOUR ASIAN/AUSTRALIAN COLLEAGUES
START THEIR
OBSERVATIONS COVERING BOTH OTHER PEAKS!
This year's coordinator will be Vladimir Krumov (Varna,
Bulgaria).
(Note that observations from Europe/Western Asia/Africa are also
needed, of
course, and that you send full reports of these as quickly as
possible to
the IMO's Visual Commission; for logistic reasons, however, the
rapid-communication network will be restricted to the three major
peaks,
this year.)
Marc Gyssens & Vladimir Krumov
International Meteor Organization
==============
(4) ASTRONOMERS ANTICIPATE METEOR 'STORM' ON NOVEMBER 18TH
>From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
Sky & Telescope Magazine
For immediate release: November 8, 2001
ASTRONOMERS ANTICIPATE METEOR "STORM" ON NOVEMBER 18TH
Most everyone has glimpsed an occasional "shooting
star," or meteor. But
imagine what it would be like to see hundreds -- or even
thousands -- of
them in a single night. Such a spectacle may occur in the hours
before dawn
on Sunday, November 18th. In fact, if astronomers' predictions
hold up,
skywatchers in North America can expect to see their most
dramatic meteor
display in 35 years. "Earth is about to plow through a cloud
of space dust
that could light up our skies with celestial fireworks,"
notes Alan
MacRobert, senior editor for SKY & TELESCOPE magazine.
These meteors, called Leonids because they appear to radiate from
the
constellation Leo (the Lion), will signal the arrival of
fast-moving dust
particles shed by Comet Tempel-Tuttle, which loops around the Sun
every 33
years. Like a truck on a dirt road, the comet creates a dusty
wake that
spreads along its orbit. When Earth crosses that orbit in
mid-November each
year, skywatchers usually see a handful of shooting stars, a weak
meteor
"shower." But three times each century Earth crosses
the dust stream where
it's especially dense, and when that happens we experience what
astronomers
call a meteor "storm."
Meteors are created when sand- or pebble-size grains strike
Earth's
atmosphere at high speed and create streaks of superheated air
along their
paths. The Leonids, which are one of a dozen or so annual meteor
showers
caused by streams of cometary debris, arrive at a blistering 44
miles (71
kilometers) per second -- the fastest known. Two years ago the
Leonids
briefly peppered the skies over Europe and the Middle East with
3,000
meteors per hour (nearly one every second). In 1966 lucky
observers in the
southwestern United States gaped in awe for 20 minutes as Leonid
meteors
fell at the rate of 40 per second!
In the November 2001 issue of SKY & TELESCOPE, meteorologist
Joe Rao
assesses the predictions provided by three teams of specialists,
who agree
that two dramatic storms appear likely this month.
A burst lasting perhaps two hours is expected in the predawn
hours of
November 18th for observers throughout most of North and Central
America.
The maximum rates should occur near 5:00 a.m. EST (corresponding
to 4:00
a.m. CST, 3:00 a.m. MST, 2:00 a.m. PST). With no moonlight
spoiling the
view, the storm may briefly spawn anywhere from several hundred
to 1,000 or
2,000 meteors per hour for observers with clear, very dark skies.
A fourth
prediction, issued recently by NASA researcher Peter Jenniskens,
argues that
the hourly rate could top 4,000.
An even bigger storm is expected 8 hours later for viewers
rimming the
far-western Pacific Ocean. Because these locations lie on the
other side of
the International Date Line, this peak occurs before dawn on
November 19th.
Several thousand meteors may streak across the sky for an hour or
so
starting about 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. in eastern Australia (depending
on
location); 2:00 a.m. in Japan; and 1:00 a.m. in western
Australia, the
Philippines, and eastern China.
"If Earth manages to pass through a thick concentration of
material," Rao
notes, "the upper atmosphere can blaze with meteors storming
like a fiery
rain from the Sickle of Leo."
THE PUNDITS' PREDICTIONS
Peak Activity in North America (morning of November 18th)
Hourly Rate Midpoint
time Midpoint time
(EST)
(PST)
Asher &
McNaught
800 4:55
a.m. 1:55 a.m.
Brown &
Cooke
1300 8:00
a.m. 5:00 a.m.
Lyytinen & Van Flandern
2000 5:28
a.m. 2:28 a.m.
Jenniskens
4200 5:09
a.m. 2:09 a.m.
(These meteors will be dominated by dust particles shed by Comet
Tempel-
Tuttle in 1767, though Brown & Cooke believe the dominant
source will be
dust shed in 1799.)
Peak Activity in Asia and Australia (morning of November 19th)
Hourly Rate Midpoint
time Midpoint time
(Toyko)
(Sydney)
Asher &
McNaught
2000 2:24
a.m. 4:24 a.m.
8000 3:13
a.m. 5:13 a.m.
Brown &
Cooke
800 2:00
a.m. 4:00 a.m.
Lyytinen & Van Flandern
8500 3:15
a.m. 5:15 a.m.
Jenniskens
1800 2:08
a.m. 4:08 a.m.
2700 2:55
a.m. 4:55 a.m.
(These meteors, which may arrive in two distinct bursts, will be
dominated
by particles shed by Comet Tempel-Tuttle in 1699 and 1866,
respectively)
IMAGE CAPTION:
[ http://www.skypub.com/news/images2001/pr_leonids2001_leonidglobes_big.jpg
(276KB)]
Left: This "meteor's-eye view" shows how Earth will be
oriented for the
first expected peak of the Leonid shower on November 18, 2001, at
about 5
a.m Eastern time. This is when the various experts predict that
Earth will
encounter particles released by Comet Tempel-Tuttle in 1766.
While this
entire hemisphere will experience the shower, meteors will only
be visible
in the nighttime region to the left. Right: About 8 hours later,
a second
and perhaps stronger burst of meteors is expected over the
Pacific Ocean,
favoring observers in Australia and eastern Asia. Sky &
Telescope diagram.
================
(5) IMPACT FREQUENCY AGAIN
>From David Morrison <dmorrison@arc.nasa.gov>
NEO News (11/9/01) Impact frequency again
Dear friends & students of NEOs:
One of the persistent topics in NEO studies is the frequency or
rate of
impacts of differing sizes. This impact rate depends on the
population of
near-earth asteroids (NEAs) and occasional comets, and the
dynamics of their
obits that ultimately may bring them into collision course with
our planet.
This edition of NEO News notes a recent paper from the Sloan
Digital Sky
Survey team at Princeton, which reports on the implications that
the Sloan
Survey data may have for NEA impact rates.
Before discussing these results, it may be worth noting that the
exact
statistical frequency, while of interest to asteroid scientists,
is not
directly relevant to the present impact hazard.
Impacts by NEAs of any size are exceedingly rare, from the
5-megaton limit
of atmospheric shielding up to the hundreds of millions of
megatons
associated with mass extinctions. Statistically, no impact is to
be expected
within a human lifetime. The real issue, therefore,
is whether against the odds there is an NEA on an impact
trajectory. If
there is such a threat, we want to identify it and deal with it.
That is the
purpose of the Spaceguard Survey. The important issue is not the
average
frequency of impacts but whether we can expect an impact within
our
lifetime, or the lifetime of our grandchildren.
Still, the total population of NEAs and their average impact
frequency are
often discussed. Sometimes these issue are used as a
"hook" to attract
attention to work that might otherwise be overlooked by the media
and the
general public. This week there has been considerable press
interest in the
conclusion that the new Sloan Survey results have reduced the
estimated
frequency of impacts and therefore that we were safer than had
been
previously thought. It is true that the estimated frequency for
impacts by 1
km and larger NEAs has dropped in recent years, but not by more
than the
probable uncertainties, which have been given by most scientists
studying
the problem as about a factor of 2 or 3. Since the mid-1990s, the
most
common estimate has been that the Earth is hit by a
"civilization
threatening" impact (by a 1.5-km-diameter asteroid) about
twice per million
years, which is equivalent to a 1-in-5000 chance per century. But
it is hard
to tie down such estimates, in part because there is also a range
of
uncertainty as to what constitutes a civilization threatening
impact,
spreading over at least a factor of two in asteroid size (from 1
km to 2 km
diameter).
Alan Harris of JPL has provided several estimates of the impact
frequency
for NEAs with absolute magnitude H less than 18 (approximately
corresponding
to a 1-km asteroid with average reflectivity or albedo). For
these estimates
he used various recent values of both the population of NEAs and
their
dynamical lifetime (how long they orbit the Sun, on average,
before they hit
the Earth). These estimates for the chances of an impact in the
next century
are: 1 in 8600, 1 in 7100, 1 in 4800, and 1 in 4000. Expressed in
terms of
NEAs 1.5 km in diameter, the estimated impact frequencies are 1
in 12000, 1
in 14000, 1 in 10500, and 1 in 8800. The range in these values,
which us
about a factor 3, is probably representative of our uncertainty
in the
impact frequency.
It should be noted that all of Harris's numbers are based on the
directly
observed population of NEAs, of which nearly 1500 are now known.
In
contrast, the Sloan Survey measured main belt asteroids and
assumed that the
main belt population had the same size dependence as the NEAs. It
is by no
means clear that this assumption is correct, or that main belt
asteroids are
a satisfactory surrogate for NEAs.
I would also like to comment on the statement in the Sloan news
release that
"the new impact risk estimate, like most previous ones,
relies on
assumptions about a single event 65 million years ago when a
10-kilometer
asteroid collided with earth and killed the dinosaurs. The
researchers
assumed that such impacts occur on roughly 100 million-year
intervals and
used that statistic to calculate the impact odds for the more
common
asteroids of smaller sizes." As one of the first to publish
NEA impact
frequencies (with Clark Chapman, see our Nature paper in 1994), I
note that
we made no such assumption. Nor, to my knowledge, have any
previous
estimates involved any assumption about the frequency of KT-size
impacts.
Indeed, we have no way from a single example 65 million years ago
of
estimating the average frequency of such impacts. To my
knowledge, this
Sloan impact frequency estimate is the first to depend on such an
assumption.
The Sloan Survey is an exciting astrophysics project with great
promise in a
number of fields of astronomy. It has already contributed to our
knowledge
of the main belt asteroids. But it has not measured NEAs, and it
has not
made an independent estimate of the impact frequency. It is
therefore
probably premature to conclude from these observations of the
main belt
asteroids that we should revise our estimates of the impact
frequency of
NEAs or of the magnitude of the impact hazard.
David Morrison
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NEO News is an informal compilation of news and opinion dealing
with Near
Earth Objects (NEOs) and their impacts. These opinions are the
responsibility of the individual authors and do not represent the
positions
of NASA, the International Astronomical Union, or any other
organization. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) contact dmorrison@arc.nasa.gov.
For additional information, please see the website:
http://impact.arc.nasa.gov.
If anyone wishes to copy or
redistribute original material from these notes, fully or in
part, please
include this disclaimer.
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(6) IRAQI CRATER & IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY
>From John Spiers <WileyCCC@aol.com>
Dr. Peiser,
Given the recent discovery in Iraq, is it safe yet in academia to
say
Velikovsky was on the right track?
John Spiers
Seattle
MODERATOR'S NOTE: While the conspicuous Al Amarah structure
awaits detailed
inspection and analysis, there can be no doubt in my mind that
Immanuel
Velikovsky was indeed on the right track - regardless of the
geological
origin of the Iraqi crater and despite Velikovsky's planetary
gobbledygook.
I sympathise with Sir Fred Hoyle's rather generous and
far-sighted summary
of Velikovsky's place in science:
"Not long before my visit in Princeton [in 1953], an
eruption over a
seemingly trivial affair had occurred among American astronomers.
Immanuel
Velikovsky published a book with the title 'Worlds in Collision'
in which he
claimed that a sequence of dynamically impossible events had
shaped society
circa 3000 B.C., giving rise to well-known myths and legends. The
book cared
naught for science but a great deal for Velikovsky's reading of
ancient
documents, his expertise being in the deciphering of such papers.
The book
caused a sensation both with the public and among astronomers,
the latter
becoming stirred to near-violent displays of outrage. Such
eminent figures
as Harlow Shapley were heavily involved. It could be said that
Shapley
became angry even to the point of incoherence.
During my stay in Princeton, Velikovsky attended the weekly
astronomy
seminars, whether to learn something of astronomy itself or to
learn what
made astronomers tick, I never really discovered. Perhaps because
I couldn't
see what the fuss was about, and so was calm about it, Velikovsky
used to
come to talk at the tea intervals that preceded the seminars. I
managed to
convey to him that our ground rules were different from his. He
believed in
the primacy of documentary evidence, whereas we believed in the
primacy of
mathematical rules, rules that enabled us to predict, with a high
degree of
acuracy, where and when the next total eclipse of the Sun was
going to
occur. This made Velikovsky look sad, which is how we departed.
It must have occurred to me that the intensity of the fuss was
peculiar.
After all, the world is full of crazy notions, notions the public
keep on
buying, as Barnum's remark about a sucker being born every minute
makes
clear. I suppose I passed the situation off with the thought that
Americans
are highly emotional poeple, which, in some degree, is true. But
is it
sufficient true to explain why Harlow Shapley, a most
distinguished
astronomer, was prepared to parade himself on the national stage
over what
was claimed to be nothing but claptrap? Or could it be that
Velikovsky had
revealed, admittedly in a form that was scientifically
unacceptable, a
situation that astronomers are under a cultural imperative to
hide? Could it
be that, somewhere in the shadows, there is a past history that
is
inadmissible to discuss?"
--Fred Hoyle, Home is where the Wind
blows. Chapters from a
Cosmologist's Life,
Oxford 1997, 285/86
============
(7) REVIEW OF CATASTROPHE VIDEOS
>From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
Dear Benny
I found this site by accident:
http://www.grisda.org/resources/gri_vid-rev.htm
A bit weird but there might be something of interest
Mike
===============
(8) AND FINALLY: CHANCE OF BEING EATEN BY WILD ANIMALS GREATLY
DOWNGRADED
>From an anonymous CCNet correspondent...
Press Release from the Slone Digital Survey, Princesstown
University
The likelihood of the average American being attacked by a wild
animal has
been shown to be much less than previously estimated, according
to new
results from the Slone Digital Survey, operated by Princesstown
University
astronomers.
Records of attack rates compiled by mammal experts had indicated
that a
large fraction of deaths caused by wild animals in Africa are due
to
hippopotamus strikes. New observations by the Princesstown
researchers,
however, show that there are fewer hippopotamuses than earlier
counts
indicated.
Using their new data they have extrapolated the figures to obtain
a kill
rate for inhabitants of North America.
"Although we cannot be sure that our detections were all
hippopotamuses -
for example some may have been elephants or wilderbeast - we are
convinced
that our figures represent a much-improved evaluation of the
numbers of
large gray-brown mammals in Africa" said a spokesman for the
team, Dr
Neophobius Snobbs. He continued: "While some detractors have
criticized us
for not including smaller beasts like lions and hyenas in our
analysis, so
far as we are aware these do not pose a
danger to humans."
The team have also dismissed the arguments of public safety
experts who
point to grizzly bears as being a significant risk. "I've
never seen a
grizzly bear in Princesstown," countered another
member of the team,
"whereas I remember seeing a hippopotamus in Central Park
Zoo when I was a
kid. And that's only a handful of miles from here."
The purpose of the present project was to capitalize on an
earlier press
release, when much publicity was gained by the team's claim that
their
detection of a smaller number of main-belt asteroids in the 1-km
size range
had important implications for the probability of such a
projectile hitting
the Earth soon. "We were amazed. We never expected the media
and the public
to be so gullible. Admittedly this is something we know nothing
about but,
hey, look at all that coverage. So we figured we could pull the
same stunt
with hippopotamuses"
When asked about polar bears, the Dr Snobbs said that, according
to their
working definition, white animals cannot be dangerous. "To
imagine otherwise
would be as silly as thinking that a comet could strike the
Earth," he said.
"Clearly this makes no sense. We deal with white animals all
the time - cats
and mice, mostly - and although a cat may scratch you
occasionally, they are
not life-threatening." When pressed further, he commented
that in any case
polar bears live only in parts of Canada, not the United States,
and
Canadians don't count.
Still other critics have argued that, even if there are a few
hippopotamuses
in zoos, the hazard they represent is tiny. "This shows a
profound ignorance
of recent scientific advances" said Snobbs. "Global
warming is an
established fact. This means that North America will get hotter,
and soon
will be like the African savannah lands, and so hippopotamuses
will flourish
in the Midwest." When asked how they would get there, Dr
Snobbs said that
the time scale involved was some millions of years, over which
hippopotamuses would evolve so as to develop wings, just like
pigs have now.
"Now we have discounted this absurd notion that bears are
dangerous, through
our brilliant observations of hippopotamuses, we intend to return
to our
real interest: pussy cats. These are certainly not dangerous, but
they're
hugely important. Just think how many cats appear on calendars
every year"
said the team leader, Professor Felix Catophilus. "Cats are
wonderful, and
fully justify the billions we persuade governments to spend on
feline-related research. At one stage we were a little worried
about all
this attention being paid to grizzly bear attacks - and, hey, the
threat of
huge amounts of money being spent on anti-venom to save people
bitten by
snakes or stung by bees - but now we are confident that attention
(and more
important, funding) will remain with us pussy-cat lovers."
The Digital Survey gets its name from the fact that one of its
major
purposes is giving a middle finger to researchers in other areas,
by
purporting to have uncovered data that detract from the careful
work of
others.
Contact:
Professor Felix Catophilus: (666) CATS-R-US
Dr Neophobius Snobbs: (911) NO-2-NEOS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational use
only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced
for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders. The
fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be
found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles
and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily reflect the
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this
network.
*
CCNet SPECIAL: ASTRONOMERS FEAR MIDDLE EAST IMPACT EVENT COULD
PRECIPITATE
NUCLEAR EXCHANGE
============================================================================
===============
"Should an unexpected meteorite impact event happen in the
Middle
East today, could it trigger a nuclear exchange given the present
instability in the region? According to Astronomer Dr. Brian
Marsden, it could, and that our chance of detecting a 150-meter
meteorite prior to impact in a region like the Middle East is
"somewhere
between none and dumb luck."
--Marshall Masters, YOWUSA.COM, 10 November 2001
"Villagers fearing they were being bombed rushed to nearby
army
barracks for protection after what was thought to be a large
meteorite landed near Kauyen Toro in north-west
Nigeria." (AFP)
--The Daily Telegraph, 10 November 2001
ASTRONOMERS FEAR MIDDLE EAST IMPACT EVENT COULD PRECIPITATE
NUCLEAR EXCHANGE
>From YOWUSA.COM, November 10, 2001
http://www.yowusa.com/Archive/November2001/ME_impactor1/me_impactor1.htm
Exclusive YOWUSA Interview With Dr. Brian Marsden, Associate
Director of the
Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatories Reveals a New and
Frightening
Post-911 National Security Risk
YOWUSA.COM, November 10, 2001
Marshall Masters
During a joint news conference with French President Jacques
Chirac last
Tuesday, President Bush warned the world of the specter of a
nuclear
catastrophe as a result of Osama bin Laden's likely acquisition
of nuclear
weapons from maniacs like Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein.
Further, The
Sunday Telegraph (London) just published an article regarding new
evidence
that Iraq was struck 4000 years ago by a 150-meter meteorite
which begs the
question: Should an unexpected meteorite impact event happen in
the Middle
East today, could it trigger a nuclear exchange given the present
instability in the region? According to Astronomer Dr. Brian
Marsden, it
could, and that our chance of detecting a 150-meter meteorite
prior to
impact in a region like the Middle East is "somewhere
between none and dumb
luck."
Why This Is a National Security Issue
The obvious answer is that President Bush has put the world on
notice -
these maniacs will soon if not already posses these weapons, and
they will
use them to start a global nuclear war.
Experts say bin Laden would face huge technological obstacles in
building a
nuclear bomb, but a small-scale device would be within
al-Qa'eda's reach if
it could buy or create nuclear material.
Analysts say bin Laden also might be able to build a "dirty
bomb" that
wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion but could spread enough
radioactivity to
kill thousands in an urban environment.
While the Pakistani majority does not support the Taliban and in
turn, Osama
bin Laden a large minority does and within that minority are
high-ranking
members of Pakistan's intelligence operations and nuclear weapons
development programs. This fact now presents a very real
possibility that
Osama bin Laden could obtain a substantial share of Pakistan's
nuclear
weapons. For this reason, the country is seeking to protect
its nuclear
arsenal with the help of China.
The threat to weapons widely regarded as the Pakistan military's
'crown
jewels' has forced Islamabad 'to consider removing warheads to
China,
Pakistan's closest strategic ally in the region,' the Sunday
Times reported.
The prospect that loose warheads might be loaded onto helicopters
or moved
around a region foaming with fundamentalist turmoil is adding to
fears in
Washington that the war in Afghanistan might provoke a nuclear
crisis.
But even if Osama bin Laden is unable to obtain his own nuclear
arsenal via
high-ranking Pakistani sympathizers, there is always Saddam
Hussein. A known
supporter of terrorism, Saddam has been able to revitalize his
nuclear arms
development program since facing down President Clinton in 1998.
In that
showdown, Saddam prevailed, and was able to expel remaining U.N.
arms
inspectors from Iraq.
In a speech televised in Baghdad last September, Saddam told his
nuclear
energy officials that "the battle is your battle," that
Iraq's enemies "will
be defeated when their losses will be as huge as the gains they
had hoped to
achieve," and that "the Nuclear Energy [Association]
has a big duty in this
field."
What is most dangerous about men like Osama bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein is
that they are violent opportunists who will strike provided they
can avoid
responsibility for their attacks. In the event of an
unforeseen meteorite
impact, they would use the event as a pretext with
"legitimate appearance"
for the purpose of a first strike. And this has astronomers
deeply worried
because of the difficulties in finding Earth-crossing objects in
the
150-meter size range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Interview with Dr. Brian Marsden
In this November 6, 2001 telephone interview between Marshall
Masters of
YOWUSA and Dr. Brian Marsden, Associate Director of the
Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory, the possibility that an unforeseen
impact event
could be used a pretext by international terrorists to start a
global
nuclear holocaust was examined.
MARSHALL MASTERS: President Bush has just warned the world that
Osama bin
Laden is working to gather weapons of mass destruction including
biological,
chemical and nuclear devices. Also, we know that Iraqi dictator
Saddam
Hussein has revitalized his nuclear weapons program. Keeping this
in mind,
may I call your attention to an article in the published in the
Sunday
Telegraph of London last Sunday. It suggests that an impact event
in
Northern Iraq, wrecked the ME civilization some 4,000 years ago
in the area
of Mesopotamia. Dr. Marsden, if such an impact event were to
occur in the
same area of the world today and without prior notice, could it
trigger a
regional or global nuclear exchange?
BRIAN MARSDEN: Yes, an unforeseen impact like the one mentioned
in The
Sunday Telegraph article could certainly trigger a regional if
not global
nuclear exchange, and this new concern goes straight to the heart
of a
change that is taking place in the NEO (NEAR-EARTH-OBJECT)
community.
Prior to 911, the cause-and-effect relationship between an impact
event and
a global nuclear exchange was nothing more than a theoretical
debate.
However, since 911 it is no longer theoretical. It is now a very
real threat
for the very reasons that President Bush pointed out during his
press
conference with President Chirac.
MARSHALL MASTERS: If this is a new threat since the attack on
America, what
kind of impact event scenario could trigger as you say, "a
regional if not
global nuclear exchange."
BRIAN MARSDEN: Before delving into any one scenario, we must
first ask the
question: could they see it coming? if we suppose the Iraq
feature mentioned
in the Sunday telegraph was an impact event, the impactor was
perhaps a
150-meter object. That would be very tough for our best neo
search
programs. As for Iraq, I do not ever recall seeing an neo
sighting coming
out of that country.
Granted, there are probably people in Iraq who have read books
and are
knowledgeable about meteor impacts, but the question of their
access to the
leadership of Iraq is debatable. Also, we simply do not
know if Saddam
Hussein will seek out their advice. Therefore, Iraq really has
little or no
practical ability to differentiate between an incoming NEO
impactor and a
nuclear-tipped ballistic missile.
This then brings us to two frightening possibilities for a
scenario. Saddam
could initiate a retaliatory nuclear or biochemical launch
against Israel
and NATO member states because of a sighting error or, he uses
the event as
a pretext to justify a first launch. Either way, a great many
people will
die awful deaths from both the impact event as well as the
ensuing war.
MARSHALL MASTERS: When you say that people will die from the
impact event as
well as a nuclear exchange, the issue of yield becomes relevant
given that
the same measure of force is used to determine the destructive
force of both
meteorites and nuclear warheads. For the sake of argument,
how large would
a meteorite need to duplicate the severe regional havoc as the
one that
struck Mesopotamia (Northern Iraq) 4,000 years ago?
BRIAN MARSDEN: as I say, it looks as though the meteorite might
have been
150 meters across--the size of one of the pyramids in Egypt,
say. An impact
like that corresponds to about 100 megatons of TNT, a little
larger than the
largest nuclear detonation to date. The 150 meters is a
guess based on the
size of the crater. Of course, the impactor could have been
somewhat larger
before it came into the earth's atmosphere.
MARSHALL MASTERS: Why do you say it is tough to detect 150-meter
objects
with our search programs?
BRIAN MARSDEN: NASA has set a goal to find 90% of the
kilometer-sized NEO's
by 2008. It did this because it was interested in finding
objects that, if
they impacted the earth, would directly affect everyone on the
planet. It
is only just becoming interested in objects half a kilometer
across or less,
but our current equipment is not optimized to find these smaller
objects.
Furthermore, the smaller the size the more numerous the objects,
which makes
it harder to catalog a significant fraction of them.
MARSHALL MASTERS: How is NASA in fact doing in terms of its goal?
BRIAN MARSDEN: NASA'S goal with regard to the kilometer-sized
NEO's is a
little over-optimistic. Even though we have found perhaps
50% of the
kilometer-sized NEO's (or, more correctly, near-earth asteroids),
it gets
progressively more difficult to find the remainder. After
all, we were
already 30% complete five years ago, and I doubt that we can be
more than
70% complete by 2008.
Furthermore, in setting the 90% goal, NASA was really thinking
only of
actual detection, and it made little or no provision for the task
of
determining the orbits of the objects found with sufficient
accuracy to say
for sure that some of them cannot hit us during the next century
or so.
Nevertheless, since impacts by kilometer-sized objects
statistically occur
at intervals of 100,000 years or more, the odds are better than a
thousand
to one that we shan't be hit by one, known or unknown, during the
next
century.
While being good odds, they are clearly not acceptable, given the
immensity
of the disaster if we just happen to be unlucky. But given
that we shall
surely be continuing to search and refine orbit computations for
kilometer-sized objects long after 2008, the chances will
increase, as time
goes by, that we shall indeed be able to recognize the next
kilometer-sized
impactor and the date it will hit at least decades ahead, and
that will
presumably be enough to send out missions to deflect it.
MARSHALL MASTERS: So you're saying the situation is acceptable
with regard
to kilometer-sized objects?
BRIAN MARSDEN: Actually, I think it basically is. There is
the problem of
the long-period comets, which are simply too far away and faint
to detect
more than a year or two before they could hit us. I think
these represent
less than 2% of the problem, but if the hope is actually to find
the comets
before they hit, we have to continue to search
indefinitely. The real
difficulty is whether with even two years' notice (and it might
be a lot
less), we could actually take evasive action.
MARSHALL MASTERS: And what about 150-meter asteroids like the one
that seems
to have hit Iraq 4,000 years ago?
BRIAN MARSDEN: Here the situation is very different. We
currently know at
most 2% of the population. True, we knew perhaps only 0.5%
of them five
years ago, but we've obviously got a very long way to go before
we'd be
likely to know the one that is next going to hit us.
Furthermore, that next
hit is likely to be quite soon. Statistically, a 150-meter
object hits the
earth every few thousand years, and if that one in Iraq was the
last one,
the next is just about due any day now.
MARSHALL MASTERS: Given that you feel we do not face an imminent
danger from
the Kilometer-wide NEO Earth crossers that has NASA's full
attention, you've
sure got me worried now about the 150-meter objects. If it
is a fact that
we are now in the statistical crosshairs of an impact event like
the one
that devastated Mesopotamia 4,000 years ago, I've got to
ask: Are we
vulnerable to an unforeseen impact event of this magnitude today
because we
simply lack the technology to track the150-meter NEO's?
BRIAN MARSDEN: No, we have the technology we need to find and
catalog these
objects available today. The reason it is sitting on the
shelf is that we
simply lack the political will to put it to work, because
politicians find
the costs to be unattractive.
Keep in mind that the funding set aside for attending to dangers
is
calculated on a cost-per-death basis. At some point, it
simply becomes
prudent from an accounting standpoint to let people die even
though their
deaths can be prevented.
I personally find this cost method analysis to be morally
repugnant. But it
is, you could say, the Golden Rule. He who has the gold
makes the rules. In
this case those who make the rules have set an arbitrary limit on
what they
are willing to spend and all we can do is to make what little
they give us
go as far as possible.
Perhaps the new world we live in since 911 will change all that.
One can at
least be hopeful and assume so. In any case, the new scenario
conceivably
affects everyone on the planet indirectly.
MARSHALL MASTERS: Assuming that the government's thinking has
changed, and
that our leadership is now viewing smaller impacts as a matter of
national
security and were suddenly willing to fund a search program for
150-meter
objects, what technology would you need to catalog these objects;
what would
it cost; and how soon could you have it up and running?
BRIAN MARSDEN: If national security were the primary
justification for this
level of effort, we would need to use build and deploy a suite of
advanced
special purpose 4- OR 5-meter telescopes in the Northern and
Southern
hemispheres, along with computer analysis support and adequate
24/7
staffing.
Off-hand the cost to build and deploy this system, not including
operational
costs, would be approximately 10 million dollars per telescope
and it could
take several years to make the full system operational.
However, this
would, after a few decades, give us a better than 50% chance of
finding
potential 150-meter impactors, as opposed to the at best 2%
chance we have
today.
Operating costs would likely be in excess of 10 million dollars
per year,
and there is a 1% chance the next 150-meter impactor will come,
unannounced,
during this time. Granted, a success rate of more than 90%
would therefore
be nice, but that would require extensive searches from space and
the
enormous additional cost that would entail. After all, 50%
is a lot better
than we should have if we don't move beyond our current
chicken-feed
searches.
MARSHALL MASTERS: Any substantial gain in our ability to detect
these
150-meter objects is better than what we've presently got, but
given the
current fragile and explosive tensions in the Middle East, we
simply haven't
got years to deploy such a system, which is not to say it
shouldn't be done.
However, for the sake of decreasing what is obviously a serious
threat to
our national security, what can we do today?
BRIAN MARSDEN: There a great deal we can do today, provided we
have the
political resolve. For example, there are more than enough
telescopes of
sufficient size currently in operation that could be quickly
re-purposed to
the task cataloging 150-meter NEO Earth crossers, that is,
provided the
owners of those telescopes could be convinced to allow the
conversion. Aha,
and there would be the rub. Somebody would have to scratch
their backs to
get them. However, this would get us up and going in
relatively short
order. Again, it is only a matter of will. We have the
technology and as my
friends at NASA would say, "we're good to go."
MARSHALL MASTERS: It is reassuring to know that we have an
immediate and
workable option, but the political process in Washington has more
twists and
turns than a donkey trail, and all too often all you're left with
is what
the donkey leaves behind. Given this, if both of your
short-term or
long-term options are viewed as being politically untenable, is
there a
politically expedient compromise path we could follow?
BRIAN MARSDEN: we're already stretched to the extreme by obtuse
political
compromises and from a general deficiency of funding from NASA
and other
international organizations and nations. The problem is
that computers --
and even the 1-meter telescopes and imaging devices that are
currently being
used -- are cheap when compared with people. Everyone seems to
think that
computer technology is all we need, but we cannot do the whole
thing with
computers alone.
Regardless of the equipment funding, it takes real people with
real talent
and a real commitment to make this work properly. However,
this requires an
ongoing commitment, and this I fear would frighten those in
Washington more
than anything else.
MARSHALL MASTERS: One of the most tragic lessons we learned as a
result of
9-11, is that when we allow ourselves to become overly dependent
on
computers as a people replacement, we're inviting unforeseen
catastrophe.
However, many would still argue that it is easier to measure
productivity
gains as result of computerization, as opposed to the efficient
recruitment
and management of qualified people. With this in mind, how
could you
possibly hope to justify the additional manpower requirements
inherent a
project of this scale?
BRIAN MARSDEN: That would be very simple. Because the NEO
search programs
have always had to beg for money the staff of the Minor Planet
Center work
unpaid hours every week. A short week for us is 80 hours,
even though we
are salaried at 40 hours.
But those of us who work on that scale are the lucky ones, you
might say, as
others in the search business willingly work full time + overtime
weeks but
are paid for only 20 hours. Why do they do it? Because they
believe so much
in what they are doing! I'd certainly love to see a defense
contractor like
Boeing or Lockheed get that much productivity out their
employees, even at
twice the price.
MARSHALL MASTERS: To be honest, Dr. Marsden, I was a contractor
at Lockheed
myself on a satellite project, and from my personal experience I
would
definitely say that you have an airtight argument there. But
then, I'm not
the one making the decision. But if I were, the first
question I'd ask you
is: "Given your present situation, what are your chances of
finding a
150-meter impactor before it starts a nuclear war in the Middle
East?" How
would you answer that question?
BRIAN MARSDEN: Given the present level of financial support for
our present
efforts, the chances are somewhere between none and dumb
luck. Simply put,
we must now consider ourselves to be wholly vulnerable to this
risk, and all
of us in the NEO-detection field find this deeply troubling,
since the world
changed for the worse on September 11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
It is About Our Lives and Their Legacies
After concluding my interview with Dr. Marsden, I made a cup of
hot coffee
and reviewed our question-and-answer session several times. The
part that
really bothered me the most is that our leaders use formulas to
decide who
will die and who will live. Perhaps there was a time when that
was a
politically expedient way to manage the NEO threat, but wasn't it
was also
that kind of thinking that allowed us to blindside ourselves to
the events
leading up to September 11, 2001?
Is it possible that our leaders in Washington will give this
national
security threat the attention it deserves? Most likely not,
but they can
depend on one absolute - the Internet will not give them a pass
should they
fail us again by letting an unforeseen impact event trigger a
global nuclear
holocaust.
Warnings like those mentioned in this article will be tucked away
in the
niches and corners of the Internet where future historians will
eventually
find them. In that future time, the most urgent goal of
generations will be
defined with a simple mantra, "never again." With
this mantra in mind, they
apply these candid warnings with firm brushstrokes across the
legacies they
will paint for our leaders.
No matter how great your achievements in this lifetime can be;
leaders
beware - do not ignore this potential brushstroke of fate if you
truly value
your own legacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
About Dr. Brian G. Marsden
Associate director and astronomer at the Smithsonian
Astrophysical
Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Born in Cambridge, England, Dr. Marsden lived through the air
attacks on
England during WW II as a child and remembers the horrors of what
happens
when death falls from the sky. Filled with a great purpose by
those early
memories, he is committed advocate of public education about the
ever-present threat of impact events, which he does in addition,
to his many
NEO detection responsibilities. He is truly a hero by
today's definition of
the term.
SPECIALTIES: Celestial mechanics and astrometry, with particular
application
to the study of comets and asteroids.
EDUCATION: Undergraduate education at Oxford University; Ph.D.
degree from
Yale University; dissertation on the orbits of the Galilean
satellites of
Jupiter.
NOTABLE DISCOVERIES: Successful track record of predicting the
return of
several lost comets and asteroids. His most famous prediction was
the 1992
return of Comet Swift-Tuttle, which has the longest period of any
comet ever
successfully predicted.
PUBLICATIONS: "Catalogue of Cometary Orbits" --
Thirteen editions published
since 1972.
INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION (IAU): Director, IAU Minor
Planet Center
(1978 - Present). Responsibilities include the issuance of
electronic
information several times each day plus batches of printed
circulars monthly
with positional observations, orbital elements and related
information about
comets and asteroids.
Director, IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams (1968 -
2000).
Responsibilities included the timely dissemination of information
about
transient astronomical objects and events.
Copyright 2001, YOWUSA.COM
=============
METEOR SCARE
>From The Daily Telegraph, 10 November 2001
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/10/wbul10.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/11/10/ixhomef.html#4
VILLAGERS fearing they were being bombed rushed to nearby army
barracks for
protection after what was thought to be a large meteorite landed
near Kauyen
Toro in north-west Nigeria. (AFP)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational use
only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced
for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders. The
fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be
found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles
and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily reflect the
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this
network.
