Mysterious Peruvian Meteor Disease Solved 146
Technician writes "The meteor that crashed in Peru caused a mystery illnesses. The cause of the illness has been found. The meteor was not toxic. The ground water it contacted contains arsenic. The resulting steam cloud is what caused the mystery illness.
"The meteorite created the gases when the object's hot surface met an underground water supply tainted with arsenic, the scientists said." There is a very good photo of the impact crater in the article. The rim of the crater is lined with people for a size comparison."
How can this be 'Proved'? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldnt actually producing the meteorite be proof? Isnt it a little premature to jump the gun with the assumption that the meteorite that was steaming hot causing all this groundwater steam to be produced? When no actual meteorite has been produced. So far, all that has been produced it whats called a 3-inch metallic fragment that CONTAINS iron.
Aside from the fact that meteorites are actually cold when they hit the ground, it just doesnt seem to be a very valid conclusion without any actual evidence to support it. This would fail a 7-th grade science class project on the scientific method. At least it would when I was in 7th grade... is this what passes now?
So to simplify, these are the verifiable facts;
1) There is a big hole in the ground.
2) Something made a big hole in the ground.
2) There were reports of the water appearing to 'boil' in the hole shortly after it was formed.
3) There is arsenic contained in some nearby groundwater aquifers.
4) Water boils when an object that is immersed in it contains ENOUGH specific heat to cause the water to reach its boiling point
5) No meteorite has been shown to exist physically (a 3-inch fragment that simply contains the element iron is not proof)
6) No peer reveiw has been done on the results or fragment claimed by the ONE man from the peruvian govt.
In short, coming to a conclusion of "It was a meteorite" is simply not able to be substantiated by the available evidence. IF numbers 5, and 6 are shown to be non-negative over more time, then and only then could it even be POSSIBLE that this was a meteorite.
Can anyone provide more supporting evidence that fits with the meteorite theory?
Re:How can this be 'Proved'? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fair enough. My sources are as follows. However, not a single one of them is from this article. And since they obviously contradict it, it would seem that there is NOT a unanimous agreement as to what happened.
The object, Woodman said, was metallic in nature and created a crater 42 feet wide and 15 feet deep. The impact also registered a 1.5-magnitude tremor on the institute's seismic equipment. [nwsource.com]Ronald Woodman is the director of the Peruvian Geophysical Institute.
Mid sized meteorites are not hot. [wired.com] I'll say it again: Mid sized meteorites are not hot. First, meteoroids are naturally cold. They've been out in the frigid blackness of space for many billions of years -- these rocks are cold down to their very center. Second, because of its size there's a good chance that this meteorite was originally part of a larger meteor that broke up anywhere between 60 and 30km above the surface. If that is the case, the larger meteor's cold interior would become the smaller meteor's cold exterior. Since hardly any surface heating takes place lower than about 30km, this cold surface doesn't warm up by any appreciable amount. Some meteorites, located soon after landing, have actually been reported to have frost on the surface due to their still cold interior.
There 'preliminary' analysis quoted in this article is contradicted by the following; In addition, Woodman stated that astrophysicist José Ishitsuka of Peru's Geophysics Institute, had collected samples of the meteorite and had confirmed that it contained a high degree of iron. It was reported that Ishitsuka retrieved a 3-inch magnetic fragment of the meteorite and has based his conclusion after studying its properties. [skywatch-media.com]
What I am attempting to say, is that there is NOT any 'proof' as to what this was, at least not yet. And to simply accept the explination that it was a meteor without the evidence to support it, is not acceptable in any scientific attempt at explaining what happened here. In time, it may be 'proven' to be a meteorite. But that time is not now. It is merely 'speculation' that is a meteorite. Lots of things that fall from space can have a 'high degree of iron', some of them are manmade.
Re:Aha (Score:3, Interesting)
I know we have a lot better observation and more established theories now, but still, a little humility wouldn't hurt, given the history.