Hi E.P. et al., actually, what the journalist of BI wrote is inaccurate. You can read in our report that we used 1 per 1000 years as our preferred value, following the most up-to-date frequency-size distribution [Brown et al, 2002], but we also tested 1 per 200 years [Shoemaker, 1983] and noted that the rate could be far higher if hypotheses from geomythology and related were to be verified.
Best, ArnaudM > Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:20:11 -0800 > From: epgrond...@yahoo.com > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Subject: [meteorite-list] Tunguska rates > > Hi Arnauld, all, > > The problem is that Tunguska type blasts have been occuring recently (for the > last 5,000 years) at a rate of 1 per 100 years, not 1 per 1,000. Whether this > represents a short term phenonmenon or the long term rate is not currently > known. > > I used to put together catalogues of "known and suspected impacts", you may > want to google that, and if you have not bought a copy of "Man and Impact in > the Americas" yet, well, it is the best available recent impact rate data for > the Americas. > > E.P. Grondine > Man and Impact in the Americas > > > > ______________________________________________ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_myidea:112009 ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
