New Mars Forums

Shaun Barrett

Member

From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia

Registered: 2001-12-28

Posts: 2,843

Re: The Tunguska Explosion - What was it?

Again, all very good points.
    I freely admit I'm pushing the envelope more than a little by invoking nuclear processes. And, without any figures for the pressure and temperature, I'm in no position to argue the point.

    Are the reports of radioactivity (TVactivity?  :laugh: ) even credible in the first place? Maybe I'm breaking all the rules of physics in a pointless attempt to explain something that never happened!
                                       

    If the reports are believable, where is the radiation coming from? I don't remember reading anywhere that stony meteorites are well-known for their high content of radioactive isotopes.
    Hmmm. That 'stricken, extraterrestrial, nuclear-powered, interstellar spaceship' story is looking better and better!!
                                         

---

The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

dickbill

Member

Registered: 2002-09-28

Posts: 749

Re: The Tunguska Explosion - What was it?

from the same site I cited above:

M. Tchernobrov a indiqu? qu'une hausse de la radioactivit? avait ?t? enregistr?e dans la zone apr?s la chute de la m?t?orite. Selon lui, il ne s'agit d'ailleurs "probablement pas ? proprement parler d'une m?t?orite, mais d'un corps c?leste de nature pour l'instant inconnue"

M. Tchernobrov mentioned an increased in radioactivity (after the impact) , but he said he doesn't believe it's a meteorite. If its not a meteorite and its not a comet, what it is ?
whatever, I havn't seen this info anywhere else than Yahoo.fr. Unless somebody confirm from a different source than AFP. This is dubious IMO.