Re: K-T impact theory

[Jonathon Woolf <jwoolf@erinet.com>]

Stanley Friesen wrote:
> 
> At 06:38 PM 5/30/97 -0700, Jonathon Woolf wrote:
> >Mr. Miller's claim is not extreme.  It is typical of the ideas being
> >pushed by pro-impact people.
> 
> Based on what I have seen attributed to him here, I doubt it.
> 
> Very few, as far as I know, actually suggest that NA was *totally* scoured
> of all life.  At most 99.9% of the life in NA was killed.

Isn't that already too high a percentage?  The evidence shows that quite
a bit more than that survived, does it not?  If I recall some material
I've seen correctly, the mortality was 100% for large land animals, and
ranged between about 50% and 90% for most other terrestrial animal
groups.  Except for insects, which suffered hardly at all.

> 
> Furthermore, he seems to be maintaining the "blast winter" scenario in its
> fullest form.  This is now seriously doubted by most workers.  

If so, then why was this reported as in line with current thought, and
with supporting quotes from people like Paul Sereno?

> Again, look at the *real*, complex, patchy effects of the Mt. St. Hellen's
> blast to see how this really works - not the narrow view of the effects you
> have been presented.

It's true that the St. Helens explosion and the recovery was more
complex than I implied, and that was an error on my part.  However, it's
also true that in the complete-damage zone closest to the mountain,
there is little or no life even today, seventeen years after the
eruption.  

-- JSW