Subject: Re: Are *all* Texas lakes man made?
From: coredal@ix.netcom.com(Melanie Dunn)
Date: 2 Sep 1996 23:34:58 GMT
In <50f016$nhj@news.acns.nwu.edu> jed@juand.earth.nwu.edu (John
DeLaughter) writes:
>
>coredal@ix.netcom.com(Melanie Dunn) writes:
>>
>>Mike Munsil <75561.1231@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>>>
>>>First you have to define "lake". There are a LOT of oxbow lakes
>>>in Texas, all (or most anyway) of which are natural. Many are
>>>called "resacas". Anyway, why should a manmade lake not be
>>>natural? Are we not part of nature?
>>>
>>The gentleman merely asked the question whether or not all the lakes
in
>>Texas were formed by natural processes. Your comment was way out of
>>line. Yes, we are part of nature but the lakes that were constructed
>>by the Core of Engineers are not "natural" phenomenon. To reiterate,
>>Caddo lake is the only "natural" lake (not made by CoE).
>
>Er, Melanie, you might want to look up the definition of an
>oxbow lake. Simply put, oxbow lakes are created when a river
>meander cuts itself off, leaving a stagnant loop behind.
>(Yes, I know - this is a bit of an oversimplification.)
>
>These *are* natural lakes - I can assure you that the CoE
>doesn't go around making them! So, given that there
>are meandering rivers in Texas, there are also other natural
>lakes.
>
>John DeLaughter
>
OK.
Let's look up the definition of "lake"
According to Webster's New World Dictionary a lake is an inland body of
usually fresh water, larger than a pool or pond, generally formed by
some obstruction in the course of flowing water. Now, going way out on
a limb here, an oxbow could be considered a "lake" according to our
definition above, however, what happens to the oxbow when the river
goes into flood stage? Is it still a lake if it gets overrun by the
river? I suppose this depends on how permanent the cutoff is. I have
seen oxbow lakes in Louisiana that were completely overrun by floods,
such as the great flood of '72-73. The only oxbow lakes that weren't
overrun were those that were dammed by man with earthen dams. Even
those came close to breaching around Monroe, Louisiana in '72.
I would think that for this discussion that we would want to limit
ourselves to that which is more or less permanent.
:-)
Subject: Feedback!!!!
From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Date: 3 Sep 1996 00:01:53 GMT
>
>Let me stop speculating for the moment before I sound like another
sci.geo wacko :-)
Sure!!!!!!Look at the date of this post closely!!
From: ???private@cybercomm.net>
Reply-To: ///@cybercomm.net
To: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Supernova Window
Organization: American Association for Putting Things On Top of Other
Things
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 21:02:32 +0000
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 20:59:23 +0000
From: @raven.cybercomm.net>
Reply-To:@raven.cybercomm.net
Organization: American Association for Putting Things On Top of Other
Things
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6 (Win16; I)
To: drturi@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Supernova Window
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset=us-ascii
While mulling over your predictions for the September Supernova window
on 9/2/96, my eyes grew weary, searching for something else to cast
their gaze upon. Fumbling clumsily around my desk for that blasted
remote control, I finally found it and flipped through the channels.
Hmm... nope. *click* uhh.. nope. *click* nah... *click* Hey, what's
this? The Weather Channel is giving information on Hurricane Edouard!
Let's see, today is August 24, and at the current speed, it may make
landfall in the United States around about the beginning of September!
Very interesting...
I was just wondering if you can divinely-astrologize any information
on
whereabouts this hurricane will strike. I live on the East Coast; New
Jersey, to be exact. I was just wondering if you could do any
predicting to warn us just where this storm will strike, so those
involved can make the necessary preparations. Thanks again, and happy
travels :)
- Steve
Subject: Forge your friends to a subscription list, Xmass greeting card
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 2 Sep 1996 23:05:00 GMT
In article <508d5m$n25@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
rrb1@ix.netcom.com(Richard Barnett) writes:
> OR flakes with delusions of grandeur, I suppose...
In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
Michael Varney writes:
> Listen purple Barnett you Asshole! I post a response to a response of one of your
> posts and the next thing I know all my professors and colleagues are
> E-mail bombed with your worthless trashy shit. If you do it again I
> will spend ALL of my resources to remove completely your presence on the
> net. Leave my professors and I the FUCK alone. I don't have time for
> witty verbal parrying and subtle admonitions. So I will communicate
> this to you in a way your feeble intellect will comprehend. STOP BEING
> A SHIT HEAD AND START RESPECTING OTHERS PRIVACY AND TIME.
Such harsh words by our young generation. Michael, I did not think
"flakes" was all that of a witty verbal parrying.
Calm down , man, this is only the Internet,
this isn't Vietnam, go play some par golf or tennis set
How old are you now, whippersnapper there
that you made your first threat
Live, over the Internet ?
Subject: One ugly threat of violence begets another Re: Varney &
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 3 Sep 1996 00:40:16 GMT
From: DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison)
Date: 1996/09/02
Message-Id: <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
In article <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison) writes:
> Michael Varney will probably never realize that he is so screwed up. The
> bad news it that he will probably die thinking that he is an
> unappreciated genius. The good news is that Varney will die.
In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
Michael Varney writes:
> Now to get on with buisness, and I apologize to any other than Garrison
> for the upcoming language.
>
> Listen Darren Garrison you Asshole! I post a response to a response of one > of your posts and the next thing I know all my professors and colleagues
> are E-mail bombed with your worthless trashy shit. If you do it again I
> will spend ALL of my resources to remove completely your presence on the
> net. Leave my professors and I the FUCK alone. I don't have time for
> witty verbal parrying and subtle admonitions. So I will communicate
> this to you in a way your feeble intellect will comprehend. STOP BEING
> A SHIT HEAD AND START RESPECTING OTHERS PRIVACY AND TIME.
>
> Darren Garrison, go to hell, styx that is.
>
>
> --
> Michael Varney
>
> Department of Physics
>
> Colorado State University
Hey, you two guys, slow down there, calm down, don't be killing off
each other or making these threats on the Net. Remember there are old
and mature and polite people who read the Net. Besides, I need you two
to show how good white and true I am, compared to you two dark horses,
in German I believe that is translated Schwarz Ferd.
With love,
Archimedes Plutonium
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: dnorthey@mail.wwdc.com (David Northey)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:50:57 GMT
Jim Kelly wrote:
>Marvin wrote:
>><>
>> We've got to take it to extremes,
>> standing on the edge, not living inbetween,
>> Walk with Christ for all to see,
>> telling broken hearts that God can intervene,
>> We've got to take it-to extremes. (DeGarmo & Key)
>> <><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
> If you can talk of the walk, talking the talk of
>_walking and talking_ with christ, why are you
>just talking about walking when you could
>be walking and walking, rather than
>contridicting yourself by talking
>with a computer? Sell it! And start
>walking. You are not going to extremes
>you are just sitting on your butt
>making lazy keystrokes.
>
>--
>Best Regards,
>-Jim Kelly
In the beginning was the Word ........
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: dnorthey@mail.wwdc.com (David Northey)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:51:23 GMT
Daniel & Denisa Tan wrote:
>Carl Seghers wrote:
>>
>> Jerry Teach wrote:
>>
>> > An accident with amazing precision... (snipped)
>>
>> Even though you're wrong on both accounts, your argument would still
>> not stand, even if you were right, because of the following reason... (snipped).
>>
>> > Jerry Teach
>>
Dear Jerry,
>> Cheers
>>
>> Carl Seghers
>Let us just try to doing something even closer to finding proof of
>evolution. Suppose we take a frog and put it in a blending machine.
>What's blended will have all the necessary ingredients of life, correct?
>Now, submit this blended frog through lightning or whatsoever to bring
>life as evolutionists claims. What do we have? Do we expect the frog to
>crawl out of the container? I am sure all of us will know that we do not
>expect this to happen. Unless a Superior Being does the construction.
>So where does the evolution theory stands now?
>Shalom!
>Daniel Tan
Dear Dan,
The evolution theory stands on pretty firm ground. Actually, if the yukky
goo from your blender combined from the blended slime of 50 billion other
blenders to form one big pond might with sunlight lightning etc. actually
evolve to higher forms over 10 billion years . Maybe even a frog with Sunbeam
written on its side.
Subject: Re: Forge your friends to a subscription list, Xmass greeting card
From: Michael Varney
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 19:36:06 -0600
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> In article <508d5m$n25@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
> rrb1@ix.netcom.com(Richard Barnett) writes:
>
> > OR flakes with delusions of grandeur, I suppose...
>
> In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
> Michael Varney writes:
>
> > Listen purple Barnett you Asshole! I post a response to a response
Purple Barnett? Wrong person dipshit. Editing original posts before
responding huh?... no better than forging.....
of one of your
> > posts and the next thing I know all my professors and colleagues are
> > E-mail bombed with your worthless trashy shit. If you do it again I
> > will spend ALL of my resources to remove completely your presence on the
> > net. Leave my professors and I the FUCK alone. I don't have time for
> > witty verbal parrying and subtle admonitions. So I will communicate
> > this to you in a way your feeble intellect will comprehend. STOP BEING
> > A SHIT HEAD AND START RESPECTING OTHERS PRIVACY AND TIME.
>
> Such harsh words by our young generation. Michael, I did not think
> "flakes" was all that of a witty verbal parrying.
>
> Calm down , man, this is only the Internet,
> this isn't Vietnam, go play some par golf or tennis set
> How old are you now, whippersnapper there
> that you made your first threat
> Live, over the Internet ?
You have been warned. Hopefully posting your crap on trees and mailing
your letters via snail mail will break you financially. You will lose
your net access.
--
Michael Varney
Department of Physics
Colorado State University
*************************************************************************
If as*holes could fly, it would be perpetually dark!
Of course, one kind person will lift the darkness.
*************************************************************************
mcvarney@holly.colostate.edu
http://holly.colostate.edu/~mcvarney
Subject: Re: One ugly threat of violence begets another Re: Varney &
From: Michael Varney
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 19:44:51 -0600
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> From: DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison)
> Date: 1996/09/02
> Message-Id: <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
> Organization: Concentric Internet Services
>
> In article <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
> DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison) writes:
>
> > Michael Varney will probably never realize that he is so screwed up. The
> > bad news it that he will probably die thinking that he is an
> > unappreciated genius. The good news is that Varney will die.
Ahh, Pu forged Mr. Garrison's Post.
> In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
> Michael Varney writes:
>
> > Now to get on with buisness, and I apologize to any other than Garrison
> > for the upcoming language.
> >
> > Listen Darren Garrison you Asshole! I post a response to a response of one > of your posts and the next thing I know all my professors and colleagues
> > are E-mail bombed with your worthless trashy shit. If you do it again I
> > will spend ALL of my resources to remove completely your presence on the
> > net. Leave my professors and I the FUCK alone. I don't have time for
> > witty verbal parrying and subtle admonitions. So I will communicate
> > this to you in a way your feeble intellect will comprehend. STOP BEING
> > A SHIT HEAD AND START RESPECTING OTHERS PRIVACY AND TIME.
> >
> > Darren Garrison, go to hell, styx that is.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Varney
> >
> > Department of Physics
> >
> > Colorado State University
Ahh, PU forged my post.
> Hey, you two guys, slow down there, calm down, don't be killing off
> each other or making these threats on the Net. Remember there are old
> and mature and polite people who read the Net. Besides, I need you two
> to show how good white and true I am, compared to you two dark horses,
> in German I believe that is translated Schwarz Ferd.
>
> With love,
> Archimedes Plutonium
You, PU, translated in German, are Adolf Hitler. (Only with less
brains, shorter penis, and less hair.)
Say goodbye to your net access.
--
Michael Varney
Department of Physics
Colorado State University
*************************************************************************
If as*holes could fly, it would be perpetually dark!
Of course, one kind person will lift the darkness.
*************************************************************************
mcvarney@holly.colostate.edu
http://holly.colostate.edu/~mcvarney
Copyright 1996.
If the original content of this authors document is altered, the
offending person or persons will be subject to fines.
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: Matt Austern
Date: 02 Sep 1996 18:35:50 -0700
Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
> >What do you think is the difference between a theory and a fact?
>
> >This isn't a rhetorical question: it's quite fundamental to
> >epistemology, and reasonable people can and do disagree about
> >the answer.
>
> The term 'lesser minds' was unfortunate and unnecessarily provocative.
> I understand your taking umbrage and I take your point. As to the
> difference between theory and fact? My understanding was it was
> proof.
Well, that's one way to define the difference; it's a rather
unconventional way to define it, but that's OK. The big problem,
though is that it begs the question of just what "proof" means.
Given this definition, for example, I can't tell whether the following
statements are facts, theories, both, or neither:
If c is the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle
and a and b are the lengths of the other two sides, then
c^2 = a^2 + b^2.
Earth is (approximately) 150 million kilometers from the Sun.
Jupiter is the most massive planet in the Solar System.
The chemical formula of table salt is NaCl.
There is one stable isotope of carbon, and a nucleus of that
isotope consists of 6 protons and 6 neutrons.
The kinetic energy of a particle whose mass is m and whose
speed is v is m c^2 (1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) - 1).
The energy of an electrostatic field is proportional to
the integral of |E|^2, where E(x) is the electric field
at point x.
The majority of United States citizens can speak English.
Richard Nixon is dead.
Bill Gates has a lot of money.
The French lost the Battle of Waterloo.
The Romans won the Third Punic War.
The first people in North America arrived here somewhere between
10 and 20 thousand years ago.
Subject: Re: One ugly threat of violence begets another Re: Varney & Garrison
From: DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 03:26:39 GMT
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
>From: DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison)
>Date: 1996/09/02
>Message-Id: <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
>Organization: Concentric Internet Services
>
>
>
>In article <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
>DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison) writes:
>
>> Michael Varney will probably never realize that he is so screwed up. The
>> bad news it that he will probably die thinking that he is an
>> unappreciated genius. The good news is that Varney will die.
>
>
>In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
>Michael Varney writes:
>
>> Michael Varney
>>
>> Department of Physics
>>
>> Colorado State University
>
> Hey, you two guys, slow down there, calm down, don't be killing off
>each other or making these threats on the Net. Remember there are old
>and mature and polite people who read the Net. Besides, I need you two
>to show how good white and true I am, compared to you two dark horses,
>in German I believe that is translated Schwarz Ferd.
>
> With love,
>Archimedes Plutonium
Okay, Archie, I'll even go so far as to apologize to you for that
remark that I made. It was meant as a slightly witty quip, but it may
well have been tasteless. ( I would make this reply via e-mail, but
you appear to no longer be accepting it) Honestly, I don't hate you--
I pity you. I would help you-- I really would-- if it were in my
power. You are obviously very intelligent, which is to your credit.
You obviously care a great deal about science and knowledge, which is
to your credit. Looking at your postings here and at your web pages,
I'd like to think that you simply have a strange sense of humor. And
I could think that, IF you had been posting this for only a few days
or weeks in stead of years. But I don't think that anyone could keep
a joke going that long. So I have to come to the unfortunate
conclusion that you really do belive in much of what you say.
(Although, I must admit, I still have a difficult time beliving that
you actually believe those prayers to the atom that you have been
posting.) Some of the stuff you publish is actually reasonable-- but
most of it that I've seen is total nonsense. Like, take, for
instance, your Whole Atom Totality.... according to one of your web
pages, you looked up at the stars in the sky and realized that it
looked much like a diagram in a science text of the electron cloud
around an atom... but rather than realize that the dots were merely
printed representations of the areas of mathemtical probibility within
which a given electron is likely to fall, you drew the conclusion that
the dots were REAL, and that every object in the universe is a dot in
an atom of Plutonium. And your "every photon has perfect DNA" idea--
because photons can decay into neutrino pairs (I think that's what you
said) and because DNA can break into two strands, then a photon must
contain DNA. Apparently, you have a serious problem seperating
analogy from reality-- if something LOOKS similar to something, it
must BE that thing. You, in a web page, list all some people that you
concider to be geniuses who are in your lineage, and then go on to
claim your own genius. And you very well may have a genius IQ-- I've
seen indications that it is possible. But the problem arises from the
fact that with your genius, and with your love of science, you want to
be a revolutionary-- you want to make a basic discovery that will
leave you remembered long after you are dead. And most of us here
would like that. But, you, me, and most people here will never have
that. Most of us have learned to accept that and get on with our
lives, but you haven't been able to accept that. So you continue to
think that you have found fundamental answers to problems and that,
even if you aren't appreciated in your lifetime, then you WILL be
appreciated eventually. You think this because you NEED to, because
any other idea would be unacceptable to you. And again, I pity you
for that. I wish that you could get serious psycological help and
become a healthy, mentally sound member of society and usenet. I wish
you could learn to accept youself for who you are, Ludwig Whoever,
without having to hide behind the persona Archimedes Plutonium.
People here might have liked you if you could. But you can't-- you
can't accept that, like most of us (myself included) your life won't
be the exciting, world-changing one that you dreamed of and planned
for in your youth. Most of us have those dreams-- we will be great,
we will be famous, and rich, and loved by everyone, and will change
the world. But most of us have to slowly accept that this will not be
as our early dreams slip away. Many people find peace with that in
religion, many in a spouse and family, many just turn bitter, and
quite a few commit suicide. But you need to be Archimedes Plutonium,
the great, unappreciated genus. Rather than face an unplesant
reality, you withdraw into you own fantasies.
I have posted serious replys to posts of yours in the past-- like in a
thread about Jovan planets merging to become a star. But you never
follow up those messages. I should have known better-- I had been on
Usenet long enough to get a good idea of what your mind must be like--
but I replied anyway-- but I always felt a little cruel and petty
doing so-- you are obviously disturbed-- I felt like a cruel child
poking a sick dog with a stick (as I do with this post, but I think
you earned this when you forged and posted fake messages from myself
and Varney.) I resolved to no longer post replies to you-- to simply
delete all messages from you as I do with mister BLOW UP THE MOON.
And I promise to you, Archimedes Plutonium, that you will never have
to worry about seeing another message from me to you again. This is
the last one. I forgive you for forging a message from me. I hope
that you are able to forgive me for holding up a mirror to you. (And
I hope the readers of these newsgroups will forgive me for this large
off-topic reply. Please keep in mind, AP isn't accepting e-mail)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:54:10 -0700
In article <322B889B.4B1A@cerca.umontreal.ca>, Pascal Tremblay says...
> > Lefty KreouzisIf it was true that life evolves toward a more optimal state
than why
> life has evolved from the state of a bacteria ( that does not die but
> divide itself to multiply ...) to a more complexe fragile state?
>
> Theories of evolution that suggest that adapting to the environement is
> the sole motivation for evolution are necessery flawed because more
> complexe form of life are less stable than simpler form and yet life
> strive for higher complexity. Furthermore, those theories do not
> provide complete or remotely satisfying explanation of the mecanism by
> which transformation may occur (random genetic mutation is not an a
> complete explanation, but only a specullative one).
>
> Pascal
Go to your nearest university library, (it, ~shudder~, should be easy
since your using--as amazing as it seems--a university e-mail address), and
check out a copy of _The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity,evolution,
and Inheritance_, by Ernst Mayer.
After you finish perhaps you will at least have some clue about the
subject you're trying to talk about.
Right now your ignorance is painful. It'd be easier to explain an
internal combustion engine to an aboriginee.
Ciao.
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent
http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/Library/intraits.html
* * *
He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: wilkins@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 13:20:24 +1000
In article <50fsmn$3om@bristlecone.together.net>, Terran@pwshift.com
(Terran) wrote:
| Matt Austern wrote:
|
| >Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
|
| >> I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
| >> read 'Origins of Species.' Darwin himself stated that without the
| >> discovery of an intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.
| >> Granted, when pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a
| >> theory, yet it is taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.
|
| >What do you think is the difference between a theory and a fact?
|
| >This isn't a rhetorical question: it's quite fundamental to
| >epistemology, and reasonable people can and do disagree about
| >the answer.
|
| The term 'lesser minds' was unfortunate and unnecessarily provocative.
| I understand your taking umbrage and I take your point. As to the
| difference between theory and fact? My understanding was it was
| proof.
|
BZZZTTT! Thank you for playing. Next contestant, please.
The difference between theory and fact is long debated and not at all
simple. Some believe that theory determines fact, as in the
Weltanschauungen philosophies such as one interpretation of Kuhn and
Feyerabend's views. Others believe that fact is exceptionally well
established belief in a web of beliefs, such as Quine. Others believe that
fact is what can be "cashed out" in practice: these are the pragmatists.
There are numerous philosophical distinctions about facticity and
theoreticity, and here is the kicker: scientists go on using relatively
plain senses of the terms anyway. But they have learned from 20thC
philosophical debates. One thing they have learned is that you cannot
"prove" any law of physical science, nor can you establish in any theory
neutral manner an observation statement. You always start _in media res_.
When Stephen Jay Gould argued that a fact is a proposition the truth of
which it would be perverse to withhold consent from, he was not being
perverse himself, but rather taking into account the complexities of
modern epistemology. But there is one thing that is true of facticity that
all agree upon; a fact is something that is very hard to abandon
rationally.
By that understanding, evolution is a fact - living things change over
time, and no rational person considering the evidence can deny it.
Explanations about why that happens are graded from fact (natural
selection occurs within populations, period) to hypothesis (some hold that
selection isn't all that accounts for above-species change).
It might help if all those "critics" of evolutionary science went and
learnt some recent philosophy of science and epistemology. Then we'd get
more intelligent rebuttals than the stock "evolution-is-just-a-theory"
crap. God help us, though: we might start hearing that trite
"evolution-is-a-tautology" crap more frequently. A little reading is a
dangerous thing.
--
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research
It is the glory of science that it finds the patterns
in spite of the noise - Daniel Dennett
Subject: Mining Geology Discussion Group
From: Craig Morley
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:11:12 +1000
The Mining Geology Discussion Group is finally up and running!!!!!!
Sorry to those who have not heard anything for a while, and thanks to all
those who have helped.
The group is called GEOMINE and is using e-mail to conduct discussions on
all things related to mining geology.
The vision is to create a world wide network of mine based geologists,
and mining related geologists, that interact through discussion to
exchange information, solve problems, and advance the applied science of
Mining Geology.
The objectives are;
1. To build a network of links between geologists based at mine sites in
order to increase communication and facilitate discussion of issues
specifically related to Mining Geology.
2. To enhance the input into these discussions by including non-mine
based professionals such as academics, software developers, consultants,
and other such people interested in Mining Geology.
Thanks to the generosity of Robertson Info-Data Inc. in Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, we have a server up and running. You can visit the site to see a
list of mentors, other info, and subscribe from;
http://www.info-mine.com/technomine/ege/geominesrv.html
or send an e-mail message to;
listproc@info-mine.com
with the words "Subscribe GEOMINE your e-mail address" in the content.
If you wish to post a message, article, question, etc. to the GEOMINE
audience send an e-mail to;
geomine@info-mine.com
with your message in the main body of the e-mail.
All interested parties are welcome to subscribe.
Cheers
Craig Morley
Subject: Re: Copperhill, Tenn
From: paul_d@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au (Paul Davidson)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 11:20:07 +1000
Henry Hillbrath wrote:
> (snip)
> My understanding is that they use to mine copper sulfate, and roast it,
> releasing the SO2. Now, they apparently keep the SO2, what the heck
> happens to the copper?
>
> Or, is there some other sulfate they are now mining. And, if so, what is
> the metal associated with it?
The main mineral mined now is probably pyrite (Iron Sulphide) this
probably comprised most of the mined rock and the smelting was aimed at
removing it and anything else besides the copper.
Now they probably mine rock with poor copper content but high pyrite
content (too poor to mine for copper alone), and if they recover any
copper then that is a bonus.
PS I do not know anything about Copperhill, Tenn, but I would expect
that they mined copper sulphide not copper sulphate, since copper sulphate
(Atacamite ?) is soluable and is rarely mined (the deposits in the Atacama
desert in Peru is the big exception).
Yours Faithfully
Paul Davidson