Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Hayabusa <peregrine@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:28:37 +0100
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:49:24 +1300, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All of this started when you wrote
"The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely
predicate was a bit "swampy" or "boggy";"
The KRS was found near the top of a hill and I have never previously
heard the point of discovery discovered as either swampy or boggy. I
then suggested that you might be jumping to a conclusion here and gave
my reasons why. (see above)
If I may interject (without taking sides): whether the KRS was on a
hill or in a swamp doesn't really matter. What matters is that it was
embedded in soil, and this I know, there was this tree grown over it.
Soils in this area are largely acidic. Maybe not as acidic as a fully
developed swamp, but certainly not basic and far from neutral.
fkoe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: prd
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- References:
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Hayabusa
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- Prev by Date: Re: Celtic Origins
- Next by Date: Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- Previous by thread: Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- Next by thread: Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|