home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uwm.edu!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
- From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Subject: Re: Uranium abundance on Earth
- Message-ID: <BxDu9t.8qB.1@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: 8 Nov 92 05:36:35 GMT
- Sender: news+@cs.cmu.edu
- Distribution: sci
- Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
- Lines: 25
- Approved: bboard-news_gateway
- X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
- Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
-
-
- -From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
- -Subject: Re: Ten embarrassed questions about the moon (very long)
- -Date: 7 Nov 92 23:02:31 GMT
- -Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
-
- -In article <BxD5Hz.Ewt.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
- ...
- -> The total lunar abundance of uranium is thought to be about 60 ppb,
- -> and thorium about 230 ppb. The only figure I could find for the Earth
- -> was 2.7 ppb in the crust.
-
- -The figure you have for terrestrial uranium is wrong: uranium is
- -about 1000x more abundant than that in the earth's crust.
-
- "About" understates the case - I read the number right from a table in the
- CRC Handbook, where it was listed as "2.7 x 10^0 mg/kg". In the heat of the
- moment, I stuck in an extra factor of 1000. Oops! There seems to be a lot
- of this going around lately. So make that 2.7 ppm.
-
- Thanks for the correction. (And boos and hisses to the editor who thought
- that was a good way to set up an abundance table. :-)
-
- John Roberts
- roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
-