IN
{
}
Odum got the value for sea water arcund 10 — which I think is right.
He reports the figure of 9.23.
Didntt you have Knollts figures?
Knoll gives two values, 8 ad 9, for surface and subsurface waters.
What I was getting at, Knoll aleo ran. some reeks - didn't he? —
feldspars and things like that? Hew, aleo esil is rock flour and
alay, and it is very hard to sec why there should be 2 10 or a 100
fold enrichment over the reck flour which I think reads 1-2 on the
scale.
In the neighborhoad ef 2 — probably « little higher.
That was Enollts data and I think the theory was rather carefully
done, so that is all the data we have on the esil, but I think there
should be a question mark after it on that basis.
It is true that these figures have to be looked at very carefully,
at least a derivation of these ratios causes uncertainty in the
values of the measurements.
The natural water would cut right through some of these soil.
You see the water value there, so maybe the soil represents more
nearly the water valus, and the deeper rocks not.
There is some evidence of that exchange to the sea.
;
=
|]
| 7
Sy
.
DOE ARCHIVES