In a message dated 04/04/2006, geodynamics@....... writes:

I'm not  at all amused about the upcoming "event"


Hi Tim,
 
    Thanks for the useful reference information. It  will be most interesting 
to observe what magnitude of quake is actually produced  by the known mass of 
explosive and how the 'signature' varies with  distance and soil type. 
    And if anything does go wrong, you will just get  some well distributed 
airbourne fertiliser, but do avoid the downwind plume. It  could have fine 
silicate material (carcinogenic) and N2O.
 
    Regards,
 
    Chris Chapman






In a message dated 04/04/2006, geodynamics@....... writes:
<=
FONT=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=
=3D2>I'm not=20
  at all amused about the upcoming "event"

Hi Tim,
 
    Thanks for the useful reference information. It=
=20
will be most interesting to observe what magnitude of quake is actually prod=
uced=20
by the known mass of explosive and how the 'signature' varies wi=
th=20
distance and soil type. 
    And if anything does go wrong, you will just ge=
t=20
some well distributed airbourne fertiliser, but do avoid the downwind plume.=
 It=20
could have fine silicate material (carcinogenic) and N2O.
 
    Regards,
 
    Chris Chapman