Re: a simple test of Flood geology

Allen Roy (
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:51:22 -0700 (MST)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
> HF treatment is one of the gentler things that is routinely done in
> processing palynomorphs.

Howe, et. al. said:
"Before undertaking the laboratory work, we discussed the sample
dissolution procedures with several palynologists and analytical
chemists. They warned that if the fossil pollen was silicified within
the shale matrix, excessive time in HF solutions would destroy the
grains. Many of the samples were completely dissolved in the HCL
solution rendering the HF dissolution step unnecessary. The HF
dissolution was only to be employed if the rock had not been
completely dissolved in the HCL solution."

Did you take this into account in your procedures, or follow Doher to the

> What was the color? Were they flattened. should they have been
> >flattened?
> They had the appearance of modern contamination.
> Did HF destroy your pollen.
> No.

So, are you saying that despite the extreme carefulness of your
procedures, you had contamination by pollen which could not be destroyed
by the HF (i.e. modern pollen)? How do you know for certain that you
did not destroy any silicified fossil pollen with the HF? Did you check
the samples before the HF and then after?

I also noted that you published on the topic in 1973 and 1981. Howe, published in 86, 87, and 88. Where can I find your latest
material on the subject, where you addressed the concerns of Howe,

Allen Roy