I want help I am currently working search for antioxidants in types of Yemeni honey, I have a chemical that I could not find it they do not exist in Yemen, it can be provided by me ..Please continue with me ...........

Article Name

2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl

Asaad Ataa

[email protected]

00967733957373

Tsunami are chaotic in origin - cyclones are seasonal. Should be a clear distinguishing randomness evident in the tsunami sequence in sediments - while cyclonic events should correlate with other seasonal influences (compare with grain size variations). It may be worth considering statistical analysis such as Markov Chain Analysis to assess any rhythmic signature

Are you aware of (I'm sure you would have come across him) Dale Dominey-Howes, Department of Physical Geography.

I read a while ago, some of his articles on paleotsunami signature deposition.

In order to distinguish tsunami you should look at some geomorphological features that match with tsunami signature (such as imbrication, reworked material, marine micro-fauna, foraminifera, multimodal and non sorted chaotic particle size composition and the geochemistry of the ash).

Maybe you can find useful this:

Geoarhaeological tsunami deposits at Palikastro (Crete) and the Late Minoan IA eruption of Santorini.

H.J. Bruins, J.A. MacGillivray, C.E. Synolakis. C. Benjamini, J. Keller, H.J. Kish, A. Klugel, J.van der Plicht

Journal of archaeological science, 35, 1, 2008, p. 191-212

I know some interestings papers from Joaquin Rodriguez Vidal concerning this subject in southwestern Spain

Its usualy through a weight of evidence approach, see Switser and Jones, 2008 (Holocene) papers and Phd on tsunami signatures off the NSW australian coast and nore recently Donato et al , 2008, 2009 (geology) on simple bivalve taphonomy, a procedure I used in Little Swanport estuary (in submitted thesis, unpublished). Also, depending on the site, you really need to consider other high enery events, so as not to undermine you hypothesis choice. This is not currently done but weak and at worst wrong in my opnion. The two are floods and king tides on bivalve taphonomy. There is nothing on floods that I am aware other than looking at the nature of the species that may be transported from the upper to lower estuary. However , I have observed that during floods of Bream Creek (Tasmania) left a very broken and fragmented dominated mussel shell pattern not usually seen on the beach. But the tidal effect on bivalve taphonomy has been looked at by

Dent and Uhen, 1993 (Palaios). I have also observed lots of shell debris floating into the Little Samport estuaryu during KIng tides and being deposited on to the oyster racks to the annoyance of the farmers.

Hope this is useful. I can post a copy of the chapter here once the thesis is marked

John Barry Gallagher

Here are a few references for distinguishing between storm and tsunami deposits based on sedimentology.

Atwater, B.F., ten Brink, U.S., Buckley, M., Halley, R.S., Jaffe, B.E., Lopez-Venegas, A.M., Reinhardt, E.G., Tuttle, M.P., Watt, S., Wei, Y., 2012. Geomorphic and stratigraphic evidence for an unusual tsunami or storm a few centuries ago at Anegada, British Virgin Islands. Natural Hazards 63, 51–84.

Goff, J.,McFadgen, B.G., Chagué-Goff, C., 2004. Sedimentary differences between the 2002 Easter storm and the 15th-century Okoropunga tsunami, southeastern North Island, New Zealand. Marine Geology 204, 235–250.

Leatherman, S.P., 1981. Overwash Processes. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company. Stroudsburg, Pa: Benchmark Papers in Geology, 58.

Morton, R.A., Gelfenbaum, G., Jaffe, B.E., 2007. Physical criteria for distinguishing sandy tsunami and storm deposits usingmodern examples. Sedimentary Geology 200, 184–207.

Nanayama, F., Shigeno, K., Satake, K., Shimokawa, K., Koitabashi, S., Miyasaka, S., Ishii, M., 2000. Sedimentary differences between the 1993 Hokkaido-nansei-oki tsunami and the 1959 Miyakojima typhoon at Taisei, southwestern Hokkaido, northern Japan. Sedimentary Geology 135, 255–264.

Switzer, A.D., Jones, B.G., 2008. Large-scale washover sedimentation in a freshwater lagoon from the southeast Australian coast: sea-level change, tsunami or exceptionally large storm? The Holocene 18, 787–803.

Hi,

All are correct, but in practice it is never that simple, especially if you work from a single core. I also used to believe that storm deposits would be more chaotic than tsunamis, but as the images of the 2011 Tohoku event has shown tsunamis can produce 'chaotic' deposits depending on the type of landcover and the extend of sea-retreat.... and this year's storm surge in the Philippines looks (so far) very much like what tsunamis can produce.

Overall, a combination of proxies remains the best approach... but the way you are going to read those proxies will depend very much of the site you are working on.

Good luck

Chris

Previously I indicated it is possible to use a weight of evidence apraoch to identfying possible tsunami deposits from both cyclonic ,floods ad king tides (bringing in terrestrial and other shell deposits aslo associated with tsunamis. I now refer to my PhD in eprints accesiable on line at the university of Tasmania which outlines the appraoch and the evidence of a tsunami within an estuary from the 1960 Chileano tsunami (Gallagher 2013, Natural and anthropogenic regime variance of a seagrass ecosystem: A late Anthropocene palaeo-reconstruction).

It is not very simple and study area dependent, in my opinion the only way to make the difference between these two type of events is to apply a spatial approach with cores transects along and across the barrier. Because paleostorm event produce washover fan where the sandy barrier was weak, while paleotsunami produce a more homogenous sandy and pebble sheet over the whole costal area. Once this type of deposit identified with this spatial approach you can extract the main characters of both events (grain size, fauna content, organic matter, geochemistry, clay mineral...) and apply these proxies to a long core.

Best regards

Pierre Sabatier