Talk:Hamza River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Rivers (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject South America (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Geology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Hamza River is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brazil (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Aquifer[edit]

I removed the recent edit by an anonymous IP. The source did not specifically indicate that we are talking about the same phenomenon, as none of the same people, or institutions, were mentioned. The more recent sources all call it an underground river, not an aquifer, and say that it has been named the Hamza River officially. --Reign of Toads  13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The researchers themselves say it is an aquifer, not a conventional river (see the BBC article below). --80.171.174.240 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Duly noted! :-) --Reign of Toads  15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's in the news![edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14693637 -- megA (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is. I've tried to incorporate some of the discussion in the article -- some kind person has been helping with my reference syntax! Pufferfyshe (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and according to this it's not a river -- the BBC says "But Professor Hamza told BBC News that it was not a river in the conventional sense. "We have used the term 'river' in a more generic sense than the popular notion," he said." It's certainly not a subterranean river as described in that article -- it moves slower than a glacier. I don't think there's anyone, including Dr Hamas, is maintaining that it's an subterranean river like (say) the Mojave River etc. So I rewrote the lede to remove the claim that it's a river. Herostratus (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Well done. That was the reason I added the 'debate' section and much of the content therein; and also mentioned the quotation marks around "river" in the original paper title. The whole thing might well prove to be a case of good science, bad science reporting (initially). Pufferfyshe (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed "river" to "aquifer", in the Hamza disambig page, and removed the Hamza from the list of rivers in Brazil. I also removed some irrelevant categories and see alsos. --Reign of Toads  15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speleology in the see also section?[edit]

What precisely is the significance of speleology in this context (there is a link to speleology in the "See also" section)? I have understood that there is no cave involved in this case, but it is moving through porous rock. --Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. The links suit the tone and suggestions of the first popular media articles to treat the case, and need some weeding. Pufferfyshe (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
When the section was added, there wasn't much specific info on the nature of the "river" and it's geology. As it now seems to be an acquifer, and moving through rock, speleology is not relevant. --Reign of Toads  15:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction[edit]

The water in this aquifer has a high salt content, but is part of the explanation for an area of low salinity around the mouth of the Amazon. Please would someone with more understanding try to resolve this apparent contradiction. Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Researchers at the National Observatory were based on conjectures. They did not take into account the existing knowledge about the groundwater in the Amazon region. Their assumptions contradict all the accepted knowledge already established by geology, hydrology and geography. The Hamza river does not exist. It is large aquifer known by Brazilian science as Aquifer Alter-do-Chao. In its first 500 meters it is freshwater, used by many cities in the region. As the depth increases, the water becomes increasingly saline, creating a real "brine". It is likely that its waters do not reach, in depth, the Atlantic ocean, because there is a geological barrier. The waters at the mouth of the Amazon River are less saline because of the tremendous outfall of the River into the ocean. Obviously. Rita, Geologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.199.33.67 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)