|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.
|A fact from Hamza River appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 September 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
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). --188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It's in the news!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14693637 -- megA (talk) 16:35, 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?
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)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)