|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scott's Hut article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject New Zealand||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Antarctica / Ross Dependency||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Ok, very quickly. This article is sort of worthwhile - it's a tangible 'historic site', even getting a few tourists. As such we need to clarify its location. The article as it stands suggests that the hut was built during Scott's first expedition. Need to pin down when it was actually built. Also note that Scott, Bowers and Wilson are not buried on monument hill, although the remaining members of the 1910-1912 expedition raised a cross there as a memorial. Observer magazine (as I recollect) did a story with lots of photo's back in the early 70's. I've embarked on an Antarctic journey of sorts, via Aspley Cherry-Garrard, and will get back to this in due course.Tban 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have managed to sort out most of the confusion between Scott's Hut and the Discovery Hut. It remains to put in a section describing each hut, and their construction methods. Then another section should go in regarding efforts to preserve the huts, and a reference to how they are being used to study the (very slow) effects of mold and fungi in the Antarctic. Then - back in the history 'groove' need to make reference to how the Discovery Hut was used by Shackleton in 1907(?), and a side-reference to Shackletons hut at Cape Royd. And a sketch map might help.. And a short note about who first visited Scott's Hut at Cape Evans post-1913. Likely to be the US Navy (same time as the Discovery Hut was opened) but it would be nice to have confirmation.Tban 10:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Dicovery Hut v. Scott's Hut
Scott's Hut and Discovery Hut
From what I can see, these are two names for the same hut. I can't believe it's worth two articles, so I'm suggesting we merge into one, and I'm suggesting Scott's Hut by default because it's been on Wikipedia longer. Any thoughts or comments are welcome. --14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I take that back, upon further reading, they do appear to be seperate huts. -- 14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Rancidity != bacteria
Just a small observation, but the seal meat becoming rancid probably does not indicate the activity of bacteria. True rancidification can be a purely chemical process, and only requires exposure of fats and oils to either water or oxygen. Naturally the process slows down at low temperatures, but -- unlike bacterial attack -- it does not completely stop at any temperature.
It might also be interesting to discover if the reports of fungal attack on the timber are based on microbiological analysis, or simply on the physical condition of the timber. There are quite a few purely physical processes attacking these timbers, such as frost weathering. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)