Posted on 08/24/2020 4:49:47 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Rio Tinto on May 24 did what mining companies do — blast land to make it easier to access minerals. In doing so, however, Rio Tinto destroyed two 46,000-year-old caves in Western Australia, despite being warned that the area was “one of the most archaeologically significant sites in Australia,” and having its own heritage team request a delay.
The report said Rio Tinto RIO, +0.47% RIO, +0.95% RIO, +0.18%produced three options to reach the iron ore without blasting the caves — and never shared these options with the PKKP. Jacques has previously testified picking one of the three other options would have cost the company $135 million, as it would not have been able to access 8 million metric tons of iron ore.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Maybe AntiFa should start billing itself as into claiming bronze scrap metal?
Yeah, you shouldn’t have done that.
How do they know the caves were 46,000 years old?
They checked the records at the county assessor’s office?
Cute, no cigar. :)
Perfect post to this!
“two 46,000-year-old caves”
Is the issue that the caves were too old, or too new? What, exactly, is the typical age of a cave?
Or maybe the twisted news is that there were human artifacts in the caves estimated to be 46,000 years old?
Carbon dating human made/acquired items in the cave.
By which they mean the cave had been occupied by humans 46k years ago.
Not that Nature created the cave 46k years ago. If it was just caves without any evidence of ancient human occupation it would not have any archaeological or cultural significance.
“It was an ugly cave anyway.”
Rio Tinto
She was great in Total Recall
Just adding to the evidence that the British were the first to arrive in Australia.
The Dutch discovered Australia.
Yeah like just because the half life is 5,730 ± 40 years doesn't mean that was the half life 40,000 years ago.
I think you Just proved to everyone here that you are a nut-case.
“carbon dating is a sham” is a sham.
Take a biochemistry class.
The reader should not have to infer what you clearly explained. Your explanation is clear, simple and easy to understand. Author Steve Goldstein should find a new line of work. Do you want a job?
Did you do the math? Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish —Euripedes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.