Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems

FYI: has a of has 2 ions in dissolution so ... Anything with a solubility less than .01M is considered insoluble: Solubility Rules (applied in order given):1. Most alkali metal salts and ammonium salts are soluble.
2. Most nitrates, acetates, and perchlorates are are soluble.
3. Most silver, lead, and mercury(I) salts are insoluble.
4. Most chlorides, bromides, and iodides are soluble.
5. Most carbonates, chromates, sulfates, oxides, phosphates, and hydroxides are insoluble except for hydroxides of which are slightly soluble.
6. Most sulfates are soluble, except for calcium sulfate and barium sulfate which are insoluble.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Nice work RAZD ...

quote:

---

Three geologists from the University of New Mexico have explored caves along the Grand Canyon, ranging from the very bottom to the rim.

---

What a freakin great job to have! A couple questions ...

quote:

---

and the lowest ones date to about 800,000 years.

---

1. I am surprised that the youngest speleotherms date to 800,000 years. Why so "old"? Have they stopped forming? Or is U/Pb dating not effective at younger ages? The canyon is still eroding right?
-------------

quote:

---

Chronology and inferred incision data indicate that the Grand Canyon evolved via headward erosion from west to east

---

2. The evidence seems rather convincing that the canyon formed west to east rather than the more expected direction of east to west. But if it did, wouldn't we find significant deposits of material form the east canyon in the western canyon? Is this the case?
-------------

quote:

---

they report that the highest caves have mammilary coatings dating back about 17 million years, and the lowest ones date to about 800,000 years. And all the caves between the top and bottom have the intermediate ages you’d expect.

---

3. I do not have access to the original article, but did they publish the data from all the points they measured? It would be interesting to create a map that used that data to show the progression of canyon formation over the suggested time frame.
-------------

quote:

---

Kent Hovind and his (bad) argument(b) for how the Grand Canyon was made

---

4. Is there any evidence of such an enormous lake at the top of the canyon that could have breached the plateau? Such a huge lake would have left evidence! It seems that I remember reading something about marine (or at least aquatic) deposits in the west.HBD

Good point. No, general chemistry rules usually have exceptions that why they say "most" at the beginning of most rules I copied the rules from my general chemistry text, but it is odd that NaOH and LiOH don't fit into the general rules. Looking closer at the text, the rules are given to predict the products of double-replacement reactions and so maybe they don't include strong bases because they would not be the product of a double-replacement reaction. I think it is meant as a general guide to the solubility of salts. That would work for this issue, but I think it they may have left out other ionic compounds besides just Group IA hydroxides - like cyanides and oxalates.HBD

I was thinking more like sediment deposition in the lower canyon with upper canyon sediment. Sort of like this:If east to west; young sediments (from the east) would be deposited in young formations (in the west).If west to east; young sediments (from the east) would be deposited in older formations (in the west).Does that make sense what I am asking?? Or maybe divine insight? I have company coming in a little while. I may do some digging regarding these purported lakes later today.ThanksHBD