Comments on the State of Engineering Geology

I ran across an article today that I thought that I would share with my colleagues. I will send via email if I have yours - if you don't receive it say by Xmas Day, email me at:
bohica dot friess at bigfoot dot com. - off to play some touch rugby - hoping not to break a leg!

 

[BigH]

sorry - fries no friess !

 

[Mccoy]

One sentence was particularly significant to me:
"Nobody would seem to question the accuracy and interpretation of a reconnaissance-level geological map, once it is published, most assume it to be as accurate a portrayal as possible"

I ensure you that's perfectly true: geological maps are not guaranteed to be accurate, the larger the scale, the truer this is. Maybe the surveyor was not a specialist in that successione, may be he was a structuralist more than a stratigraphist, may be some of his assistants (in wide areas you can't do it all by yourself)were not up to the job....
And, where there are no outcrops, it's all guesswork, no matter how experienced you can be.

All the geological maps I used had some flaws, a guarantee is the surveyor's overall skill, and specific skill in that particular terrain (sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic) and stratigraphy.
All features on maps MUST be verified by more field work and tests/drillings.

 

[emmgjld]

Big H

My email to you bounced back. Probably my blind fingers.
I would be interested in the State of Engineering Geology article.
gjldem at netscape dot net

 

[BigH]

Sent out under another email site.