TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Artifact Analysis => Topic started by: Joe Cerniglia on September 13, 2013, 03:39:27 PM
-
Our TIGHAR Research group, comprised of Bill Lockhart, Dr. Thomas King, Greg George and myself, are today releasing results of a year of research on the freckle ointment pot, which TIGHAR has generously published here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/freckleintime/FreckleInTime.html).
The full link is here:
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/freckleintime/FreckleInTime.html
In this report, we are sharing all our experiments and lab work. We invite further research and analysis by you, all AE Forum members past, present and future who actively wrestle with this "poor little jar," and to whom this paper is respectfully dedicated.
Special thanks also honor Ric Gillespie and Pat Thrasher, for the hours they spent reviewing, editing and completing and to the EPAC, which provided the critique it needed at critical moments, and to the expeditionaries of Niku VI (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/Niku6results.html), who recovered and brought this artifact back from Nikumaroro.
We invite all comments.
Cheers,
Greg George, Joe Cerniglia, Bill Lockhart, and Thomas King
September 13, 2013
-
Excellent! Excited to read it. Thank you for the effort and time spent doing this. Off to read now...
-
A very comprehensive report Joe, well done to the team. One point it does make very clear is that, until you have something physical and tangible in your hands then investigating and proving becomes extremely difficult. Images and photographs are open to opinion but, to have something in your hand that you can examine, test and investigate thoroughly is an advantage to say the least. Let's take this point on board and move on.
-
Excellent and very thorough job!
-
I've been lurking here for a while, but since I'm a scientist and not an aircraft researcher, never dreamed I would be posting.
My scientific background is relevant to this report, though, so here goes. This report is fascinating and thorough, and the conclusions are well thought-out.
I do see a couple of minor discrepancies having to do with the units reported on some of the analyses. These do not appear to affect any of the conclusions of the report, however, but I note them for clarity and also because I find it important to have correct units, because later researchers will often refer back to earlier reports and will rely on the units as reported.
The apparent discrepancies are:
Under "What did 2-9-S-1 contain?" this statement:
"The test results showed mercury in the interior at a level of 4 micrograms (µg) per 50 milliliters (ml) of solute."
The analytical reports by EAG show that the concentration in the liquid was 4 micrograms per liter. (The Coke bottle report by EAG shows it as 0.004 mg/L, which is the same as 4 ug/L.)
It appears, therefore, that there were 50 mL of leachate containing 4 ug/L of mercury, rather than 50 mL containing 4 ug of mercury. (4 ug in 50 mL would be 80 ug/L.)
The assumption that there were 50 mL containing 4 ug/L of mercury was used in the spreadsheet where this concentration was converted to a mass per surface area figure for comparison with background surfaces. On that spreadsheet, it appears that the units in cell A1 are ug/L, and in cell H1 should be ug Hg per cm2, not ug per liter per cm2. (The liters canceled out.)
Again, I think the numbers are correct, but if I'm following this then the units just need to be tweaked.
I'm now going to be away from computers for the next week. If I'm wrong here, please excuse me!
-
Great report and very informative!
That is one special jar. I like the map included that shows one of the pieces was far away from the others and has evidence of scraping.
-
The apparent discrepancies are:
Under "What did 2-9-S-1 contain?" this statement:
"The test results showed mercury in the interior at a level of 4 micrograms (µg) per 50 milliliters (ml) of solute."
The analytical reports by EAG show that the concentration in the liquid was 4 micrograms per liter. (The Coke bottle report by EAG shows it as 0.004 mg/L, which is the same as 4 ug/L.)
It appears, therefore, that there were 50 mL of leachate containing 4 ug/L of mercury, rather than 50 mL containing 4 ug of mercury. (4 ug in 50 mL would be 80 ug/L.)
Hi Jennifer. I will have our chemist review this. We may have neglected to state the concentration was converted on a liter basis. I want to make sure that is indeed what the lab did. If not, it would appear our Hg concentration is far higher than we supposed.
The assumption that there were 50 mL containing 4 ug/L of mercury was used in the spreadsheet where this concentration was converted to a mass per surface area figure for comparison with background surfaces. On that spreadsheet, it appears that the units in cell A1 are ug/L, and in cell H1 should be ug Hg per cm2, not ug per liter per cm2. (The liters canceled out.)
Again, I think the numbers are correct, but if I'm following this then the units just need to be tweaked.
I'm now going to be away from computers for the next week. If I'm wrong here, please excuse me!
Thanks for paying close attention. I believe we converted on the spreadsheet from ml to a liter basis.
I will get back in a few days.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
This is what I love about this place - you never know where the expertise is going to pop up.
And we treat everyone equally. They are all compensated at the going TIGHAR Researcher rate!
LTM, who managed to pass chemistry,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Joe, Jennifer is right about the Hg calculations. Further, in the spreadsheet you show the radius of the area rinsed with aqua regia as being 20 mm, so the total area would have been about 12.56 square centimeters, a good bit larger than a postage stamp with area of about 5 square centimeters. Better re-check that math (maybe the _diameter_ was 20 mm). Also, what was the mass of the dissolved glass shards? That's important to know to interpret the ppm shown in the report versus the amount of Hg recovered in the rinse.
Dan Brown, #2408
-
Joe, Jennifer is right about the Hg calculations. Further, in the spreadsheet you show the radius of the area rinsed with aqua regia as being 20 mm, so the total area would have been about 12.56 square centimeters, a good bit larger than a postage stamp with area of about 5 square centimeters. Better re-check that math (maybe the _diameter_ was 20 mm). Also, what was the mass of the dissolved glass shards? That's important to know to interpret the ppm shown in the report versus the amount of Hg recovered in the rinse.
Dan Brown, #2408
Hi Dan, The shard tested represented about 55% of the base, so the whole circle cannot be counted. You may be assuming I had 100% of the base area. At roughly one-half your calculated area, around 6.2 square cm, it's very close to the area of a postage stamp, which you cite as 5 square cm.
The total dissolving (digestion) of glass was for a different and unrelated experiment for glass elements, in pursuit of the question of when the jar might have been manufactured. I don't think that relates to the Hg but I may not understand your question.
Regarding Jennifer's comment, I've gone over the math and I think I was mistaken in how I calculated the concentration per surface area. The correct calculation should raise the amount by which Hg exceeds a clean background. I will follow up and fix this.
None of this invalidates the premise that the mercury was found on the inside of the shard of the jar at considerable quantity. But it's important to get this right and I will.
Joe Cerniglia ~ 3078ECR
-
To some extent it's apples and oranges, but by my calculations the testing recovered 0.2 micrograms of Hg from the interior surface rinse, and 8.9 micrograms of Hg from the chip (100 milligrams) of whole glass.
Dan Brown, #2408
-
We address the issue of the mercury in the glass head-on in the paper in footnote #16. You can be sure it generated a lot of discussion. We determined, happily, that the issue was entirely unrelated to mercury levels in the interior surface of the shard, for the reasons stated in the footnote.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
The better control is the rinse of the outer surface, which found no Hg above the limit of detection. That's pretty persuasive. The only other point I would comment on is the concluding assertion, "Mercury in ointments had a single purpose..." which is doubtful because the antiseptic properties of mercury were well-known at the time and many antiseptic ointments of that period contained ammoniated mercury.
All in all a thorough report and you guys have done a commendable job following up on it.
Dan Brown, #2408
-
...many antiseptic ointments of that period contained ammoniated mercury.
Dan, do you have evidence for this interesting assertion?
Thanks,
Jon
-
Jon, abundant evidence simply by Google, plus very many period newspaper ads. It's fact.
Dan Brown, #2408
-
Jon, abundant evidence simply by Google, plus very many period newspaper ads. It's fact.
Dan Brown, #2408
Links would be nice :)
-
Co-author and senior archaeologist Tom King weighed in today as well:
http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/2013/09/analysis-published-of-jar-from-seven.html
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Jennifer -
We felt we could best state the lab's direct results by simply reporting the amount of mercury found in an initially mercury free (i.e. undetectable) acid leachate. We chose not to convert units to a per area basis, as would typically be done in establishing mercury levels on a surface in order to clarify what we actually measured ... the concentration of an acid leachate applied to the surface.
You are correct that 4 micrograms per liter for 0.050 Liter of leachate represents 4 ug /L x (50 mL/1000 ml/L) = 0.2 micrograms of mercury from an area of rougly 6.2 square centimeters (although the area was irregular and difficult to establish exactly). This corresponds therefore to a surface coverage of 0.02 micrograms per square centimeter. Note that this measurement included a blank which was below the estimated 0.2 ug per Liter limit of detection.
I am remiss in not making clearer the strange use in units, which we will fix. Thank you for this comment. Again, our intent was to avoid building layers of assumptions into what we directly measured and what the lab directly reported.
At 4 ug/L, we are about 20x the method detection limit of 0.2 ug per liter. In fact, this level is about 100X the baseline level measured when wipe-testing drum surfaces at a typical "clean" industrial waste site, where this much mercury was found in nearly 100 square centimeters of wiping.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastetypes/universal/drumtop/app-f.pdf
- Greg
-
Dan -
It is important to understand that mercury recovered by a brief acid leach from the surface of a piece of glass cannot be compared with that extracted by total decomposition digestion of the glass in more aggressive acids. Low level mercury which is internal to the glass, and present in the glass matrix, is not available to the leaching procedure, other than the few atoms which poke through the glass surface.
We have established elsewhere that the permeation rate of leachate acid into the glass itself is of very low order, and therefore the mercury observed in the leach was not leached out of the glass but from the surface of the glass.
This would consistent with what we know about the form of mercury when baked in to glasses (matrix bound mercury metal sulfides and metal-bound oxides formed at furnace temperatures) as opposed to what is left by a medicinal cream (water insoluble, but acid soluble, refractory ammoniated mercury). Only surficial mecury is available to the leach procedure. Furthermore, most glasses of this era contain traces of mercury which is a tramp element in several of the glass additives used. This mercury can't account for the surface mercury, however.
- Greg
-
Chris, there are numerous articles and hundreds of ads for ammoniated mercury ointments in the period newspapers like the ones attached here. These are a random sample from 1937, I haven't searched for the earliest possible examples. So again, it's fact not assertion.
Greg, I am with you on the difference between surface and interior Hg, that's why I think the rinse of the outer surface is much more meaningful than the chip total.
Dan Brown, #2408
-
The objectionable sentence stated mercury in ointments had but a single purpose, which was to lighten skin. I still think in the timeframe of the early 20th Century that was arguably the chief purpose, but a better choice of words might have added mercury in ointments "sold in this style jar appear to have" had but a single purpose, which was to lighten skin. I readily concede the point should have been further refined.
It's easy to get tunnel vision in a writing project such as this one that occupies more than a year of preparation. In a number of instances, we curbed our enthusiasm and tried very hard not to oversell our arguments, but this is one case that slipped through. Good catch, Dan!
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
I've been lurking here for a while, but since I'm a scientist and not an aircraft researcher, never dreamed I would be posting.
My scientific background is relevant to this report, though, so here goes. This report is fascinating and thorough, and the conclusions are well thought-out.
I do see a couple of minor discrepancies having to do with the units reported on some of the analyses. These do not appear to affect any of the conclusions of the report, however, but I note them for clarity and also because I find it important to have correct units, because later researchers will often refer back to earlier reports and will rely on the units as reported.
The apparent discrepancies are:
Under "What did 2-9-S-1 contain?" this statement:
"The test results showed mercury in the interior at a level of 4 micrograms (µg) per 50 milliliters (ml) of solute."
The analytical reports by EAG show that the concentration in the liquid was 4 micrograms per liter. (The Coke bottle report by EAG shows it as 0.004 mg/L, which is the same as 4 ug/L.)
It appears, therefore, that there were 50 mL of leachate containing 4 ug/L of mercury, rather than 50 mL containing 4 ug of mercury. (4 ug in 50 mL would be 80 ug/L.)
The assumption that there were 50 mL containing 4 ug/L of mercury was used in the spreadsheet where this concentration was converted to a mass per surface area figure for comparison with background surfaces. On that spreadsheet, it appears that the units in cell A1 are ug/L, and in cell H1 should be ug Hg per cm2, not ug per liter per cm2. (The liters canceled out.)
Again, I think the numbers are correct, but if I'm following this then the units just need to be tweaked.
I'm now going to be away from computers for the next week. If I'm wrong here, please excuse me!
Jennifer,
I see now you are exactly correct. The units should only have been expressed in micrograms per liter. 4 mcg in 50 ml is incorrect. The concentration of Hg on the interior surface of 2-9-S-1 should be 4 mcg per 1 liter. The concentration of Hg on the interior surface of the authentic Dr. Berry's Freckle Ointment jar should be 120 mg per 1 liter. As Greg George has explained, we converted mcg per 1 liter back to the original concentration units in mcg per 50 ml (the original leachate volume after dilution) by dividing by 20. We did this to approximate as closely as possible the actual amount of mercury, .2 mcg, leached from the jar surface, and then we divide by surface area in order that we might have a means of comparing our Hg levels to standards of threshold contamination levels set by a state agency in New Jersey.
Notably, the calculation in the report of how many times our Hg levels exceeded the N.J. standard was correct, as you rightly suspected. The units, however, were misleading. Fortunately, we did not repeat the error in our tabular summary of results, which occurred later in the report. There, all results are expressed in micrograms per liter.
One problem of this error in units is that it could be interpreted as overstating the Hg by a factor of 20. Notably, you not only caught the error but figured out what we intended to say. Thanks very much for help in clarifying this point.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Thank you, Joe Cerniglia. Glad I could contribute!
As I said, I've been away from computers all week and was a bit rushed in my initial post, so I hoped that what I was saying was clear enough.
Initially, I only commented on the units issue, because units are a factual matter that could be resolved definitively. Now that I have a bit more time and I see there has been a bit more discussion of the comparison to standards: I admit to some hesitation about comparing the jar to industrial contamination standards, because such standards can be set for various reasons and purposes, and they can be based on a variety of factors (typical background / cost-benefit / health protection / etc.). It's possible that's not really an apples-to-apples comparison ...
However, in this context I think you have information that's even better: a comparison of the inside of the jar to the outside of the jar, and a comparison of the jar to the Coke bottle. To me, those comparisons are apples-to-apples and really persuasive.
And the research on the history of the jar and the glass company was impressive!
-
Joe,
Just wanted to offer a simple "thank you" for this engaging report, and the fine efforts of Mr. Lockhart, Dr. King, Mr. George and yourself.
I feel it's important to express that it's access to THIS kind of expert & thoughtful analysis (not to mention your reasoned and insightful responses to the forum discourse here) that is precisely why I am a TIGHAR member (Researcher level! :) ). I'm confident that I'm merely one of many, many, many who feel this way.
Not just trying to blow sunshine at you here, but yours, et. al. expert efforts toward this historic endeavor are inspiring as they are most impressive (and WAY cool 8) ).
I look forward to your next.
LTM, who always new a good thing when she saw it.
dp
-
The objectionable sentence stated mercury in ointments had but a single purpose, which was to lighten skin. I still think in the timeframe of the early 20th Century that was arguably the chief purpose, but a better choice of words might have added mercury in ointments "sold in this style jar appear to have" had but a single purpose, which was to lighten skin. I readily concede the point should have been further refined.
It is clear from the material that Dan Brown posted (thanks Dan!) that mercury was used medicinally in the 30's for more than lightening skin. We also have indications that this style jar may have been sold empty to pharmacists for dispensing locally compounded medicines, ointments, etc. Thus I question our ability to say there was a "single purpose" for the jar's contents, i.e. lightening skin. The ointment jar clearly contained mercury, but IMO the contents could have been compounded for a variety of purposes.
I very much admire the work and dedication that has gone into analyzing and researching the jar. I only wish that the results had taken us closer to Amelia, rather than (what appears to me to be) further away.
Jon
-
Your interpretation that 2-9-S-1 leads us away from Earhart is your interpretation. I respect that. Many could-haves are possible. The artifacts themselves could have been planted by someone intent on mimicking Earhart's presence. That is another interpretation. What we did was to try to take the specific available context - historical, other artifacts at the site, other jars in that style - and lay it out in the broadest way possible to let the reader decide what is probable, not what is known. The fact is we know very little, and very little here is knowable in the absolute sense. But what is knowable does not interest me half as much as what is probable. This is the basis for a hypothesis - a guess, and it's the way our scientific method works. It only takes a single generality to argue against a certainty - but then, we never claimed certainty.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
I don't think the analysis takes you farther from AE/FN, either. (If that type of jar were only sold or produced after 1937, for example, then that would take us farther from AE/FN.) Rather, all that we can tell about the jar and contents so far are consistent with AE's time period. Therefore, while she is not the only possible source of the jar, she is not excluded as a possible source.
-
Although we did try to be comprehensive in our paper (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/freckleintime/FreckleInTime.html), there were a few loose ends that we did not tie up or mention, simply because there was no consensus on them, and no way of creating consensus.
One of these was the subject of scratch marks inside one of the base fragments of the shard. This was the same fragment that we had analyzed by a lab for surface remnants. You should be able to see the scratches in the attached photo. Our group debated 4 possible causes. My question to the group for its discussion is: what (or who) caused these marks and why? There are no wrong answers, other than the frivolous. Feel free to be as specific as you wish. When the discussion peters, or even if it never begins, in a few days I'll go into more depth about the group's discussion and further questions it posed for possible follow-up.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Question! Do the scratches appear to be made before or after the object was broken?
-
Question! Do the scratches appear to be made before or after the object was broken?
That's a million-dollar question. I don't think it's answerable, but I may not be seeing the whole picture. Our 4 hypotheses on the causes were split 50-50 before and after - two ideas of how and why it could be done before, and two ideas of after.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
I woundered if the scratch marks ended before the break suggesting that they were made after the item was broken. If they carry on upto the break then I would suppose they were made before. If that makes sense.
-
Hmmm ... if the scratches were on the outside of the base, I could see a case for some type of coral abrasion. I don't have the specific hardnesses for glass and South Pacific coral memorized, but that sounds at least plausible to me.
Scratches inside the base, however ... if the glass was exposed to fire, that might make its surface soft enough to be scratched by a pocket knife, say. Or abraded by a fish bone. They look more like "scuff" marks as opposed to scratches to me, but that is in the eye of the beholder.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
What would be so important that you would need to scrape hard enough inside to damage the glass?
-
Hi Joe, Are the scratches you refer to the wide milky-color swaths with some distinctly parallel lines? Would you mind posting the picture again and circling the scratches? If I am seeing clearly what you mean, these remind me more of etching rather than scratching. But I want to be sure I am seeing what you refer to, as the arrows are only at the top of the photo, and these milky colored scrapes cover most of the (inside?) of the shard's bottom. Thanks, Lisa
-
Hi Lisa,
I would describe them as distinctly parallel lines, radiating, in most cases, from the concavity of the circle that is formed at its interior edge, to the center. I can come back and circle them if need be, but they cover a significant portion of the interior base of this particular shard. I imagine them, perhaps incorrectly, as having been "scraped" from edge to center. Here are some better photos. You can ignore the arrows in the first photo. They refer to a faint whitish haze we interpreted as remnants of the jar's original contents, which we discuss in our paper. We ignored the lines in the paper because we simply couldn't agree on what they were or might signify, although we have opinions.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
What would be so important that you would need to scrape hard enough inside to damage the glass?
Another excellent question. Think of all the phases of the jar's life cycle. At each of those points, when would a scratch be liable to be made?
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Hmmm ... if the scratches were on the outside of the base, I could see a case for some type of coral abrasion. I don't have the specific hardnesses for glass and South Pacific coral memorized, but that sounds at least plausible to me.
Scratches inside the base, however ... if the glass was exposed to fire, that might make its surface soft enough to be scratched by a pocket knife, say. Or abraded by a fish bone. They look more like "scuff" marks as opposed to scratches to me, but that is in the eye of the beholder.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Post-depositional wear is considered by our bottle guru and co-author, Bill Lockhart, to be a likely source. My first thought was, exactly as you imply, some type of use wear by a castaway or a finder. Why would a castaway or finder feel inclined, if he/she felt inclined, to make those scratches?
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR 3078ECR
-
I woundered if the scratch marks ended before the break suggesting that they were made after the item was broken. If they carry on up to the break then I would suppose they were made before. If that makes sense.
This is an excellent question. I'm not certain, however, whether examining the other shards would answer the question of whether they were made before or after deposition. It might. Our bottle expert believes that similar scratches on other shards could indicate a post-depositional wear pattern. He also stated that if the same scratches occur only on the insides of different shard pieces, not the outsides, then the idea also needs further consideration.
I don't know how the other shards look and have not photographed them in any type of detail. This is something Ric can do when he gets a spare moment, but meanwhile the discussion is interesting. Let it continue.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
So far, BTW, the group has generated 2 of the 4 reasons for the abrasions that our group hypothesized: Castaway, and post-depositional wear. Both of these are marks that can occur after the fragment reached the island. There are 2 other reasons we thought about for why the marks can occur before the fragment reached the island. Anyone care to take a crack at these? (Pun not intended.)
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Some form of cleaning cycle if the bottle is re used though it dosn't fit my recolection of the wear associated with re used 'coke' bottles.
-
Some form of cleaning cycle if the bottle is re used though it dosn't fit my recolection of the wear associated with re used 'coke' bottles.
I hadn't thought of a cleaning cycle. Interesting idea. Cleaning could occur after it reached the island too, but why? The idea of re-use is also interesting. Why would the jar be re-used? Would it be re-used for different purposes or the same purpose as its original use?
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Some random thoughts:
1) Other sources of mercury would include a broken thermometer, or mercury for an artificial horizon, or gun cartridge primers, or gun cleaning materials. The procedure for cleaning the British .303 Enfield requires pouring boiling hot water down the barrel, washing out the dissolved residue, for example. That was followed by swabbing with oiling by pulling a swab through. I would expect the resulting mercury compound to be distinctly different from that found in freckle cream.
2) Scratches on the interior bottom might be from a knife used to scrape out contents (think of your experience with peanut butter). That implies that the material was important, and that it didn't "pour". Another idea, built on item 1) is use of a jar to hold the oily cleaning lanyard and metal jag used for oiling a gun after cleaning. The metal jag or swab might scratch the glass.
3) White glass looks “medicinal” and pure, giving an impression of sanitary cleanliness. Clear glass shows off the contents, to appeal to potential buyers. What sort of thing would be easier to sell by appearance in a glass jar? Food items obviously (olives, cocktail onions, baby food), but non-food items as well. What is the color or appearance of freckle cream? Clear glass also shows the quantity of the contents. Is that a clue?
4) A high refraction index does not by itself protect from UV. However, high index glass is eye-catching, which is another marketing aspect that gives a clue to the type of contents.
-
2) Scratches on the interior bottom might be from a knife used to scrape out contents (think of your experience with peanut butter).
I was thinking stored/cooked foodstuff such as crab meat that had been stored in the jar and then scraped out with a sharp object such as a knife.
-
We ignored the lines in the paper because we simply couldn't agree on what they were or might signify, although we have opinions.
Joe, the lines that I see in the glass remind me of "stress fractures" that I have seen in metal aircraft parts that failed during use. Is it possible that a very thin layer of glass separated from the glass bottom of the jar when it was broken ie. a "stress fracture" in the bottom of the jar?
-
I'm certainly no glass expert but here's my opinion.
I can't see how these 'scratches' could have been made post-manufacturing.
There are two features annotated on the attachment. Imagine trying to scratch these into glass.
1. The scratches go over the sharp edge of a chip then down the side of the chip in a continuous path. I would expect the tool to 'jump' at the edge of the chip.
2. (Zoom In) These small 'scratches' are almost exactly parallel. It's really hard to image even a specialized tool to create such uniform marks. In addition, there are no microchips visible. Every time I've tried to scratch glass the edges had many micropits.
Overall, these marks appear to be way too uniform to be made by a survivor using a hand tool.
So, my uneducated guess is that something in the manufacturing process caused them. Maybe while cooling?
-
I'm certainly no glass expert but here's my opinion.
I can't see how these 'scratches' could have been made post-manufacturing.
There are two features annotated on the attachment. Imagine trying to scratch these into glass.
1. The scratches go over the sharp edge of a chip then down the side of the chip in a continuous path. I would expect the tool to 'jump' at the edge of the chip.
2. (Zoom In) These small 'scratches' are almost exactly parallel. It's really hard to image even a specialized tool to create such uniform marks. In addition, there are no microchips visible. Every time I've tried to scratch glass the edges had many micropits.
Overall, these marks appear to be way too uniform to be made by a survivor using a hand tool.
So, my uneducated guess is that something in the manufacturing process caused them. Maybe while cooling?
That's number 3 of our working hypotheses, a manufacturing anomaly. Great work! So far as I recall, the lines did not extend into any areas of the shard that were inaccessible while it was whole. In other words, the lines didn't extend into the chipped edges. What you have annotated is the concave side of the interior, into which the scratches extend. If the scratches had extended into the chipped edges, this would imply to me that they were formed after the jar was broken. (However, this only shows the marks COULD have been made prior to breakage; it does not prove they were made prior to breakage.) It's all surface wear on the inside, not the outside (aka, obverse or flat bottom portion). I have some additional data from our bottle guru to apply to this idea, but that will need to wait until I have it handy.
Edit: I just took another look at your photo, Doug, and I can see now the chip you're pointing out. As I recall, the inside of the chip appeared to be "fissured" in some way, but these fissures did not appear to correspond with the surface scratches. The direction of the marks shifted noticeably once you got into the chipped part of the surface. This is more easily seen when the shard is handled than in a photo. It is possible, however, that whatever marks exist on the shard may not be limited to a single event. We could be seeing multiple events over its lifetime.
Here is a clue (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ9f2rnjB84) as to a working hypothesis I had. What do you think?
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Caused by a mixer to mix the ingredients (say at a drug store) during local manufacturing?
Ted Campbell
-
Caused by a mixer to mix the ingredients (say at a drug store) during local manufacturing?
Ted Campbell
In a word, yes. That's what I was thinking, along with my friend Danny Kaye in the above "clue." The mixer to my mind could be your local, friendly, discerning (at least to attractive jars) and oh-so-discreet pharmacist.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Joe,
I couldn't make such precise nearly parallel lines on the glass without a specialized tool (or a diamond bracelet in some long forgotten TV show).
Do the 'scratches' show any micropitting or microchips as the the tool scraped along the surface? Do the scratches feel rough?
(Edit) Ted: Yes, using the bottle as a mortar with a pestle is a possibility. Rapid mixing could cause repetitive scratching, if the pestle were hard enough to scratch the mortar. In the photo, it appears the scratches could represent mixing from different directions.
In either case I can't see a survivor making the scratches. However if AE used compounded creams that could be significant.
-
For anyone who might be interested in another explanation of the lines in the "freckle cream jar", here is an article about the Hertzain cone (http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/33/64/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C8121.pdf) as it pertains to glass. I have also included an annotated picture of the area of the "freckle cream jar" in question and pictures of examples of glass fractures, including a Hertzain cone, for comparison.
-
That is another explanation, and I am interested, and very glad you brought it up. The Hertzian cone as it's described in the article seems to depend on some sort of projectile or object strike, if my fast reading is correct. We didn't find any clear evidence of projectile strikes, although a highly glanced blow is, I suppose, possible. The shard is fractured but shows no obvious central impact, or impact crater. A use wear expert examined other shards from the jar and did not note these types of features.
I like the concept but I'm having difficulty getting it to fit what I saw. But nothing is impossible.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
That is another explanation, and I am interested, and very glad you brought it up. The Hertzian cone as it's described in the article seems to depend on some sort of projectile or object strike, if my fast reading is correct. We didn't find any clear evidence of projectile strikes, although a highly glanced blow is, I suppose, possible. The shard is fractured but shows no obvious central impact, or impact crater. A use wear expert examined other shards from the jar and did not note these types of features.
I like the concept but I'm having difficulty getting it to fit what I saw. But nothing is impossible.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
Joe, most of what is shown in my picture 1 is, in my opinion, the "crater". What I think is the impact point I put the red box around in the same picture. The impact occurred on the opposite side of the jar (outside) and was a "low velocity impact", possibly caused by the jar being dropped on an object on the ground. The impact was also right at the edge of the thicker base of the jar. This distorted the crater and moved most of it off center to the left as you view the picture. If this impact occurred while the jar was still intact, the other part of the base will probably also have the fracturing or chipping inside like this part has.
-
Maybe. It's possible I can see stress lines where the radial scratches form into different zones.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Your suggestion has prompted me to read up on "fractography," a subject of which I'm unfamiliar (and with which I will only be slightly less unfamiliar after this post).
There's a type of glass damage called "Wallner lines," and it seems to fit. Here's the definition, as found here (http://www.asminternational.org/pdf/Fract_PFA.pdf):
Wallner lines are faint, striation-like markings formed by the interaction of stress waves reflected from
physical boundaries with the advancing crack front.
This FBI fact sheet (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2005/index.htm/standards/2005standards7.htm) on glass forensics talks about them as well.
C.W., you've led me to consider an obvious cause of the scratches - stress on the glass from shattering - that we had not considered. Due to its simplicity, it would be in my opinion a cause favorable to Occam. Once again, the Forum helps light the way!
As you can see, we were far too unsure of ourselves to mention this topic in our paper. I can see now that erring on the side of caution before consulting with this group was a wise move.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Bingo! Makes sense. Lisa
-
Your suggestion has prompted me to read up on "fractography," a subject of which I'm unfamiliar (and with which I will only be slightly less unfamiliar after this post)........
C.W., you've led me to consider an obvious cause of the scratches - stress on the glass from shattering - that we had not considered. Due to its simplicity, it would be in my opinion a cause favorable to Occam. Once again, the Forum helps light the way!
As you can see, we were far too unsure of ourselves to mention this topic in our paper. I can see now that erring on the side of caution before consulting with this group was a wise move.
Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
Joe, I don't claim to be a glass expert and my reason for bringing this up was to get you to do a little more research. I think I have done that and maybe helped you to solve the mystery.
You do good work. Keep it up.
-
See also conchoidal fracture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conchoidal_fracture) for information about glass fracture patterns (my wife's specialty): "...Conchoidal fractures often result in a curved breakage surface that resembles the rippling, gradual curves of a mussel shell; the word "conchoid" is derived from the word for this animal (Greek konche[1]). A swelling appears at the point of impact called the bulb of percussion. Shock waves emanating outwards from this point leave their mark on the stone as ripples. Other conchoidal features include small fissures emanating from the bulb of percussion..."
a tutorial on fracture analysis (http://www.asminternational.org/pdf/Fract_PFA.pdf)
and finally (warning: high geek content) , see also a really well done paper by an undergraduate student (http://www.tms.org/Students/Winners/Davidson/Davidson.html) that is NOT related to glass fractures.
-
More good stuff. Thanks John!
-
It was suggested that the freckle cream bottle may have washed ashore. From the description it would seem that it must have been broken by human hands, irregardless.
My question is whether anyone has determined whether such a bottle (which is apparently quite heavy) could have actually floated in water, and if so, how empty did it have to be in order to do so?
-
We don't know for certain that it is a freckle-cream jar. The great problem is that all freckle-cream jars found so far are milk glass, not transparent.
Maybe it's a shoe polish jar?
(https://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/6082421/il_570xN.297731327.jpg)
https://www.etsy.com/listing/89163394/two-old-jars-of-red-shoe-polish
-
We don't know for certain that it is a freckle-cream jar. The great problem is that all freckle-cream jars found so far are milk glass, not transparent.
Maybe it's a shoe polish jar?
A shoe polish that contains mercury?
It was conjectured that perhaps Dr Berry's Freckle cream was mixed by the pharmacist and put into a
clear glass jar, like the one found. Possibly, but I wondered whether Dr Berry's factory didn't produce two lines of their freckle cream, one low end, using the (presumably) cheaper milk glass for Sears customers and one high end for higher end retail shops. There would be no need to make any changes on their production line, except change the glass container, both of which were presumably the same size and shape. In the late 30's milk glass was getting rather old timey.
-
Some questions come to mind after reading attached article:
- Mentions commercial freckle treatments containing either "ammoniated mercury" or "bichloride of mercury"...is chemical analysis of mercury trace in the artifact able to confirm actual type of mercury detected ie is it one of these?
- Mentions reduction in mercury content in such creams in 40's...can anything be interpolated from the analysis of the mercury trace found as to the mercury concentration of the original contents?
http://cosmeticsandskin.com/aba/freckles.php
-
"...can anything be interpolated from the analysis of the mercury trace found as to the mercury concentration of the original contents?"
If the total mass of the material that had been leached off the jar had been measured, then a mercury concentration could be derived (concentration = mass of leached mercury / total mass of leached material). I don't think this was measured, however; I think they just measured the concentrations of the individual metals in the leachate. (The guys who wrote the report can correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
However, even if the concentration were available, it would only be an estimate, and wouldn't represent the initial concentration of the contents exactly. The jar had been outdoors, probably for a long time, exposed to the effects of weather. And if the contents had originally been compounded by hand, the initial concentration of the material may not have been homogeneous even when the jar was new.
In this case I think the presence or absence of mercury is more significant than a concentration would be. Though certainly it wouldn't hurt to know the concentration if we could (on the principle of, the more information the better ...)
-
Hi All
thought i would post link in case anyone is interested
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3-VINTAGE-MILK-GLASS-BEAUTY-CREAM-JARS/201111269109?_trksid=p2045573.c100033.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131017132637%26meid%3D7762948092986846217%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D20131017132637%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D201111269109
Thanks Richie
-
Hi All
thought i would post link in case anyone is interested
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3-VINTAGE-MILK-GLASS-BEAUTY-CREAM-JARS/201111269109?_trksid=p2045573.c100033.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131017132637%26meid%3D7762948092986846217%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D20131017132637%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D201111269109
Thanks Richie
Thanks Richie.
I really appreciate your taking the time to continue the hunt for these jars. They're not easy to find. I made inquiries with the seller of this item, which was for sale in a lot with 2 other jars. I asked him whether the base of the jar that has the same shape as 2-8-S-2a also had the Hazel-Atlas logo on its base and did the cap have any information as to product or brand. He answered yes to the first question and no to the second. So we have yet another jar of this same shape that shares the same logo the artifact has, but we have no way of knowing what product - if any - it once contained. The fact, however, that this jar is grouped in a lot with a DuBarry (http://lovelylissie.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/vintage-ad-friday-comtesse-jeanne-du-barry/) product provides a possible clue as to the general type of product represented in the lot as a whole.
Nice work, Richie.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
-
Just one more...
Greg George did some outstanding research earlier this year on period references to AE's concern about her freckles. This front page drawing of Earhart sans freckles along with some other famous aviators of the day drew the comment from AE: "That's me, all right, but you haven't put in the freckles."
Note: A vintage masthead (http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth143843/m1/4/zoom/?q=el%20paso%20herald) from the newspaper from which this was copied lacks a copyright notice; therefore, the attachments are in the public domain. (http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2012/03/19/copyright-the-newspaper-article/)
-
Hi All
Been taking a back seat on forum of late, Thought it would be nice for newer members to get involved in discussions and bring new idea's to the table.
Obviously been looking on site every day for updates on investigation into 2-2-V-1 been interesting watching from the side lines
Anyway i have been quietly searching for that darn clear glass jar and was surprised to find that the milk glass jar, housed many products including spices of all things http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kitschy-Hand-Painted-Footed-Round-Milk-Glass-Spice-Jars-10-Painted-2-Unpainted-/121446056938?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c46bfc3ea (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kitschy-Hand-Painted-Footed-Round-Milk-Glass-Spice-Jars-10-Painted-2-Unpainted-/121446056938?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c46bfc3ea)
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/fzoAAOxyUylTRsK0/$_57.JPG)
Another thing i stumbled across was a flying mag from years gone by with a few story's of Amelia in http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-Z1VdBCfV9QC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-Z1VdBCfV9QC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Interesting reads
As for fund raising i think Tighar needs to create a simply advert that states what it has found on Niku and why it points to Amelia Earhart
Also in my opinion Tighar need to make people want to donate there hard earned money, Like if Tighar do find the electra in june next year 10% of proceeds will go to a charity of some kind heart or cancer something along them lines
thanks Richie
-
Anyway i have been quietly searching for that darn clear glass jar
The glass jar isn't a clear jar, but the bigger question is why that mattered. More on that later. To test whether or not the jar was clear we sent both the artifact and a clear jar of the same shape and size as the artifact to an ISO-17025 (http://www.eag.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/EAG_CA_17025_cert.pdf) accredited lab (http://www.pipetpeoplestore.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/home.showpage/pageID/108/index.htm). The glass from each vessel was tested for its complete elemental profile and the results were dramatically different. Had both jars been clear we would expect the chemical formulations to be quite similar. A little later, Greg George located a 1936 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company patent (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/freckleintime/Document_05_FrancisFlint1936patent.pdf) (the jar bears the Hazel-Atlas imprint on its base) that mentioned several unusual ingredients also found in the chemically tested formula for the glass of 2-9-S-1. The patent described how this formula was used to create glass of "good color and brilliance."
Whether the jar was clear or not mattered because a clear glass jar would be a decidedly poor choice for ointments, which degrade in sunlight. Thus, a clear jar could effectively be disqualified as an ointment pot, thus opening the door to the idea it contained pickles or mayo or what have you. We could see the jar as it exists now was not very transparent at all, but burial deposition and wear were cited as the reasons for this. When new and in use, some on the EPAC forum argued (convincingly, because they seemed convinced) that the jar had been as clear as a drinking glass. I think the results of the experiments put this idea to rest.
Many individuals have used the term "clear jar" when describing the artifact, presumably as a way of distinguishing it from its white glass siblings. This is entirely understandable, since household glassware today seems far more monolithic than that of the early 20th century. But, as the patent shows, there was high interest in producing glass of diverse characteristics in this timeframe.
More information on this and other aspects of the research into the possible origins of 2-9-S-1 can be found in our paper, A Freckle In Time (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/freckleintime/FreckleInTime.html).
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR 3078R
-
After some studyin', ah moved Krystal's post on fund raising from here to 'Niku VIII funding' (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1539.msg34209.html#msg34209) - better fit there, know whut ah mean, Vern?
-
Was Amelia Earhart Poisoned?
Mercury is a poison that can affect the central nervous system. A single gram of organometallic mercury is sufficient to cause death. Symptoms of chronic poisoning may include emotional lability and memory impairment. Symptoms also include visible effects on the skin like pink cheeks and numerous other symptoms like loss of hair, numbness of the extremities, etc.
According to the report "A Freckle in Time," as early as 1912 government agencies such as the Department of Agriculture were attempting (apparently unsuccessfully) to eliminate mercury from ointments such as Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream because of its toxic effects. It is not clear what quantity of mercury-containing ointment, if any, could cause poisoning in the user, but skin products of that era apparently contained the compound methyl mercury, of which Wikepedia says: "Mercury and many of its chemical compounds, especially organomercury compounds, can also be readily absorbed through direct contact with bare, or in some cases (such as methylmercury) insufficiently protected, skin." This suggests that methyl mercury was even more aggressive and readily absorbed than the other compounds of mercury.
I am intrigued by the possibility that AE may have been affected by this poison, and that we might be able to find in the record evidence of symptoms consistent with mercury poisoning. This would tend to support the hypothesis that AE used a mercury-containing ointment such as was apparently contained in 2-9-S-1.
Mercury poisoning may also help explain some of AE's behaviors and actions which, until now, have been ascribed to her "character flaws" rather than possible biological causes.
Our irresponsible aviatrix may in fact have been a "mad hatter."
Jon
-
Interesting observations, Jon.
I agree it can be fun to speculate. Mercury exposure, for instance, can cause edema of the feet. Would that lead one to select shoes larger than normally worn? A shoe of a size larger than what is believed to be AE's size was found at the Aukaraime South site. Mercury exposure can cause gastric problems. A cap for a 1930s acidosis medication, Alka Zane (or perhaps a laxative), was found at the same site. The list could grow but conclusions would always be elusive, and the more one grows it, the shakier the propositions become.
The type of mercury in Dr. Berry's Freckle Ointment was ammoniated mercury, an inorganic form. While arguably less toxic than organic forms, due to its lower lipid solubility, chronic mercury toxicity would result from long term use and all exposures are bad.
I was reviewing the lab reports in our paper just last night. I'm thinking there may have been another source of toxicity in the jar that may have been even worse than the mercury. I'm wondering if anyone can guess what that is by reviewing the report... Extra credit goes to anyone who can add what recent comment on the forum caused me to see this source in a new light.
BTW, I don't see evidence AE's mercury exposure, if indeed she had this, had progressed to brain symptoms. In my opinion (and that of a 747 pilot with whom I spoke), Earhart was handling the aircraft with a good degree of coordination and skill, especially during the later stages flying over monsoon areas. Mercury affects coordination along with the central nervous system, so if the symptoms had been that severe, it's unlikely, in my opinion, she could have gone as far around the world as she did.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR 3078ER
-
Interesting observations, Jon.
The list could grow but conclusions would always be elusive, and the more one grows it, the shakier the propositions become.
...
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR 3078ER
True.
-
Mercury is toxic, but many forms of it can be tolerated for long enough that mercury has been used medicinally, though it's not something I would recommend now. (Look up "calomel," for example, if you want some good old historical toxicology reading.) (Also if you want to read about historical exposures to mercury in other famous figures, look at Lewis & Clark, and Mark Twain. Their blithe handling of mercury is shocking by today's standards.)
I would be surprised if the mercury in AE's ointment affected her final flight, though I suppose anything is possible. A lot would depend on the concentration in the cosmetic, how often and how thickly she applied it, and for how many years.
-
I'm thinking there may have been another source of toxicity in the jar
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR 3078ER
Do you mean the arsenic? That was also used for skin lightening.
-
I'm thinking there may have been another source of toxicity in the jar
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR 3078ER
Do you mean the arsenic? That was also used for skin lightening.
Hi Jennifer.
I hadn't thought of arsenic but that could be another source. The lab report listed arsenic (As) at 12 ug/L on the inner surface and 6 ug/L on the outer surface of the jar. Arsenic was used for skin lightening.
The element I had in mind was lead (Pb). Its reading was 5 ug/L on the inside of the jar and below detection limits on the outside. Swiderski, who wrote a book on the effects of mercury in cosmetics through history, states lead was used in some mercuric ointments to conceal the discolorations eventually caused by mercury. Ironically, mercury would cause what it was intended to cure. I have not found any particular product that I know used both mercury and lead in skin lightening; on the other hand, comprehensive ingredient lists are hard to locate.
The topic of other toxic substances in the jar was not one we really considered when we tested the jar. At the time we were only interested in the mercury since it was the element that seemed most diagnostic for a skin-lightening ointment. As a result, we lack comparative measurements for other glass at the Seven Site and for other ointment jars that would help to reveal whether such elements as lead, arsenic, and zinc, all of which were found at higher concentrations in the jar than outside it, are in fact unusual enough to be considered significant. We set up all of these controls for the mercury, which is why we feel confident in saying that its presence on the jar is significant.
Scott Mitchell's superb post on parallels with the Franklin expedition of 1845, prompted by Friend Weller's initial suggestion of the similarities, prompted me to read how lead in poorly soldered tin cans had played a pivotal role in the ultimate demise of the crew of HMS Erebus and HMS Terror. I highly doubt that lead was similarly fatal to the world flight. But it is a fact that lead was found on the jar and I think it's not an unreasonable thing to at least wonder why and to ponder whether a seemingly insignificant detail such as this played even a small role in the fate of Amelia and Fred.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER
-
I agree it can be fun to speculate.
Thanks, Joe for your response.
Actually, I don't find all the speculation that I see on this site to be very much fun. Most of it is useless and a distraction. I am however interested in novel ideas that, through further research, might lead to tentative conclusions or probabilities.
My hope was that further exploration of this (admittedly speculative) postulate might lead us somewhere. Not to a "conclusive" conclusion, because we don't have too many (or any?) of those, but to some resolution. Right now we have dozens of "elusive" threads on this site, each of which may have reached a point of near-exhaustion, but they can be useful in building a case and suggesting directions for further research, even if not proven or provable.
I do think that if we had five or ten pieces of evidence - like the possibly oversized shoes, good one! - that the postulate might rise to the level of serious consideration. I don't agree that creating a longer list of similar evidence would make it shakier, unless the evidence itself were shakier. Aggregated evidence should work like parallel electrical circuits that can carry more current, whereas you suggest it should be analogous to circuits wired in series that can carry less with each addition. I think a dozen inconclusive pieces can add up to something more conclusive, as Ric has said.
And already I see progress in your fact-based response, thank you!
1. I was aware of the loss of coordination symptom (these symptoms are describes as "like Parkinson's disease") and wondered about the Luke Field accident, but that seems like a serious overreach.
2. You indicate that you believe that brain symptoms due to mercury poisoning would be concurrent with loss of coordination. I wonder if the effects are so predictable. I am still looking for some good case studies of people with mercury poisoning.
3. We know that the round-the-world flight put AE in a very sunny environment for an extended period, and that the windshield of the Electra would not block UV. She also was interacting with media continuously during the trip. All are reasons that she might have increased her use of a freckle cream.
4. AE may have been one of very, very few women of that era that:
- had very fair, sun-sensitive skin,
- had freckles,
- were very concerned about their appearance,
- needed to look good for professional reasons,
- were routinely and continuously exposed to extremely strong sunlight, and
- had sufficient income and leisure time to be able to seek out and buy (or have compounded) unusual cosmetics.
Thus it is unlikely that there were many (or any) other women of that era that might have used a freckle or skin cream with the frequency and weight that AE may have. If we were to find a single case in the 1930s of a woman poisoned by the mercury found in a skin-lightening lotion, it seems to me we would find Amelia.
In any case, we now have good reason (physical evidence) to believe that AE may have repeatedly applied a highly toxic substance to her skin. The "freckle cream" jar works both ways: it is not only an indication that AE may have been on Niku, but it is also an indication that AE may have routinely and possibly for years been exposed to a bioaccumulative poison, a poison notorious for (among other things) its effects on mood and cognition.
Jon
-
Thanks Jon. I try.
Do these coincidences have an additive effect? (I keep seeing 'addictive' when I read that last sentence; maybe they're that too.) Perhaps, and perhaps they attract a few who revel in the speculation (and I'm not saying it's wrong to speculate). But a greater number to me will find this line of reasoning somewhat unscientific. I don't think there is any way Earhart's alleged mercury exposure can be tested.
Speculation is fine, but I like to confine it for the most part to the numerical results of the lab reports. I think to do more than that is to make it easy for critics to set up the straw man that we claimed we found AE's freckle jar, which we did not claim. Granted, we may have found just that, but the critics don't seem to care much for the difference between 'may' and 'did'. By the same token, I think it was entirely appropriate for us to have acquired the laboratory findings we did and present them at face value for the readers to judge for themselves.
This may be a good time to trot out Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit (https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Carl_Sagan_The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection_sec.pdf) as a good guide in our efforts. I think by Sagan's standard we did OK.
The speculation is fine, Jon. I'm just saying there are rough waters out there.
By the way, you stated "If we were to find a single case in the 1930s of a woman poisoned by the mercury found in a skin-lightening lotion, it seems to me we would find Amelia." Sadly, that is most likely not the case as toxicity from mercuric ointments has been studied (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6102a3.htm) even in our present day.
If a hypothesis isn't thoroughly testable, we need to be clear about the limits of what we can and did test and what that means. I think our paper does this rather effectively and we should continue that approach in discussions about it.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER
-
A couple of things about lead: the amount allowed in US public drinking water is 15 ug/L. Also, lead is usually found at higher concentrations in soil than mercury is. These two facts taken together tend to persuade me that the mercury is a more significant finding.
Of course the rinsate from the glass is not directly comparable to the water standard. If what was in the jar did contain lead, then it could have been much diluted by the time TIGHAR found the glass. But it just gives a general ballpark perspective.
For anyone who's very interested in the toxicology of mercury in its different forms, I find the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Toxicological Profile for Mercury to be a useful compilation of knowledge on the subject:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=115&tid=24
(either scroll down the page to read the contents, or click on the PDF download to get the whole document at once)
-
A couple of things about lead: the amount allowed in US public drinking water is 15 ug/L. Also, lead is usually found at higher concentrations in soil than mercury is. These two facts taken together tend to persuade me that the mercury is a more significant finding.
Of course the rinsate from the glass is not directly comparable to the water standard. If what was in the jar did contain lead, then it could have been much diluted by the time TIGHAR found the glass. But it just gives a general ballpark perspective.
Great research, Jennifer.
The fact that there is an allowed amount of lead in drinking water that is higher than that for mercury does provide perspective. The 'safe' level in drinking water for mercury has been determined to be <=2 ug/L.
The fact that lead is more concentrated in soil than mercury is interesting as well, but if soil had been the culprit for the lead found in the jar I was expecting the measurements taken on the outside of the jar to have detectable levels. The jar was buried when found, so soil contaminants had no preferred surface for adhesion, as would be the case if the artifact had been found merely sitting on the surface. No lead was detected on the outside but lead was detected on the inside at 5 ug/L. This is by no means a perfect control but we felt it was a rudimentary one.
Our controls for the mercury were more complete. In addition to taking inside/outside Hg readings on the artifact, we also took inside/outside Hg readings on another glass artifact not from the jar at the site (Coke bottle) and inside/outside Hg readings on 2 additional jars, one of which was an authentic Dr. Berry's jar, the other of which was an authentic jar of Burnham Skin Rejuvenator.
Of course, the real unanswered and probably unanswerable question is this: I don't know for sure if the lead found in the jar is an actual reflection of the original contents, but if it is, then how much lead was inside the jar when it was new and in use?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER
-
As a toxicologist, I find this stuff endlessly fascinating. I do think it would be a stretch to try to find any connection between toxic effects and the use of what was in the jar, because we just don't know enough about the concentrations of the initial material in the jar, nor how much of the material its user applied. Generally speaking, toxicity via the dermal route wouldn't be as likely as toxicity via ingestion, and it appears the material in the jar was probably for topical use.
Also, I'm not aware of any symptoms reported by AE that would point toward mercury (or lead or arsenic) poisoning more than they would point to the fatigue and irregular diet of a person trying to fly around the world.
One could imagine a scenario in which the jar was emptied by a castaway and used as, say, a drinking vessel; in that scenario, toxicity would be of even greater interest. However, that is just speculation, which I wouldn't pursue unless some evidence came to light to support it. (Not to mention all the other hazards a castaway has to deal with in that environment, most of which are likely to act more quickly than heavy-metal toxicity.)
If we stick with what we know, then we have parts of a jar that is consistent with AE's time period and consistent with a product that would match a documented concern of hers (skin freckling), and nothing about the jar is inconsistent with AE. My understanding is that other sources for this jar are possible but not overwhelmingly numerous. We haven't been able to connect these specific pieces of glass conclusively with AE, but it is an interesting piece of the puzzle.
-
This article describes freckle cream remedies and includes recipes for homemade versions:
http://www.cosmeticsandskin.com/aba/freckles.php
Is there any evidence that AE may have mixed her own freckle cream?
Karen Hoy #2610CR
-
This article describes freckle cream remedies and includes recipes for homemade versions:
http://www.cosmeticsandskin.com/aba/freckles.php
Is there any evidence that AE may have mixed her own freckle cream?
Karen Hoy #2610CR
Thanks Karen.
There is no direct evidence she mixed her own freckle cream. I would not have expected such a thing to be documented, if indeed it even happened.
Earhart did have documented practices for maintaining health, however, and home remedies, probably mainstream for their time but unusual today, are among them. Check out Earhart's letter to her mother from September 4, 1935 (https://books.google.com/books?id=mH5TAAAAMAAJ&dq=letters+from+amelia+vegetable+concentrate+man&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=vegetable+concentrate+man), in which she discusses her "vegetable concentrate man." Source: Letters From Amelia, Beacon Press, 1982, p. 181.
Greg George has researched the fact that Earhart was twice a guest of John Harvey Kellogg's Battle Creek Sanitarium (http://www.lifestylelaboratory.com/web-gallery-2/pages/Famous%20Visitor%3B%20Amelia%20Earhart%20with%20John%20Harvey%20Kellogg%20newspaper%20photo%209x8%20600dpi%2072mb%20HSBC.htm), a virtual command central for quack cures and home remedies. Kellogg is on record for regarding freckles as a medical condition, for which he advocated treatment (https://books.google.com/books?id=1uwrAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1291&dq=john+harvey+kellogg+freckles&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAWoVChMIiNzi2ZfYxwIVioUNCh3uYwg-#v=onepage&q=john%20harvey%20kellogg%20freckles&f=false). Source: p. 1291, The Home Book of Modern Medicine, A Family Guide in Health and Disease, Volume 2
by John Harvey Kellogg
It would be interesting to know more about these periods in AE's life.
A few years ago, I asked one of Earhart's better known biographers whether Earhart had a history with patent medicines. She replied she had not found any such history, and closed with Earhart's signature farewell - Cheers!
Joe Cerniglia
-
Quote: >>"would point to the fatigue and irregular diet of a person trying to fly around the world."<<
Fully agree. And this TIGHAR forum being predominantly male opinionated please also allow due consideration that AE may perhaps have been pregnant and possibly suffering (periodic/frequent) morning-sickness. Most prevalent between 6 to 12 weeks, though to 16 weeks can occur. Thus she just might have been 2 to 3 months pregnant. Many women become concerned roughly around 3 months that their figure may reveal their pregnancy . . . when might a baby have been due? Might this have been part reason for the urgency to complete the 2nd round-world attempt?
True or not this is arguably not a personal matter AE (or GP) may have been inclined to disclose to all and sundry, in particular not to the media (it could have been a flying-career-ending distraction), however women, very understandably, do confide with very close and trustworthy friends and it is possible AE may have done so.
To find AE's unborn bones at the 7 site (if they have endured) could be the Holiest Of Grails . . . attracting intense present-day world-media attention.
-
Quote: >>"would point to the fatigue and irregular diet of a person trying to fly around the world."<<
Fully agree. And this TIGHAR forum being predominantly male opinionated please also allow due consideration that AE may perhaps have been pregnant and possibly suffering (periodic/frequent) morning-sickness.
This point has come up before (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,89.msg311.html#msg311).
I appreciate the spirit of inquiry in which it probably was made.
Nevertheless, it's a significant thread drift from the topic of this thread (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/freckleintime/FreckleInTime.html), which is analysis of the jar artifact. May I suggest someone with powers to do so move it into the thread I linked above, where it might receive whatever comment people may wish to contribute?
Joe Cerniglia
-
Very Nice Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream Jar on Ebay; https://www.ebay.com/itm/Freckle-OINTMENT-old-original-milk-glass-jar-Dr-C-H-Berry-Co-Chicago/362246254433?hash=item54578f2f61:g:DFEAAOSwhiZaiydJ
It appears to be the white variety,...very nice condition and may be about the right size.
-
The embossed company logo on the bottom is from the same company as the jar found on Niku as well.
-
Concerning "dirt": Any chance of getting a bloodhound to check the dirt brought back from the previous expedition (it gave a "hit" to a cadaver dog back home) and some articles belonging to Amelia, to see if the hound connects them?
Lauren
-
The forensic dogs would not alert on any articles that belonged to Amelia, they alert on the scent of decomposition. Not quite like a bloodhound that tracks somebody based upon the scent of that person, not their decomposed body.
However, Tom King and I have talked about sending the soil samples we collected in 2015 to the DNA lab to see if they might provide a better source for the DNA soil analysis. I don't think that is happening yet as the lab is still trying various techniques on the 2017 soil samples. We're going to let their work on the 2017 samples play out to the end before we decide what to do next.
Andrew