Talk:Hamza River

Aquifer

I removed the recent edit by an anonymous IP. The source did not specifically indicate that we are talking about the same phenomenon, as none of the same people, or institutions, were mentioned. The more recent sources all call it an underground river, not an aquifer, and say that it has been named the Hamza River officially. --Reign of Toads  13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The researchers themselves say it is an aquifer, not a conventional river (see the BBC article below). --80.171.174.240 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted! :-) --Reign of Toads  15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's in the news!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14693637 -- megA (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is. I've tried to incorporate some of the discussion in the article -- some kind person has been helping with my reference syntax! Pufferfyshe (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and according to this it's not a river -- the BBC says "But Professor Hamza told BBC News that it was not a river in the conventional sense. "We have used the term 'river' in a more generic sense than the popular notion," he said." It's certainly not a subterranean river as described in that article -- it moves slower than a glacier. I don't think there's anyone, including Dr Hamas, is maintaining that it's an subterranean river like (say) the Mojave River etc. So I rewrote the lede to remove the claim that it's a river. Herostratus (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done. That was the reason I added the 'debate' section and much of the content therein; and also mentioned the quotation marks around "river" in the original paper title. The whole thing might well prove to be a case of good science, bad science reporting (initially). Pufferfyshe (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed "river" to "aquifer", in the Hamza disambig page, and removed the Hamza from the list of rivers in Brazil. I also removed some irrelevant categories and see alsos. --Reign of Toads  15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speleology in the see also section?

What precisely is the significance of speleology in this context (there is a link to speleology in the "See also" section)? I have understood that there is no cave involved in this case, but it is moving through porous rock. --Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. The links suit the tone and suggestions of the first popular media articles to treat the case, and need some weeding. Pufferfyshe (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

When the section was added, there wasn't much specific info on the nature of the "river" and it's geology. As it now seems to be an acquifer, and moving through rock, speleology is not relevant. --Reign of Toads  15:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

The water in this aquifer has a high salt content, but is part of the explanation for an area of low salinity around the mouth of the Amazon. Please would someone with more understanding try to resolve this apparent contradiction. Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Researchers at the National Observatory were based on conjectures. They did not take into account the existing knowledge about the groundwater in the Amazon region. Their assumptions contradict all the accepted knowledge already established by geology, hydrology and geography. The Hamza river does not exist. It is large aquifer known by Brazilian science as Aquifer Alter-do-Chao. In its first 500 meters it is freshwater, used by many cities in the region. As the depth increases, the water becomes increasingly saline, creating a real "brine". It is likely that its waters do not reach, in depth, the Atlantic ocean, because there is a geological barrier. The waters at the mouth of the Amazon River are less saline because of the tremendous outfall of the River into the ocean. Obviously. Rita, Geologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.199.33.67 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The section on the Amazon river page would be better placed here, with a shorter description on the Amazon page; they are currently unbalanced. A proposal was initially made in 2014, but not discussed - I think that the case is still just as valid.Klbrain (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamza River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503102707/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/08/25/scientists-discover-underground-river-running-beneath-amazon/ to http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/08/25/scientists-discover-underground-river-running-beneath-amazon/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/25/3861820/brazil-scientists-find-signs-of.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)