At SIS we are aware of the Ussello Horizon because of Han Kloosterman who has written and given talks that include mention of Ussello (in his native Netherlands) over many years. It seems that a paper published in PNAS (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi10.1073/pnas.1120950129 which is also available to download free at http://cosmictusk.com/dutch-diamonds-require-extraordinary-explanations/ and http://cosmictusk.com/cognitive-dissonance-nanodiamonds-confirmed-in-uss… as a 6 page print out) has succombed either to uniformitarian editorial considerations at PNAS or to blind faith that cosmic catastrophism cannot have happened as recently as 13,000 years ago. George Howard is not amused. They have found the magic nano-diamonds in the Ussello Horizon yet make the preposterous claim they have an origin in wild fires. This in itself is perhaps a smokescreen as what might have caused those wild fires, and can burning vegetation account for the necessary heat to generate nano-diamonds? One wonders if the claim about wild fires was a defence mechanism to deflect criticism from the rather excitable anti-YDB boundary event people but the authors then claim, in a somewhat spurious way, the Younger Dryas boundary is 200 years earlier than the nano-diamonds, and this is deduced from C14 dating methodology. George Howard notes they used a particular calibration curve that differs from that used by the YDB team and if the same calibration curve had been used in the paper the dates would have been very close (close enough not to be a particular problem). So, we have a paper that has found all the goodies necessary for an event at the beginning of the Younger Dryas and yet it is slanted against the hypothesis. Why? It seems the slant is there to appease the mainstream who are highly resistant to the idea of cosmic catastrophism, as after all it had to pass peer review.