My beautiful Himalayan salt lamp, illuminating our living room at night.
Although I haven’t yet featured such a gift on my annual What to Buy a Geologist for Christmas list, some of my wonderful relatives recently bought me a rock lamp for Christmas. Specifically, they bought me a pink colored Himalayan salt lamp. The lamp consists of a large crystal of salt, or sodium chloride, that is mounted on a pretty wooden stand. The lamp provides a lovely, soft, pale pink light. We turn the lamp on every evening to illuminate our living room, and we sometimes leave the lamp on overnight as a night light.
I absolutely love my salt crystal lamp. I mean, what’s not to love? It’s a rock that’s also a lamp, and that in and of itself is awesome. I really like the look of the lamp and its soft light. I even find looking at the lamp somewhat peaceful. It’s nice to have such a beautiful object in our living room.
All that said, unlike many people I do not believe that my salt crystal lamp has any healing powers… or that it has any substantial health benefits at all. Despite what many people say on the internet and elsewhere, Himalayan salt lamps do not emit significant quantities of ions, nor any sort of other magical “positive energy waves”. Most (probably all) of the supposed health benefits of Himalayan salt lamps are absolute rubbish. I say that as a geologist and not a medical professional, but several people agree with me – for example, see here and here. As someone with geochemical expertise, I can attest that Himalayan salt lamps are certainly not emitting special streams of ions. That is, they’re not emitting any special ions nor high quantities of ions – and turning the lamp on or off won’t significantly impact how many ions the salt crystal in your lamp releases.
At most, my salt crystal lamp slightly decreases my stress level by being a beautiful object to look at. And, really, isn’t that enough?
Like my fellow geoblogger Jessica Ball, I wish that I could be a geologist on Star Trek. I can think of no better, more exciting job than traveling the universe as a geological researcher for the United Federation of Planets. Sign me up, Starfleet!
Maybe one day in my life– or in my children’s or grandchildren’s lives– there will be opportunities for Earth geologists to travel to other planets and planetary bodies. Already, there are hundreds (thousands?) of geologists who work in the exciting field of Planetary Geology. However, today planetary geologists primarily rely upon remote sensing, rovers (on Mars and Earth’s moon), and little bits of space rock that fall to Earth to understand the geology of other planets and planetary bodies. While several humans have walked on the moon, only one geologist (Harrison Schmidt) has walked on the moon.
A few years ago I became interested in Star Trek after watching a few episodes of The Next Generation with some friends in graduate school. Now my husband and I are hooked on Star Trek. We’re currently watching Season 6 of The Next Generation, and I’m also watching Season 2 of Deep Space Nine (so that I have something to watch when my husband is away. He’s forbidden me from watching TNG without him). I’m contemplating buying a Star Trek uniform costume and visiting a Star Trek convention. Any suggestions, for either the uniform or a convention? Are there ever Star Trek conventions in Africa? Also, my husband and I (and also our friend Mo, a fellow Star Trek fan) have already penciled in a visit in 2014/2015 to the Star Trek theme park currently being built in Jordan.
I like Star Trek for many reasons, one of which is the favorable light in which science is portrayed on the show and also the rational way in which science (even if it’s fake “Star Trek science”) is used an explanation for mysterious phenomena which occur on the show. However, the science on Star Trek is often not real science. That is, the scientific explanations on the show are sometimes inaccurate– or at least apply a bit of poetic license to a scientific fact or theory. Also, much of the show’s technology, such as teleportation and warp drive, is not currently scientifically feasible. I recently learned about a book written by Lawrence Krauss called The Physics of Star Trek (next in the queue on my Kindle reading list!) that goes into some of the physics shown on the show.
After I heard about Krauss’s book, I thought to myself: why not write about the geology of Star Trek? This is the first post in what may become a series of posts about the geology of Star Trek. In this post I am going to point out some of the geological inaccuracies of a particular episode, but I hope that these posts will not always be about nit-picking the scientific details. I hope that the geology of Star Trek, even if sometimes scientifically inaccurate, can inspire some young people (myself included, perhaps?) to learn more about planetary geology and geology in general.
I can imagine several topics of interest regarding the geology of Star Trek:
-Types of planets encountered on Star Trek
-Geology of non-Earth-like planets
-Terraforming planets for settlement
-Geoengineering of environment (atmosphere, climate, weather, soil, etc.) and of plate tectonics
-Diversion of meteoroids / comets / asteroids from impact with inhabited planets and planetary bodies
-Volcanic activity of Star Trek planets
-Best geologic lairs for Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, and other Star Trek species
-Building stones seen/used on Star Trek
-Magnetic fields of Star Trek planets
-Atmospheres of Star Trek planets
-Geochemistry of Star Trek. If it hasn’t been done already, someone should really come up with a Star Trek periodic table. Which element names mentioned on the show are real and which are made up?
-Tools of Star Trek geologists (Do they just need tricorders? What geologic measurements can be made with a tricorder? Why didn’t I have a tricorder for my PhD thesis research?)
-Various mining operations shown in Star Trek
-What are those dilithium crystals made of, anyway?
Perhaps my blog readers can suggest additional topics?
Now that I’ve introduced “The Geology of Star Trek” series, let me move on to my first topic of discussion. In this post, I’d like to talk a little about the geology of a cave shown in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Chain of Command, Part I.” In this episode, Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Chief Medical Officer Beverly Crusher, and Lieutenant Worf are sent on a covert mission to the Cardassian planet Celtris III to destroy a biological weapons facility. The facility is supposedly located in a deep underground cave. Decked out in black with various spy gear, Picard, Crusher, and Worf make their way through the cave to the supposed location of the weapons facility. When they arrive, they discover that there is no biological weapons facility. Rather, the intelligence about the supposed facility was leaked by the Cardassians as a trap to capture Picard. The episode ends with Picard being taken away by the Cardassians as Crusher and Worf escape.
Sneaking through the cave on Celtris III.
The overall plot of this particular Star Trek episode is excellent, but the geology of the cave on Celtris III is somewhat implausible. I suspect that many of the walls of the “cave” are artificial and part of a Hollywood sound stage set-up. Some views of the cave interior also seem to feature painted backgrounds or special effects. Fake and painted rocks aside, however, there are still some fundamental problems and inconsistences with the geology of the cave.
For example, after reaching a steep drop in the cave, Picard says, “We’ll have to rappel from here. This is sheer granite. We’ll have to use fusing pitons.”
"This is sheer granite. We'll have to use fusing pitons."
Granite caves are not unheard of, but they are somewhat unusual. Caves are most commonly formed as solutional caves in soft, easily dissolved and re-precipitated rocks such as limestone, dolomite, and halite. The re-precipitation of minerals such calcite forms speleothems, including stalagtites and stalagmites, that are commonly found in solutional caves. Granite is a very hard rock that is not easily dissolved and re-precipitated. Therefore, solutional caves are not going to form in granite, and granite caves are not going to contain significant speleothem precipitates. The most common type of cave that forms in granite is an erosional cave, a type of cave that forms when flowing water (a stream or possible seawater) erodes rock to form a cave. Some granite caves also may form by seismic activity.
So far, I’m willing to buy that Picard, Crusher, and Worf are in a granite cave. A close-up shot of a fusing piton being inserted even makes the rock (or fake rock) look pretty similar to granite:
The rock looks granite-ish to me. Or maybe rhyolite-ish with phenocrysts.
However, the next few shots show that the “granite” cave has abundant speleothems, which would rarely (never?) occur in a granite cave! The big speleothems look much more similar to what would be seen in a classic limestone solutional cave:
Picard contemplates the cave, which now looks like a limestone cave!Rapelling down a wall in the granite/limestone cave.
After Picard, Crusher, and Worf repel (500 meters, according to the dialogue) down the wall of the “granite” cave and continue walking along, they reach a solid wall and cannot progress any farther. Fortunately, Picard is able to tell with his tricorder that, “There’s a lava tube beyond here [the wall] that runs for 75 meters, and it connects with another chamber. We need to get through here.”
Investigating the rock wall with tricorders.
Hang on a minute! Aren’t Picard, Crusher, and Worf supposed to be in a granite cave (that strangely resembles a limestone cave in some shots)? Lava tubes are a common type of cave, but they aren’t going to be found in a granite cave, and they are very unlikely to be found at 700 meters depth (in one of the early cave scenes Picard notes that the supposed weapons facility is located ~700 meters depth, and the lava tube seems to connect very close to the supposed weapons facility cavern).
For those of you who are not familair, let me explain a little bit about igneous rocks. Igneous rocks are rocks which form from molten material, which is called magma in the subsurface and lava on the Earth’s surface. There are two types of igneous rocks: plutonic rocks (which form in the subsurface from magma) and volcanic rocks (which form on Earth’s surface from lava). Granite is one type of plutonic igneous rock. A common volcanic rock is basalt.
Lava tubes are common primary caves, but they are found close to Earth’s surface, not at 700 meters depth! Furthermore, lava tubes may sometimes be connected to other lava tubes or types of volcanic primary caves, but they are rarely connected to extensive networks of caverns. Since granite is a plutonic rock and not a volcanic rock, it is impossible for a lava tube to form in granite.
To sum up, there are three geological issues with the cave featured in this Star Trek episode:
1. Granite caves are uncommon.
2. Granite caves do not generally contain speleothems such as stalagtites and stalagmites. These are generally a feature of solutional caves in rocks such as limestone.
3. Lave tubes are not found in granite caves and not found in caves at depth. This is because (a.) granite does not form from lava, and (b.) lava flows on Earth’s surface.
Bad geology aside, I do think that it’s pretty cool that Picard, Crusher, and Worf can map out the cave with their tricorders and that Worf can conveniently cut through a rock wall to the hidden lava (err… granite? limestone?) tube by using his phaser. Just check this out:
Phaser versus cave wall #1.Phaser versus rock wall #2.The "lava tube" revealed!Crawling through the "lava tube."
If anyone has an extra tricorder and phaser lying around, could you please send them to me for my upcoming geologic fieldwork in Alaska? Thanks!
A scary-looking children's book about global warming.
When I was visiting my friends in Abu Dhabi a couple of weeks ago, we had dinner at a local mall just before I headed to the airport for my flight home to South Africa. As we were leaving the mall, I bought myself a few children’s books in Arabic. After I finish up my PhD in April, I’m hoping to work through these Arabic children’s books as a way to help me dust off and improve my Arabic. As I was selecting books in Arabic, my eye caught this very scary book on global warming. I think this book will give children– and possibly also adults– nightmares. But maybe that’s a good thing considering that climate change denialism is rampant throughout the world, especially the United States. Coming from the US, I was actually very impressed that South Africa has frequent government-sponsored ads (billboards, radio ads, TV ads) that try to educate people about climate change, probably largely because of the recent climate change talks in Durban.
Climate change is scary, just like the cover of the above children’s book. Having 7 billion humans on the planet emitting tons of CO2 and using up all kinds of other natural resources is scary. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are affecting Earth’s climate and this is a cause for concern. Period. People are welcome to argue about the details, such as just how much sea level might rise and how badly different cities will be affected. People are welcome to argue about the best ways to combat climate change. People are welcome, even, to argue about if we should do anything at all to combat anthropogenic climate change. I have no problem with productive, intelligent discussions on the matter, and I respect people’s opinions on how much– or little– action we should take to combat anthropogenic climate change. However, I do have a problem if you say anthropogenic climate change doesn’t exist. Anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and denying that anthropogenic climate change exists is just as bad (scientifically) as denying that evolution exists. However, an alarmingly high number of people deny that anthropogenic climate change is real. In fact, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an organization that for years has advocated and fought to have the scientific theory of evolution taught in schools in the United States, is now tackling the issue of teaching climate science in schools as well. Bravo, NCSE. I wish you well in your endeavors to educate people about climate science. If you run into trouble making people understand why teaching climate science is important, maybe you can scare them by buying a few million copies of the scary global warming book above. Although perhaps there’s some junk science in there (as far as I know, the Earth isn’t going to catch on fire as a result of climate change…), so maybe it would be best to stick with the excellent material already on your website.
Red and white sandstone with casinos in the far distance, Las Vegas, July 2011.
For the final picture in geology picture-a-day week here at Georneys, I’ve selected a landscape from Red Rock Canyon, Las Vegas. The canyon’s name originates from the color of fossilized sand dunes that have been oxidized, converting the Fe (iron) in the rock from a 2+ to 3+ charge, which changes the color of the sandstone from white-tan to bright, rusty red. Recently, Red Rock Canyon was in the news because hikers stumbled across some dinosaur footprints, the first to be found in Nevada.
Although I am not generally very fond of cities or casinos, I have a soft spot in my heart for Las Vegas. In fact, I travel to Las Vegas often. I’ve traveled to Las Vegas a couple of times for geology field trips, and every year I spend a few days in Las Vegas to attend The Amaz!ng Meeting, a meeting founded by James “The Amaz!ng” Randi— a conjurer, writer, advocate for reason, and fighter of pseudoscientific nonsense. I’ve known Randi for many years, and I spent a couple of semesters back in undergrad working for him as an intern. I feel very fortunate to be able to call him a dear, dear friend. If you aren’t familiar with Randi’s work, I highly recommend reading some of his books. Some of them are even available for Kindle— and on sale for the holiday season!
As much as I enjoy seeing Randi and attending The Amaz!ng Meetings, the sparkle, fluorescence, garish carpeting, temperature control, liquor scent, smokey haze, and ching-ching-ching of a Las Vegas casino start to drive me crazy after a day or two. So, whenever I attend The Amaz!ng Meeting, I try to escape to Red Rock Canyon for an afternoon or two. Red Rock Canyon is about a half hour drive from the casinos and provides a peaceful, beautiful, and geologically interesting escape. Over the years, I’ve even led a few geologic field trips to Red Rock Canyon for Amaz!ng Meeting attendees. I’m not sure if I’ll be able to attend the 2012 Amaz!ng Meeting, but if I do I’ll be sure to take a quick trip out to the red, red rocks.
Here are some more pictures from my 2011 visit to Red Rock Canyon. I never did write up a post about the geology of Red Rock Canyon, but I promise to do so sometime! And, in case you missed them, here are my other geology pictures from this week: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
Well, that wraps up geology picture-a-day week. I’ve enjoyed posting these geology pictures so much that I’m actually going to add a new weekly feature to Georneys: the Monday Geology Picture! Every Monday, I’ll post an interesting– and perhaps pretty– geology picture from my georneys (geological journeys) that will help inspire and motivate me for the work week ahead. As I finish up my PhD over the next few months, I’m not sure how much time I’ll have for regular blogging. I’ll do my best to blog when I can– mostly when I need a study break, I imagine– but I’m going to cut myself a little bit of slack over the next few months. If the Geology Word of the Week doesn’t appear some weeks, it’s because I’m feeling overwhelmed by my thesis. I should be able to keep up with a weekly geology picture, though– and hopefully some other more substantial posts now and then!
I hope you’ve enjoyed the pictures this week! Thanks to everyone who joined in and also posted geology pictures on their geoblogs. I’ve enjoyed seeing all of your pictures as well. If you haven’t already participated, it’s not too late to post a Friday Geology Picture!
In general, I am a big fan of science kits and simple science experiments for kids. When I was a child, I had a great time growing my own rock candy on strings in jars and messing up the kitchen with baking soda and vinegar volcanoes. For Christmas one year, my friend down the street received a dinosaur science kit. We spent a whole afternoon excavating some fake dinosaur bones from plaster, and we had a great time.
I think that kids can learn quite a bit from science kits (I really like the ones made by The Smithsonian) and simple science experiments with everyday materials. Kids also really like these experiments, which are fun and can (I hope) inspire a few kids to become scientists– or at least become more science literate. For my own science outreach in elementary schools, I’ve done classroom experiments involving materials such as mentos and diet coke, dry ice and water, and various sticky, viscous substances. When I demonstrate these and other experiments, the kids always have a great time– and hopefully learn a little bit of chemistry, physics, and geology in the process.
In my own research, I take labwork and experiments quite a bit more seriously, but I still enjoy them very much. Even though I am now a veteran scientist and my labwork has become routine, I still find myself smiling when my phenolphthalein indicator turns pink. I still enjoy watching beads of liquid nitrogen roll across the laboratory floor then vaporize after I discard the remainder of my cold traps when working in the carbon dating lab. I still find myself surprised and amazed at the microscopic spots I produce after my column chemistry to isolate various elements. I still take a somewhat childish joy and interest in attacking (destroying, really) my rocks with various acids during dissolutions. Labwork is hard work– and often monotonous– but it can also be very fun.
Ideally, science kits for kids should show kids the fun parts of science experimentation and labwork and should also teach a little about science and the scientific method. In a good science kit the science has to be done carefully, and in the right order, for the the fun part (the explosion… the crystal candy… the potato clock… the slime…) to work. In general, as I said above, I am a big fan of properly designed science kits for kids.
However, I find the “Science Kits for Girls” manufactured by Wild! Science horrifying. Below are a few reasons why. The following is somewhat stream-of-consciousness. Sorry for that, but these kits make me upset. Also, I don’t have much time to write this post because I need to return to my real labwork.
1. Science Isn’t Segregated, So Why Should Kids’ Science Kits Be?:
Science is not segregated in real life (my own lab is a mixture of men and women), so why should it be segregated in science kits? To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Wild! Science means well and wants to encourage more girls to become interested in science. I care very much about encouraging young girls to become interested in science, and I’ve personally benefited from targeted programs that encourage girls and young women to pursue science. My participation in Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) programs in both high school and college helped give me the foundation and confidence to succeed in science, first in college and now in graduate school. Female mentors– through both formal and informal programs– have helped me greatly during both my undergraduate and graduate studies. Without strong female mentors, I do not think I would be able to complete my PhD. I can understand supporting and encouraging young girls and women in science because– let’s face it– being a scientist is still more difficult for women than for men. Sexism still abounds, both in academia and industry.
However, I think that having segregated science kits for girls and boys sends the wrong message. This seems to suggest that girls and boys are better at “different” types of science or that they should approach science in “different” ways or that they think “differently.” I may have had support from female mentors, but the science that I do– and the science that my female mentors do– is no different in approach or quality or anything else from the work that our male counterparts do. Do we have “girl” and “boy” physical constants? Do we have “girl” and “boy” chemical equations? Do we have “girl” and “boy” rocks? No, we do not. Gender shouldn’t matter in science (okay, maybe in biology, but it certainly shouldn’t matter if the scientist is a girl or a boy).
2. If You Do Segregate Science Kits, At Least Don’t Give the Girls Lame Experiments:
I really don’t think that science kits should be segregated by gender, but if you are going to segregate them at least make the experiments for girls NOT SO LAME. Why do girls have kits such as “Lip Balm Lab”, “Perfect Perfume Lab”, and “Aroma Art” (They even call it art!!! Nothing against art, but this is supposed to be a SCIENCE kit) while boys have kits such as “Physics and Chemistry”, “Hyperlauncher”, and “Weird Slime Lab”?
Forget lip balm and perfume, I want a hyperlauncher and weird slime. These kits remind me of two of my childhood disappointments: 1. the girl toys at McDonald’s were always much lamer than the boy toys, and 2. I wasn’t allowed to join the Boy Scouts.
Let me elaborate a little on that second childhood disappointment. I’ve always been very interested in nature and the outdoors. In my childhood neighborhood, a family of four boys lived down the street, and they were all enrolled in the Boy Scouts. I used to play with these boys, and I would sometimes help them with their Boy Scout projects. One day, I decided I wanted to become a Scout. However, I was not allowed to join the Boy Scouts, so I joined the Girl Scouts*. I was very disappointed that we mostly did arts and crafts rather than build race cars and make fires. So, I dropped out of the Girl Scouts and asked my mom for kayaking lessons instead. As many of you know, I recently married a South African, and he is a Springbok Scout (like an Eagle Scout). Since 1999 the South African Scout Association has been co-ed, so if we have a daughter one day she will be able to join the Scouts… and not the “girl” version of the Scouts.
To return to the science kits, I actually find the titles of the girl kits very disturbing. Apparently, girls are only interested in science related to beauty (“Aroma Art”, “Bath Bomb Factory”, “Beauty Salon”, “Beauty Spa Lab”, “Lip Balm Lab”, “Luxury Soap Lab”, “Perfect Perfume Lab”, “Perfumed Designer”, “Beautiful Blob Slime”) or pretty crystals which also have to be magic (“Amazing Crystal Lagoon”, “Magical Crystal Oasis”, “Mystic (Krazy) Crystals”, “Snow Flake Factory”). First off, adding “Krazy” in parentheses in-between the words “Mystic” and “Crystal” is just silly. Secondly, why does “girl” science have to be just about beauty and pretty crystals? Why should girls only be interested in science which makes them beautiful or which is beautiful? Girls and young women already have enough pressure on them about their appearance, thank you very much. Now they have to worry about beauty when doing science experiments? Your ability as a scientist has nothing to do with your physical attractiveness!!! Why don’t the boys have “Deodorant Lab” or “Muscle Building Lab”?
Some of the science experiments themselves actually don’t seem too bad. For example, there is a slime-making kit for both girls and boys. However, the girls kit is titled “Beautiful Blob Slime” while the boys kit is titled “Weird Slime Lab.” Why isn’t the boy slime blob handsome? Similarly, the soap-making kit is titled “Luxury Soap Lab” for the girls and “Joke Soap” for the boys. I think that some of the boys titles are actually pretty stereotypical as well. But why segregate at all? Why not just have the “Cool Slime Lab” and the “Fun Soap Lab” that are made for both boys and girls?
3. Woo-Woo Crystal “Science”:
Gender aside, I take issue with all of the names of the crystal science experiments. Why are the crystals “mystic” and “magical”? Do crystals have to be “mystic” and “magical” to be interesting or beautiful? When I write a geology paper, do I write about my “mystic” crystals? No, I do not. Crystals are neither mystic nor magical. The crystals in these science experiments do not form through magic. They form through CHEMISTRY and PHYSICS following scientific laws and principles. I thought the whole point of crystal science experiment kits was to teach a little about how crystals form (for example, slow growth for big rock candy crystals), not to imply that crystals form through magic! There’s already enough woo-woo pseudoscientific nonsense about crystals out there. We don’t need science kits to promote it, too! Probably the explanation books for these experiments do go into some legitimate crystal science, but the titles are bad regardless.Why not show kids how crystal science is beautiful and neat… and can make tasty candy?
Okay, my stream-of-consciousness ranting is over now. What do you think? Are girls and boys science kits a bad idea? Are the girl science kits as lame as I think they are? And, finally, to help me be less depressed and angry about these kits, what are your favorite science experiments for kids?
*Note: I hope not all Girl Scout troops are so lame, but the group I joined was pretty bad. Also, there’s the whole religious issue with the Girl and Boy Scouts, but that’s a different discussion.
Thin, needle-like crystals of rutile in quartz. Photo courtesy of Dana Hunter.
def. Rutile:
A high-pressure, high-temperature mineral that is the most common form of titanium oxide (TiO2). Rutile is commonly found in metamorphic rocks, such as eclogite. Rutile is also found as an accessory mineral in igneous rocks, particularly in deeper-formed plutonic igneous rocks and also volcanic rocks with deep sources, such as kimberlites. Rutile is an important economic mineral that is mined for titanium. Rutile often forms as thin, needle-like crystals, which are commonly found as inclusions in minerals such as quartz and corundum. Rutile is commonly a brownish-red color due to the presence of iron impurities. Reflecting this characteristic color, the name rutile derives from the Latin word “rutilus,” which means “red.”
Rutile is often found in metamorphic rocks. For example, here are some thin section images showing rutile (red-colored mineral) in an ultra-high-temperature granulite:
Rutile in thin section in UHT granulite. Photo courtesy of Tanya Ewing.Rutile in thin section in UHT granulite. Photo courtesy of Tanya Ewing.
Rutile is also found as an accessory mineral in some igneous rocks. Most igneous rutiles are fairly small. However, when space and time permit, large igneous rutile crystals may form in pegmatites. For example, here’s a gigantic crystal of rutile that likely formed as a pegmatite mineral:
That's quite the rutile crystal! Photo courtesy of Paul Glasser.
Rutile can also be found as a secondary mineral in hydrothermal veins. Hydrothermal veins form when heated fluids circulate through a rock, picking up certain elements and concentrating them elsewhere. For example, gold is often concentrated through hydrothermal circulation. Since silica is a major component of many rocks, quartz is a very common hydrothermal mineral and can often be found as secondary veins in rocks which have experienced hydrothermal alteration. Hydrothermal minerals such as quartz are often deposited in cracks or spaces (such as vesicles or vugs) in a host rock. Sometimes, quartz contains thin, needle-like crystals of rutile. When this occurs, the quartz is named “rutile quartz” or “rutilated quartz.” The long rutile crystals found in rutilated quartz generally form in a cavity, such as a vug– a place where they have space to grow into long needles. Then, these rutile needles are incorporated into hydrothermally-deposited quartz. Some rutile inclusions in quartz may also form as a result of metamorphism, but most rutilated quartz forms through hydrothermal processes*.
Gemstones which contain inclusions are generally considered less-valuable than inclusion-free gemstones. However, rutile inclusions are desired in certain gemstones. For example, rutile inclusions make for some gorgeous quartz crystals (see pictures above and below). Rutile inclusions in corundum and other minerals are responsible for asterism, an optical phenomenon that creates “star gems” such as star sapphires.
Closer view of Dana's rutilated quartz. Photo courtesy of Dana Hunter.
As I discovered this evening when I was googleing rutilated quartz, there are many woo-woo pseudoscientific “properties” associated with rutilated quartz. In my google search, I was hoping to learn about the geologic properties of rutilated quartz. Unfortunately, many of the websites I found on google informed me about some other “properties” of rutilated quartz. For instance, one of these websites “informed me” that rutilated quartz:
Brings forth each person’s strengths, originality, aids sleep, relate to others.
Rutile is said to intensify the metaphysical properties of its host crystal and to enhance one’s understanding of difficult situations. It is also said to enhance creativity and to relieve depression and loneliness.
Rutilated quartz is said to slow down the aging process and is said to be a strong healer.
Well, I’m no doctor, but I have a feeling that placing rutilated quartz around my house is not going to help me sleep (I’ve had insomnia for years, and I mange it fine without woo-woo crystals) or prevent wrinkles. I suppose that placing rutilated quartz all over my house could help relieve depression. I do love pretty crystals.
My friend Dana Hunter agrees that the woo-woo properties of rutilated quartz are nonsense. When she sent me the two beautiful pictures of her piece of rutilated quartz, she also sent this delightful story:
I know you sometimes like to laugh at woo in these Word of the Week posts, and there’s definitely woo involved with rutilated quartz. This little piece was purchased at a crystal shop in Sedona, AZ, back when I was a wooful middleschooler. What you did was tie a string round its middle, dangle it like a pendulum, and ask it yes-or-no questions. It would swing in a circle or from side-to-side to answer (you had to ask first “What is yes?” and “What is no?” to determine which was which). Supposedly, then, it could predict the future. Freaky, watching something you were holding perfectly still start to move! I didn’t know then about the extremely subtle muscle movements that would set it in motion. I did try to test it by tying it to bits of furniture and seeing if it would move without a human touching the string (it would, but erratically, and probably had something to do with the air movements created as I shouted at it). Even back then, deep in the clutches of woo, there was apparently a scientific bit of my mind screaming to get out. It’s all a bunch of rubbish, of course – if it wasn’t, I would’ve died in July of 2008, according to it. So much for the stone’s power of prediction! But it’s gorgeous stuff, and its true nature is far more interesting than the woo we attached to it.
Thanks for the story, Dana!
Reference:
“rutile, n.” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 2 October 2011.
*That’s the consensus we’ve reached on Twitter and Facebook, anyway… please let me know if you have additional information on rutilated quartz formation.
***Thanks to Chuck Magee for suggesting this week’s word. Thanks to Tanya Ewing, Paul Glasser, and Dana Hunter for providing pictures. Thanks also to Dana for her wonderful woo-woo rutilated quartz story. Thanks to Erik Klemetti, Matthew Garcia, and Christie Rowe for an interesting Twitter and Facebook discussion about the origins of rutilated quartz.***
Nummulite fossils. The small ones were collected near Notre Dame, France. Photo courtesy of Callan Bentley.
def. Nummulite:
1. A fossil or living foraminiferan of the Nummulites genus (or a related genus) that has a disc-like, spiral, calcareous skeleton. Fossil nummulites range up to several inches in size, making them quite impressive protozoa (single-celled, eukaryotic organisms). Nummulite fossils are common in Tertiary rocks, particularly in the Mediterranean area. The term nummulite originates from the Latin word “nummulus,” which means coin.
2. The unwitting star of a very strange and scientifically bunk, yet somehow delightful, book titled “The Nummulosphere: An Account of the Organic Origin of So-called Igneous Rocks and Abyssal Red Clays” by Randolph Kirkpatrick.
Nummulites are beautiful and very distinctive fossils that are relatively easy to recognize in the field– they look like little coins set into the rocks. Because nummulites have calcium carbonate skeletons, they are generally found in limestone rocks. Nummulite fossils are even found in some of the limestone blocks used to construct Egyptian pyramids!
Ian Stimpson of the blog Hypo-theses sent me this beautiful photograph of nummulite fossils in limestone:
This Nummulitic limestone is from the Tertiary of the Spanish Pyrenees. The nummulites are up to 1cm across in this sample. Photo courtesy of Ian Stimpson.
Nummulites can be very small (microfossils) but can also range up to several inches (or centimeters, to use the more-scientific metric system) in size, such as the ~2 cm example in the top image. What is impressive about the size of these macro-nummulites is that all nummulites are protozoa, which means that they are single-celled organisms. I’m not much of a biologist, but those large nummulite fossils look like pretty big cells to me!
Lorraine Casazza of the University of California Museum of Paleontology does know a thing or two (or many things!) about biology and also about nummulites, which she studies. I highly recommend reading Casazza’s description of her research on Egyptian nummulites. Casazza has some great discussion on how and why single-celled nummulites became so large. One reason that nummulites may have become so large is because of an interesting symbiosis with algae. Again, I’m not much of a biologist, but according to this abstract (thanks to Lockwood DeWitt for finding it), all modern nummulites house symbiotic algae.
Kirkpatrick's 1912 "Nummulosphere" book. Image taken from Wikipedia. The book is now in the public domain.
Nummulites are fascinating and important foraminifera, but they aren’t quite as important as indicated by Randolph Kirkpatrick in his self-published 1912 book “The Nummulosphere: An Account of the Organic Origin of So-called Igneous Rocks and Abyssal Red Clays.” In this book, Kirkpatrick claims that all rocks– including the “so-called igneous rocks”– actually formed through the accumulation of foraminifera such as nummulites. The book has a catchy and clever title, but alas the book is mostly pseudoscience and, fortunately, was not taken seriously by many scientists when it was published. In fact, Kirkpatrick’s crazy ideas about “The Nummulosphere” tarnished his scientific reputation. Kirkpatrick actually was a good scientist when it came to certain aspects of his work. Kirkpatrick had kooky– and very wrong– ideas about how rocks formed, but he was very good at studying the biology of sponges. However, much of his good scientific work on sponges was probably overlooked by his contemporaries because of his crazy ideas about how rocks formed. Not until a decade or so after his death was his work on sponges truly recognized.
Kirkpatrick is an intriguing example of a smart and capable scientist who fell victim to pseudoscience. Many scientists– myself included at times– fall victim to pseudoscience. Just because scientists are smart and educated doesn’t mean that they can’t fool themselves, even in their own research. For example, Linus Pauling won not one but two Nobel prizes but had some very strange (and now largely discredited) ideas about how taking large quantities of vitamins could make you live longer. Physicists Russell Targ and Harold Putoff convinced themselves that Uri Geller has “genuine” paranormal powers, even though it has been demonstrated repeatedly that Geller is likely using simple magic tricks. In my own family there is an excellent example of a very smart person believing in pseudoscience. Upton Sinclair (I was named after Upton’s cousin, my great-grandmother Evelyn Sinclair) wasn’t a scientist, but he was a brilliant writer, journalist, and political activist. However, my Uncle Upton (as I like to call him) also wrote a book called “Mental Radio” in which he described his belief that his second wife had telepathic abilities. I’m sorry, Uncle Upton, but your psychic experiments were not carried out in a proper scientific environment and, really, most long-married husband-wife pairs develop non-verbal communication that may seem telepathic at times. In my own scientific encounters, I’ve met many a scientist who is mostly rational and reasonable but who also believes in one or more flavors of pseudoscience: homeopathic medicine, talking to the dead, chiropractics, and so on.
I guess the main point I want to make is that scientists are smart, but they aren’t smart about everything. Just because someone is a smart and accomplished scientist does not mean that that person is always right. PhD or not, Nobel Prize or not, scientists are not always right. The great thing about science, though, is that (eventually) data and evidence always trump scientific reputation. For example, just because Linus Pauling had a PhD and two Nobel Prizes didn’t mean other scientists weren’t critical of views on vitamins. Perhaps his scientific prestige helped him push the vitamin idea at first, but eventually concrete data largely dismissed his pseudoscientific idea. Similarly, just because a scientist has one crazy or scientifically wrong idea does not mean that the scientist’s entire body of work should be dismissed. For example, Kirkpatrick’s work on sponges should not have been dismissed just because he didn’t understand rocks very well. Kirkpatrick is an extreme example. However, too often a scientist publishes a paper with an idea that is later dismissed, and then this scientist receives a “bad reputation,” and other scientists become critical of all of this scientist’s ideas. The whole point of science is putting ideas– hypotheses– out there. Just because one of a scientist’s hypotheses turns out to be wrong does not mean that all of this scientist’s hypotheses will be incorrect. We must remember that science is a process, not a popularity contest. Reputations should not matter where evidence and good (or bad) data abound. Of course, I do simplify. Some scientists have good (or bad) reputations for good reasons. Regardless, we must never let prestige or reputation blind our science– we scientists must strive to be as neutral as possible.
A final thought: be cautious when listening to a scientist talk about something that is clearly outside of that scientist’s field. For instance, I’m a geologist with specialties in marine geology, geochronology, and isotope geology. When I’m talking about one of those three specialties, you can probably trust what I say. However, if I’m talking about something else, you better make sure I’ve done my homework and actually know what I’m talking about. When I step outside of my scientific specialties, it is very important for me to talk to other scientists and develop collaborations. As I mentioned above, I don’t know very much about biology. So, if I were to take on a research project involving some biology (for example, a study of biological influences on rock weathering), it would be important for me to work with some biologists. Kirkpatrick was a biologist, not a geologist. Perhaps if he had worked with some geologists and had better understood geology, he would never have written his Nummulosphere book. That would have been a shame, though. Nummulosphere is such a wonderful-yet-terrible little volume.
Reference:
“nummulite, n.” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 4 September 2011.
***Thanks to Etienne Médard for suggesting this week’s word. Thanks to Callan Bentley and Ian Stimpson for providing pictures. Thanks to Lockwood DeWitt and Callan Bentley for some information and interesting discussion of nummulites on twitter.***
Piles of salt ready to be collected at Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia. Photo courtesy of Tannis McCartney. Click photo to enlarge.
def. Halokinesis:
1. The movement of salt and salt bodies. The study of halokinesis includes subsurface flow of salt as well as the emplacement, structure, and tectonic influence of salt bodies. Another term used to refer to the study of salt bodies and their structures is “salt tectonics.”
2. The magical (and non-existent) ability to move salt with your mind.
This week, as usual, I have been asking for suggestions for the Geology Word of the Week on Twitter and Facebook. I find Twitter and Facebook to be great resources– I receive so many great word suggestions. After I select a geology word for the week, I also use Twitter and Facebook to find out more information about the geology word and to find some pictures related to the word. For those of you wondering how useful social networking sites such as Twitter might be for geologists, MJ Vinas of AGU wrote a great post on The Plainspoken Scientist blog titled Why should scientists use Twitter? Of course, Twitter is no substitute for mainstream scientific publications or scientific conferences, but personally I find Twitter a great place to go for geology news and for asking geology-related questions.
If you haven’t noticed already, I work my way through the alphabet for the Geology Word of the Week. For example, for my first geologist’s alphabet, I made my way from A is for Alluvium to Z is for Zanclean. This week I am at the letter H, so I asked for suggestions of geology words beginning with the letter H. As usual, I had many wonderful suggestions of geology words. However, I was particularly struck by Brian Roman‘s suggestion on Twitter of the word “halokinesis” as I had never heard of this word before, and it sounded– to me– like some psychic pseudoscience nonsense. Here is the twitter exchange I had with Brian this morning:
Well, I was intrigued. So, I did a little bit of research on the word “halokinesis,” both the scientific definition and the pseudoscientific definition.
Scientifically, halokinesis is the movement (-kinesis) of salt and salt bodies. Salt often forms on Earth’s surface as a result of evaporation. Salt is highly soluble, so surface salt deposits are generally ephemeral and short-lived, disappearing with the rain. Significant salt deposits only develop in very dry places. For example, salt deposits form in the hot, dry– and aptly named– Death Valley, California. The world’s largest salt flat is located at Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia.
Salt flat from a distance. Death Valley, California, Fall 2005.Venturing out onto the salt flat. Death Valley, California, Fall 2005.
While salt deposits are somewhat ephemeral and ever-changing on Earth’s surface, salt deposits become somewhat more stable when they are buried. Salt is often found in subsurface sedimentary sequences. However, even when buried salt deposits can move. Furthermore, subsurface salt deposits can move in quite strange ways. Normal sediments contain a large amount of pore space, so as they are buried and transformed into sedimentary rocks, they tend to compress and increase in density. Salt deposits, on the other hand, do not contain much pore space, so their density does not increase significantly as they are buried. Because salt deposits tend to be less-dense than the surrounding sedimentary rocks, these salt deposits tend to deform and migrate, moving in a fluid-like manner– almost like magma or the plastic aesthenosphere– and forming structures such as diapirs and domes. Because oil is often found above subsurface salt deposits, there is much interest in better understanding how salt deposits form and migrate in the subsurface.
Seismic image showing salt diapirs on the Brazil margin. Image courtesy of Peter Clift.Seismic image showing salt bodies in the Gulf of Lions, France. Image courtesy of Peter Clift.
Both surface and subsurface salt deposits are often mined for salt and other evaporite minerals. However, the mining of salt deposits must be done carefully as salt dissolves easily in water, and therefore the presence of water can destabilize salt deposits. Most salt mining is relatively straightforward, but the potential danger was highlighted in a disaster at the Jefferson Salt Mine, which operated underneath Lake Peigneur in Louisiana. As I mentioned above, oil is often found above subsurface salt deposits. On November 20th, 1980, Texaco was drilling into Lake Peigneur to search for oil above the salt deposit. Due to an error, the 14″ drill bit accidentally breached the subsurface salt mine, and water began leaking down into the mine. As the salt deposit and surrounding sediment dissolved and were washed away, the original drill hole was enlarged. An enormous whirlpool developed in the lake as water poured down into the salt mine. When most of the lake water had drained into the hole, a canal that normally drained to the Gulf of Mexico actually reversed direction and continued providing water to the whirlpool for several days.
Here’s a video with images and more information about the Jefferson Salt Mine disaster:
Pseudoscientifically,”halokinesis” is the ability to move salt with your mind— with magical psychic abilities, I guess. First and foremost, let me say that all telekinesis (also called “psychokinesis”)– the ability of a person to move or manipulate objects with their mind– is complete nonsense. There is no scientific evidence at all that people can manipulate objects with their mind. But don’t take my word for it. Listen to my friend James Randi explain how simple magic tricks can look like telekinesis:
I don’t know about you, but I think that a simple magic trick to explain the motion of a salt shaker on a table makes much more sense that calling upon some strange supernatural magic or exception to fundamental physics.
Halokinesis is the psi ability to manipulate salt. One with this power could dehydrate another person (or occasionally rocks). Theoretically one with this power could control water of the ocean (salt water) as well. With the salt thoroughly dissolved, it could be extracted or used to help control the water.
Wow- that’s quite the telekinetic power! Can you imagine becoming angry with someone and then dehydrating them? Ouch. And how wonderful would it be to use such powers to desalinate ocean water? That would certainly help with freshwater shortages all over the world. I’m a little confused, though, about the movement of salt to “dehydrate” rocks– aren’t salty rocks, which are generally evaporites, generally already dehydrated? Come to think of it, how can you dehydrate a person by moving salt? Do you add salt to the person?
I must say that I am extremely skeptical of halokinesis. As Randi is fond of saying, “Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand.” Or, in this case, “Everyone who believes in halokinesis, dehydrate me.” Go on. I dare you.
I think that’s enough pseudoscience. Back to some real science.
Here are a few more salty pictures from Death Valley and Salar de Uyuni:
Salt flat reflection. Death Valley, California, Fall 2005.Striking a post on the salt flat. Death Valley, California, Fall 2005.Shoes become cumbersome on a salt flat. Death Valley, California, Fall 2005.Salar de Uyuni Salt Flat, Bolivia. Photo courtesy of Tannis McCartney. Click photo to enlarge.Another view of Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia. Photo courtesy of Tannis McCartney. Click photo to enlarge.A block of salt at Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia. Photo courtesy of Tannis McCartney. Click photo to enlarge.
When I asked for pictures of salty things, my friend Peter Clift sent me on a Google Earth quest to investigate the Great Kavir salt diapir, which is located at 34° 40.007’N 52° 13.732’E in Iran. You should go check out that location on Google Earth– the diapir as well as nearby the nearby Namak Lake salt flat are quite impressive.
Google Earth image showing the Great Kavir salt diapir and the Namak Lake salt flat in Iran. Click image to enlarge.An aerial photo of the Great Kavir salt diapir, an eroded salt diapir that has reached the surface. The sediment is all twisted and deformed around the salt column, which breaches the surface in the middle of the photo. The central part is around 5 km across. Image courtesy of Peter Clift.
***Thanks to Brian Romans for recommending this week’s word. Thanks to Peter Clift for the seismic images and for introducing me to the Great Kavir salt diapir in Iran. Thanks to Abdelrhman Selim and Brian Romans for recommending the Hindered Settling post. Thanks to Anne Jefferson for information and a video about the Lake Peigneur salt mining disaster. Finally, thanks to Tannis McCartney for pictures of the Salar de Uyuni salt flat.***
Georneys 