[Rockhounds] for astronomy fans & photographers

[DonH]

 > I've had a number of
> discussions/arguments about this with at least  one geological colleague, with me 
> trying to uphold the traditional "inorganic"  part of the definition, but I 
> fear that someday this may turn into a losing  battle, as more and more is 
> learned about minerals that form on these  borderlines, and the borderlines turn out 
> to encroach on more and more of our  traditional places where minerals grow, 
> we think, "inorganically".
>  
> Anyone have any further comments on this?


Hi,

I have much pontification to offer, but I will try to be brief.  There 
are now at least two books that advocate a broader definition, and I 
will show you the new one at GSA.

Nomenclature is a result of humanity's imperfect attempts to draw 
borders around things that are not clearly delineated in nature.  There 
are already a number of minerals of biogenic origin, such as newberyite, 
and probably whewellite.  But where do we draw the line, and why draw 
the line?  You already made the relevant arguments, so I won't repeat them.

Our dept. includes a geomicrobiologist.  She is trying to determine the 
nature of a siliceous concretion found at the rim of an 
arsenic-contaminated hot spring in Oregon.  Three or four of us have 
gathered around and contributed our knowledge; for example, I showed how 
to use UV light to look for uranyl polyanion content, and suggested 
doing x-ray powder diffraction on the three distinct zones in the piece 
to look for crystalline order.  She is looking at the geochemistry of 
the water and the microbes in it.  It takes all of us to solve the 
problem.  Traditional mineralogy is only one of the contributions.

Mineralogy is considered a mature science.  Now, what do we do with it? 
  How do we apply that knowledge?  As I search for PhD programs, I find 
very few opportunities in America for true research in mineralogy, and I 
am discovering that a few folks with whom I wanted to study just retired 
or are preparing to retire.  However it is easy to find programs in 
environmental science and geochemistry.

Washington State University recently stripped down the geology 
department and now all the venerable geologists must bear the minor 
indignity of being in the "School of Earth and Environmental Sciences." 
  At least UI still has a Geology Department, though the College of 
Mines has been disassembled and the department is now a part of the 
broader College of Science.  Geology in general, in the traditional 
sense, is suffering a downturn, so there is currently little hope of 
preserving the discipline of mineralogy as a capital science in itself.

When the other students ask what I'm doing, I tell them, "I am becoming 
the last real mineralogist."  However, given that, I know that I will 
need to *apply* that speciality in new and creative ways in order to 
have a paycheck.  Look at it this way: mineralogy has evolved beyond 
analyzing and describing minerals and is recognized as an important part 
of industry, human health, law & public policy, and forensics, to name a 
few.  Our lab is filled with samples from cleanup sites, with goat and 
baboon lungs, with concrete and water pipes filled with mineral 
deposits.  At GSA you will find all sorts of posters and presentations
on the applications of mineralogy to many fields.  Rather than bemoan 
the expanding definition of mineralogy to include biogenics, we should 
celebrate the recognition and the increased opportunities to show the 
world what we're worth!


best regards,
Don