Joe
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: Re: Transition of Geo Times to Earth...opinions? |
 |
|
I got interested in geology as a little kid, encouraged by my mother, who was a
chemist by training, and who later went back to the University to study geology
(in her 50s!). I spent my early years in studying and collecting rocks and
minerals. Most of my recent interest (last couple of decades) has been driven by
the topics you cover - what forces caused these rocks/formations/etc to be here?
When I describe what I>ve learned to people I know, they are always fascinated,
even though they usually don>t think about "rocks" as interesting fare. I would
love to see a regular column in our paper that featured the local geology. I
live right on top of the intersection of a number of thrust sheets, which makes
for some interesting variation of the local rocks within a short walk. I would
like to get some thin-sections of the local rocks prepared so I can engage in
another favorite pastime: microscopy.
Good for you, bringing the joys of science to the larger population. I believe
more folks would be interested in science if it were presented in a rational
manner, rather than as a strictly "egghead" pursuit. I feel that American
society somehow downplays the value of a science background for the average
citizen. Our loss.
Joe
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:33:32 -0500, Jo Schaper <jo34schaper31@s9oc21ket.03net>
wrote:
[quote]What is interesting to me, as a person with degrees in writing AND
geology, is this: I write a fair amount on local geological topics
including a monthly 700 word column called Rock Talk, and occasional
articles up to about 1500 words on nearly anything: I wrote two on the
April 18th Mt. Carmel, IL earthquake, (one of which a mere 20 minutes
after the second major aftershock, which I felt.) Two other publications
publish "geology in the everyday world" sorts of things: for example:
one on "giraffe stone" masonry (an architecture ubiquitous around the
Ozarks-- irregularly shaped flat fieldstone facings for buildings)a
travel article around Missouri where a tourist can visit the entire
stratigraphic column, and the geology revealed by the Taum Sauk
Reservoir collapse, and one featuring a rock dealer, explaining how to
get into rockhounding as a hobby. And yes, they pay me for all this.
The pub which takes the Rock Talk column sends out a "what do you like
to see in our newspaper?" checkbox sheet occasionally, and about 3/4 of
the people checkmark geology. (Not as many as hunting,fishing and local
history, but hey, I>m in good company!) I just did an article about the
beginnings of the lead industry in Missouri, and got a very positive
comment; the editor also gets unsolicited suggestions from readers about
geological topics they>d like me to tackle. I>ve only gotten one
creationist angry that I know of-- they weren>t too happy I was
insistent that some igneous rocks were over 10,000 years old.
This stuff is targeted to outdoors people and a general adult audience
within the region (Missouri/US Midwest) I am most familiar with, for the
most part, neither scientists nor geologists. I take places or things
they know or have heard of, and explain how geology makes them possible,
or what it says about that area.
This is why I think the interest is out there. Missouri isn>t a really
exciting geology area, such as the western US is, and I don>t feed my
readers pablum, but give them some good info. Most journalists can>t
write about geology very well, nor do editors know a lot to fact check.
I>m happy to have my niche, but I don>t understand why we can>t bring
along more non-geologists to see the excitement as we do.
[/quote] |
|
