Letters to the Society

This page has been created to facilitate rapid and timely interchange of opinion. Each month (space permitting) a selection of these letters will be published in Geoscientist , the Society's colour monthly magazine.

Correspondence strings are listed in the order that they are begun, the most recent string at the top. Within each string, letters are listed with the first letter of the string at the top, and subsequent letters below.

If you wish to express an opinion, please Email the Editor. Letters should be as short as possible, preferably c.300 words long or fewer. You may also write to:

Dr Ted Nield, Editor, Geoscientist, c/o The Geological Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BG.

Please note that letters will be edited for publication. This particularly applies to versions  printed in the magazine.  The Editor reserves the right not to publish letters, at his discretion. Writers should submit their letters electronically to ensure rapid publication. All views expressed below are the responsibility of their authors alone.

Dancing with danger

From Geoff Glasby (Rec'd 24 June; Pub'd 25 June 2008)

Sir, As a result of overpopulation, overconsumption, global warming and environmental degradation, it now looks increasingly likely that there will be a major societal collapse within the forseeable future.

Between 1997 and 2007, world population increased from 5835 million to 6,600 million which is equivalent to an increase of 210,000 per day during this period. Between 1950 and 2000, world GDP increased by a factor of 10 in constant US$, which is a measure of consumption. Between 1800 and 2002, the atmospheric CO2 concentration increased from 288 to 373ppm and is expected to reach 460 ppm in 2030. This means that as much CO2 will be emitted to the atmosphere between 2002 and 2030 as during the whole of the industrial revolution from 1800 to 2002. In 1961, mankind used only about one half of the Earth’s biocapacity; but this increased to 1.2 times in 2002. This means that global demand for natural resources now exceeds the biological ability of the earth to renew these resources by more than 20%.

The increases in these four parameters clearly demonstrate the extent to which we are overexploiting the natural environment and resources on which we depend for our survival. Unless curbed, these increases are likely to have a major impact on the human population within the next 50 years.

Faults of the Pharaohs? Probably Not!

From Dr John Dixon (Rec'd & Pub'd 18 June 08)

Sir, While article on the geology of the West Bank of the Nile at Luxor (Geoscientist 18.6 p18) was very interesting and undoubtedly the necropolis of Thebes is of great importance to the understanding of some of the history of Ancient Egypt I am not entirely clear that it offers anything towards the understanding of the Ancient Egyptian as "geologist". On the basis that it is but one of the great necropolises of the ancient culture, it would appear that there were likely to be motives other than geology driving the Ancient Egyptians towards the choice of their site to spend eternity. Perhaps the fact that the necropolises of Abydos, Saqqara and Giza are all sited on the west bank of the Nile, and are all older and of probably more importance that the Valley of the Kings, may just be a clue to the way the Egyptian mind was working. The choice of a necropolis probably had more important things to consider than the geology, since the whole philosophy of the afterlife depended on the burial on the western bank. It served them well for over three thousand years.

The interaction of the geology, geomorphology and archaeology of the Giza plateau has been dealt with in some detail over recent years and perhaps it can be considered that the nummulitic limestones of that plateau were equally unsuitable as a place for royal burial since they are prone to both wind and water weathering. Nevertheless, this was a site of huge importance to the theology of the Egyptians from at least the time of the Old Kingdom and perhaps earlier. It would appear that no-one gave a thought to the faulting and jointing that even today can be seen to affect the monuments. It seems likely that there was a measure of pragmatism in so far that if there was damage caused and sufficient wealth available, then a repair was made.

Similarly, Saqqara was important for many years before Giza, possibly from the Pre-dynastic and Early Dynastic periods. The necropolis was used for thousands of years simply because it was on the west of the Nile and probably because the Egyptians appear to have been very fond of tradition. Saqqara was possibly the site of the first engineered stone structures and recent excavations have shown these to be older than the date of the great Step Pyramid of Djoser whose architect, Imhotep, sited the pyramid there, above the Nile, to be a fitting mausoleum to a great king and so it could be seen from the city on the east bank to indicate that the power of the king was still present.

Of course, that is not to say that the Ancient Egyptians did not have an interest in rocks; but I suspect that their view was rather more practical and considered the rock for its end use. In such cases the practicalities of working with rock, possibly lost to modern western workers, would have been important. Could a rock be used for a majestic statue or for a roof lintel or, in the New Kingdom, an obelisk? To suggest that the Ancient Egyptians were accomplished geologists because they did not build their large obelisks from say numulitic limestone is perhaps missing the point. It is almost certain that the Ancient Egyptians understood a great deal about the rock with which they worked but never really concerned themselves with geological mapping, slope stability, or tunnelling issues that would preoccupy the modern geoscientist during construction projects. It does appear, however, that they carried out a kind of ground investigation in the granites quarries of Aswan from where they took the greatest of all obelisks. Recent studies, and personal observation, of the rock mass condition of some of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings, and other necropolises, would tend to suggest that there were often pressures on the ancient workers to reach completion and the niceties of engineering geology were somewhat less well understood!

Essentially the Ancient Egyptians worked with what they had, driven by their cultural beliefs – in that sense, perhaps not too different from us!

The Anthropocene Epoch: today’s context for governance and public policy

Members of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London*  (Rec'd & Pub'd 3 June 2008).  reproduced with permission from Science in Parliament

Sir, Change has been ever-present in human history, but this has accelerated since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. As generation has succeeded generation, each has lived in an environment marked by novel technological, societal and cultural phenomena; these changes have affected also the external environment, for example via the felling of forests and straightening of rivers. It is becoming clear now that the extent of change has so intensified to make our present interval comparable to major global perturbations of the geological past. Living in the Anthropocene will present novel challenges to government policy, both national and international.

The term Anthropocene was coined, informally a few years ago, to denote the time interval - the last two centuries – in which humans began to supplant natural forces as the main drivers of environmental processes at the Earth’s surface. Since then, the term has been increasingly used by earth and environmental scientists, and analysis suggests that a new geological epoch, worthy of formalisation, may indeed have commenced. Moreover, there has been a marked acceleration to human-caused changes in land, sea, air and ice over the past few decades, and this acceleration continues today.

Both environmental modeling and Earth history analysis suggest that the changes will be greater than any encountered since human civilisation began, and will develop, in part unpredictably, over many millennia. Their manifestation, as regards changes in global temperature and precipitation patterns, changing biodiversity and rising sea level, will profoundly impact settlement and agriculture, particularly in developing countries marked by poverty and rapidly expanding populations.

We note that these global changes will form an effectively permanent backcloth to virtually all areas of government policy and action, all over the world. Their scale demands a commensurate response. How the changes now underway are managed will determine, perhaps more than anything else, the course of human history.

* Members of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

Dr. Jan Zalasiewicz (Chair: University of Leicester), Dr. Colin Waters (Secretary; British Geological Survey), Dr. F. John Gregory (Publications Secretary; Natural History Museum), Dr. Tiffany L. Barry (Open University) Dr. Paul R. Bown (University College London), Professor Patrick Brenchley (University of Liverpool), Dr. Angela L. Coe (Open University), Dr. Andrew Gale (University of Portsmouth and The Natural History Museum), Professor Philip Gibbard (University of Cambridge), Dr. Mark Hounslow (University of Lancaster), Dr. Andrew Kerr (University of Cardiff), Dr. Robert Knox (British Geological Survey), Dr. John Marshall (University of Southampton), Dr. Michael Oates (British Gas), Professor Paul Pearson (University of Cardiff), Dr. John Powell (British Geological Survey), Dr. Alan Smith (University of Cambridge), Dr. Philip Stone (British Geological Survey), Professor Peter Rawson (University College London, Dr. Mark Williams (University of Leicester).

References

• STEFFEN, W., CRUTZEN, P.J. & MCNEILL, J.R. 2008. The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? Ambio, 36, 614-621.
• ZALASIEWICZ, J., WILLIAMS, M , SMITH, A., BARRY, T.L., BOWN, P.R., RAWSON, P., BRENCHLEY, P., CANTRILL, D., COE, A.E., COPE, J.C.W., GALE, A., GIBBARD, P.L., GREGORY, F.J., HOUNSLOW, M., KNOX, R., POWELL, P., WATERS, C., MARSHALL, J., OATES & STONE, P. 2008. Are we now living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today, 18 (2), 4-8.

The IG Plaque

From Colin Bristow (Rec'd & Pub'd 20 May 2008)

Sir, Rick Brassington’s article ‘It’s your history too’ in the May Issue of Geoscientist, concerning the contribution made to the Society by the former Institution of Geologist’s activities is certainly long overdue although, strictly speaking, not all the innovations which Rick claims for the Institution were really initiated by it! Many of those involved at the time are now passed away or are well into retirement, so may I set out a few details for younger Fellows.

The Institution of Geologists (IG) was preceded by a consultative body called ‘The Association for the Promotion of an Institution of Professional Geologists’ (APIPG). This was formed in 1974, with the Official Launch in March 1975. It was disbanded upon the inauguration of the Institution in 1978. APIPG had a reasonably large membership of around one thousand and an elected Committee which was composed of a lively and innovative group of people drawn from all branches of geology. The Society owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the late Professor John Knill who, as Secretary of APIPG, did a great deal of the hard slog involved in setting it up.

The Regional Groups were an integral part of APIPG right from the start, the first Regional Group meeting was held in Plymouth in January 1975; subsequently John Knill, John Shanklin and Colin Dixon toured the UK to obtain a feeling for the likely support for Regional Groups and most of the present pattern of Regional Groups was established by early 1977 (British Geologist, June, 1977, p15). Much of the strength of APIPG, and later IG, was in the regions, with only a small central administrative office located in a garret in Burlington House. This nicely complemented the Society which was strong in London, but lacked any regional structure.

The British Geologist (later renamed Geoscientist), first appeared in March 1975 and the Founding Editor was Chris Wilson, supported by Annette Cutler and Jane French. Chris edited it up the inauguration of IG in 1978, by which time it had evolved into a thoroughly professional Institution magazine.

Validation was originally dealt with by the Membership, Education and Training Sub-Committee under Peter Lancaster-Jones, but John Lloyd took over the Validation Committee in 1976 and by the time of the inaugural meeting of IG in 1978 the present pattern of Validation Procedure had been broadly established.

The initial moves towards some form of Europe-wide body for geologists were by means of a series of meetings in Paris between Gerard Clement, President of the Union Français des Géologues and the Chairman of APIPG in 1975 and 1976, followed by contacts between other committee members and other European geological organisations. Later, after IG had been established, John Shanklin and Richard Fox played a major role in establishing the European Federation of Geologists and obtaining the Eur. Geol. professional qualification.

A Draft Code of Professional Conduct was published by APIPG in June 1976, although it has since been substantially revised several times. An Appeals Committee was also established by APIPG.

However, the Geologist’s Directory was definitely an IG innovation, with the driving force behind the First Edition in 1980 no less a person than Rick himself.

It is no exaggeration to say that the developments initiated by APIPG in the period from 1974 to 1978 led to the most fundamental changes in our Society in living memory. Like Rick, I do not understand why this has been so underplayed in recent years. So, to paraphrase Rick’s statement “The modern Society owes so much to the IG years”, …..but it owes a lot more to the APIPG years! I trust the unveiling ceremony for the plaque will reflect this.

Read the IG history by Rick Brassington

Editor's Note: The plaque, due to be unveiled on President's Day (June 4) in the Lecture Theatre, makes full reference to the formative role of the APIPG.

Vandalism hits Cornwall

From Nick Badham (Rec'd & Pub'd 20 May 2008)

Sir, I have just returned from the south coast of Cornwall where I was showing a group of senior Canadian undergraduates the roofs of the tin granites. One of the key localities is the pegmatite-aplite line rock sheets at Tremearne Cliffs (Megilligar Rocks). Here, among other astonishing phenomena, there are wonderfully exposed pegmatitic tourmalines with hollow cores infilled with quartz. Imagine my embarrassment and disgust when I found that the site had been grossly disfigured: someone has been collecting bulk samples of these extraordinary tourmalines with sledge hammer and chisels. The principal and best supratidal outcrop has now been irrevocably destroyed.

There have been complaints before in these and other professional pages about irresponsible collecting so all I can say here is that we must police ourselves better and stop this ruination of classic outcrops by the selfish few.

Creationism on the Causeway

Editor writes: The promised Society statement on Young Earth Creationism and allied doctrines is now published here.

From Mikey Brass* (Rec'd & Pub'd 14.4.08)

Sir, We have been following the so-called Creation Causeway Committee and its public pronouncements and underhand methods on including a YEC perspective in the noticeboards. This campaign is, unfortunately, linked to the broader creationist movement which is on the rise in Northern Ireland and England.

We note the Society is considering issuing a statement on the issue and wish to express our support for the measure.

*Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL Chairman, British Centre for Science Education www.bcseweb.org.uk

From John Heathcote (Rec'd & Pub'd 8.5.08)

Sir, We should not get too hung up by the opinions of creationists, no matter how vociferously they are expressed. The literal interpretation of Genesis on which this belief is founded is at odds with both the text of the book itself and with a long tradition of mainstream biblical scholarship.

Internal evidence within Genesis indicates that it reached its present form some time after 600BC, nearly 4000 years after the creation event it has been interpreted as describing. In the beginning there was no being other than God, so who wrote down the story? Genesis chapters 1 and 2 contain two different creation stories. What is to be made of Genesis Chapter 6 vv. 1-4? This is without the difficulties of relating the great ages to which men lived and the short span for the whole of geology to happen to our modern experience. I find it difficult to live with the idea of a God who made the Solar System look ~4.5 billion years old although it is only 6000 years old, to test our faith. There is a difference between faith and credulity. St Paul invites us to look at the world around us to deduce the nature of God (Romans 1:19-20).

I have no problem being a geologist and a Christian. Adam Sedgwick was ordained priest before being elected Woodwardian Professor at Cambridge. Geology tells me about how the Earth and all in it were formed, Genesis tells me something about why, and also explains why mankind hates snakes and quite a few other observations about how the world is. As an explanatory story Genesis has real power, and would have been comprehensible to the Israelites of the 6th Century BC in a way that modern stories about the Big Bang would not. We do not know that our modern ideas are correct either, but the current geological story explains a large body of observation and makes useful predictions. I’m happy to use it as the basis for my work.

By all means students should be given the opportunity to compare the two or more views of the beginning critically, and to come to their own conclusions. But I do not see this justifying a minority view for which there is no evidence being promoted as fact.

Barrage baloney

From Rob Kirby (Rec'd & Pub'd 14.4.08)

The article from William Stanton (Geoscientist 18.4) on the Severn Barrage is almost totally misleading. Early barrage concepts (1849) were unrelated to electricity generation (not yet invented). The first concept involving energy was in 1911. Peak Oil is a concept which has only emerged very recently so, of course, it wasn’t considered at the last major study phase (1987-91).

Reference fertiliser production, plans are afoot, admittedly in an early stage, to manufacture these from green (renewable) hydrogen, produced for example from a tidal power barrage. It is unclear why the author is fixated with green electricity not being suited to farming when such energy consumption is minor compared to industry, transport, domestic utilisation, etc.

The author denigrates a Severn Barrage on grounds of its discontinuous output. Most renewable sources, other than geothermal, are small, highly dispersed, and unpredictable in output. In contrast, Severn Barrage power is large, (20T Wh/yr), highly focused, and predictable for as long into the future as we need to know. Twenty years ago, when we had a CEGB, and still with a privatised industry today, neither the intermittent output nor the suddenness of onset of generation are raised as issues. They only say “Gimme it”! There are now many ways to counter the intermittency. One is by recourse to the offset in tidal propagation around the UK coast via multiple stations; another via a European “Supergrid” integrated with hydropower from Norway, Switzerland, etc. (Question: Does this help our vital “security of indigenous supplies” issue?)

A third option is using our copious barrage electricity to electrolyse seawater and produce green hydrogen fuel. Evidently the fourth and presently favoured option involves battery technologies. The idea is for a rapid shift towards Tariff 7-type cheap night-time power to charge up batteries for motor vehicles etc. Via one or more of these options, intermittency can be overcome and fades as a deterministic issue.

Come on William Stanton, we have enough mischief-making from “evangelo-scientists” among the environmental fundamentalist lunatic fringe without “one of our own” having scales covering his eyes.

Coal - it's not all black!

From Paul Younger (Rec'd & Pub'd 27 March 08)

I greatly enjoyed the latest account of David Strahan's analysis of fossil fuel futures ('Coaled Comfort', Geoscientist March 2008, pp 18 - 21). It nicely complements his earlier article on oil and gas, which I have recommended to anyone who'll listen to me. However, I couldn't let the latest piece pass without commenting that the estimates of coal reserves which are discussed in the article relate only to conventional mining of coal (by opencast or deep mines) and ignore the huge reserves which will soon be exploited, at depths far in excess of those ever reached by conventional mines, by means of underground coal gasification using directionally-drilled boreholes from surface.

A series of excellent annual conferences organised in London by the vigorous young trade association, the Underground Coal Gasification Partnership (www.ucgp.com), of which the most recent was held only in Feb 2008, reveals the variety of projects now underway around the world. The recent upsurge in interest not only reflects rising oil and gas prices - it also reflects recent, significant developments in lower-cost directional drilling methods. At the time of writing there are three major regional investigations underway in the UK, all seriously assessing the potential for underground coal gasification - one in Scotland, one in Wales and the other (which I direct) in North East England. Just to take the latter region: despite having mined coal at industrial scale longer than any other region in the world, fully 75% of the coal resources in North East England remain in place. A significant proportion of these is likely to move to the 'reserves' register as underground gasification technology begins to be deployed.

But what, you no doubt ask, about greenhouse gas emissions? This is where it gets really exciting. As a hydrogeologist, I will confess my cynicism about the scope for squeezing carbon dioxide into the moderately permeable strata which comprise our deep saline aquifers. However, where underground coal gasification has been implemented, we can use our long-standing knowledge of the response of incumbent strata to longwall coal mining to predict substantial increases in permeability in and immediately above the voids created by gasification. These will still be overlain by low permeability strata forming good 'cap rocks' higher up in the sequence.

We are absolutely sure this works - getting this right was the pre-requisite for safely mining under the seabed for more than a century. As these engineered zones of high permeability will already be connected to surface power plants by the wells and pipelines used to produce synthesis gas during gasification, they seem to me ideal candidates for permanent sequestration of a large proportion of the carbon dioxide arising. If we use approaches like this, the UK still has hundreds of years worth of coal reserves, which can be used with minimal carbon dioxide emissions. What we effectively have here is a second chance (we squandered the first one, in the North Sea) to couple responsible use of fossil fuels to a concerted effort to develop the renewable energy technologies which are the only long-term hope for the future of society.

Let's not squander the opportunity this time. But let's not get too glum about the scope coal still offers to 'dig us out of a hole' of our own making.

* Director Sir Joseph Swan Institute for Energy Research, Devonshire Building Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

Lithostratigraphy - a waste of time?

From Hugh Owen (ec'd 10, Pub'd 30 May 2008)

Sir, Drs Peter Gutteridge and Christopher Jackson seem to be looking for the easy life. Let us define everything on the computer screen; make life much easier! Biostratigraphy and lithostratigraphy go hand in hand. Oil and civil engineering companies still make dating enquiries based on micro- and macro-fossils in a lithostratigraphical context. No doubt, the Gault and the Oxford Clay in the Cliffe graben (Thames Estuary) would make one nice mudstone unit – forget about age differences and the tectonic regional history that they evince.

from Cedric Griffiths (Rec'd & Pub'd 14.4.08)

Sir, As estate-agents cry "Location – location – location", so should geoscientists cry ”prediction – prediction – prediction”. I suggest that if what we do does not contribute to a useful prediction then we are wasting our time.

Peter Gutteridge asked the question ”Who needs lithostratigraphy?”. Well let’s look at where lithostratigraphy might fit in a predictive scheme. For many years I have been using a 'suburban street' analogy for lithostratigraphy. If one walks down a suburban street1 each house has a different boundary against the footpath. Some houses have hedges, some walls, some fences. All are coloured differently and contain different materials/plants. It is possible to describe each fence, wall, or hedge in exquisite detail. It is possible to map the contacts between each unit, and even to develop a garden boundary classification scheme if sufficient PhD students are available and funded. However, what can we predict at the end of such endeavour ? I humbly suggest very little. Perhaps deriving the 'most frequent garden wall colour', or 'mean height', or 'variance in sound reflectance' may help describe a neighbourhood more usefully, but it tells us nothing about the likelihood of the characteristics of the next fence in any given street, and certainly nothing about the features of the next street.

In 19962 I discussed stratigraphic prediction and the need for ’stratimetry’. Some years prior to that in Norway I worked on a pattern recognition approach to automated formation identification from wireline logs. It rapidly became obvious that the major impediment to the development of such a tool was the fact that lithostratigraphy sensu stricto was honoured more in the breach than in the observance. The recorded wireline type and reference sections for a defined formation rarely looked even vaguely similar, and examples even in the North Sea atlas of formations were all over the place. It is common practice both in industry and academia to use lithostratigraphic formations as time proxies (temporal place markers) rather than in any reproducible sense of their physical properties. As we all know this is a particularly odious practice as it leads to such statements frequently expressed with surprise in reports and papers that "Formation MidEocene proved to be diachronous" – well I never.....

In my experience (over quite a few years now) there is a place for a true lithostratigraphy in prediction of lateral distribution of reservoir quality, engineering properties, or depositional environment. BUT, and it is a huge BUT, I suggest that lithostratigraphic formations should NEVER be used as time proxies, and should only VERY RARELY be identified on seismic (a coal formation is perhaps one permissible example). The practice of identifying 'top reservoir' from seismic should be heartily discouraged. It has probably led to more dry wells than any other practice.

If formations can be defined in such a way as to enable quantitative simulations to be made then it would be possible to use such definitions to test predictions of seismic response, palaeogeographic characteristics, poroperm etc. Until such time I fear that lithostratigraphy is literally leading us up the garden wall.

1. (suburbia – ”a collective attempt at individuality”)
2. ”A stratigraphy for the 21st Century”. First Break, Vol 14, 10, 383-389.

From Peter Eichhubl* (Rec'd & Pub'd 4 April 2008)

Sir, In response to Peter Gutteridge’s suggestion to drop the use of lithostratigraphy, I encourage him to take a break from his seismic interpretation work and to spend three weeks of mapping in the field. With map case, colored pencils, compass, boots, and backpack. It will make him appreciate the value of lithostratigraphy and of formations as mappable lithologic units, with the additional benefits of exercise and fresh air. At least some structural geologists still care about lithologic units and their map- or reservoir-scale distribution. 

* The University of Texas at Austin

From Francis Mediavilla (Rec'd & Pub'd 19 March 2008)

In more than full agreement with Peter Gutteridge.  Lithostratigraphy can only be justified when any dating is impossible.  All the French geological maps are based on chronostrigraphic units,and are much more efficient to understand a basin than learning the local lithostrat units changing from one village to the next.

From John Powell (Rec'd & Pub'd 19 March 2008)

Sir, You may have thought that the epicentre of the recent earthquake in eastern England in was just north of Market Rasen, but I fear it may have been closer to St Peter’s Church, Northampton where William Smith was turning in his grave in response to Peter Gutteridge’s suggestion (Geoscientist v.18, 3, p.3) that lithostratigraphy should be consigned to Room 101!

It was Smith’s pioneering work that enabled the geometrical and spatial distribution of rock bodies at the Earth’s surface and in the third dimension to be defined by their lithological characteristics, including petrography, mineralogy, geochemistry and fossil content. As a practical surveyor and engineer, Smith recognised and developed the fundamentals of lithostratigraphy as a practical tool for describing the lithology and physical properties of strata that was to be so essential to geological exploration and engineering geology, worldwide, and the development of the geological map (2D and 3D) and geological models (3D and 4D).

Lithostratigraphy remains the fundamental tool for geological mapping, modelling and describing the properties of rock bodies that conform to the Laws of Superposition. How else would practising geologists convey to, say, civil engineers the spatial distribution of sedimentary or igneous units along a tunnel route, or perhaps to the insurance industry the susceptibility of geological units to swell-shrink? Certainly not through sequence stratigraphy; “watch out for the High Stand Systems Tract when digging your foundations" just does not work!

However, informed geoscientists know that all varieties of stratigraphy (sequence stratigraphy; biostratigraphy; chronostratigraphy; seismic stratigraphy; magnetostratigraphy; isotope stratigraphy etc.) have their place, dependant often on scale, and the availability of seismic data, fossils, geophysical wireline logs, magnetic properties, stable isotopes etc. For practical geologists these tools all relate back to the rock record that is most readily defined by a lithostratigraphical framework. It is the powerful combination of these branches of stratigraphy that advances our science.

To throw a fundamental tool – lithostratigraphy – to Room 101 would be madness. I like to think that even George Orwell, when writing Nineteen Eighty-Four, in his remote farmhouse on Jura would have recognised and appreciated that he was sitting on the Jura Quartzite Formation (Late Neoproterozoic in age) – perhaps that’s why he named his hero W. (Winston) Smith, an intellectual worker for the Ministry of Truth!

From Dr John H Callomon (Rec'd 14 March; Pub'd 17 March 2007)

Sir, Peter Gutteridge conflates three things and failure to distinguish them leaves him sorrowfully confused. 

The first is lithostratigraphy – what you see, the description of layered rocks. It helps to distinguish clays from sandstones. The second is lithostratigraphical taxonomy – a classification of what you see, an interpretation in terms of ideas in your head. The third is lithostratigraphical nomenclature – words you use to argue with your friends and lesser folk, such as road-builders, quarrymen, hydrologists, oil-men offering to hire you to advise them on carbonate sedimentology. And if you abolish the first, then there is nothing in the second and third to talk about. 

Our author claims to ‘to understand what is really going on in a basin’. He could probably tell you, if both of you are looking at the same 3D seismic; but what do you do over the phone? Or in the proposal to the Board for a contract of exploration or exploitation? ‘Lithostratigraphy has been superseded by sequence stratigraphy ... and there is really no excuse to carry on using such a wasteful and dangerous misleading technique [as lithostratigraphy]’. Gadzooks! Was there ever a cult more in need of sound basic lithostratigraphic descriptions as subjects for model-driven classifications, static or dynamic, than that of sequence stratigraphy? Yes, lithostratigraphic nomenclature can be confusing, even inane; but with so much that of sequence-stratigraphy: what does it even mean? 

So, the short answer to the question ‘Who needs lithostratigraphy? is: I do. 

 

From Dr Christopher Jackson* (Rec'd & Pub'd 11 March 2007)

Just emailing in support of Peter Gutteridge's comments about the future of lithostratigraphic nomenclature (Geoscientist 18.3 p.3). Personally, I hate it, and Peter nicely summarises the key problems (i.e. the 'snap' mentally of poor geologists). I have yet to think about the solution to this problem, but perhaps one way of mapping would be to use timelines (i.e. flooding surface, biostratigraphically-defined surfaces) rather than rock type; this would capture lateral facies changes, especially within sedimentary rocks. I think Peter will get stick from the igneous and metamorphic brigade, as often such timelines are harder to decipher in the field and mapping similar-looking rock units is easier.

*Statoil Hydro Lecturer in Basin Analysis Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial COlege London

Whatever is Under the Earth

From Bruce Wilcock* (Pub’d 10.3.2008)

"Whatever is Under the Earth" has been reviewed favourably but there are, I fear, some significant omissions and inaccuracies relating to the early 1960s. There were, I would maintain, more positive developments during those years than might be inferred from the book. Foundations were then laid that were crucial for the Society’s later development.

Several misstatements in the book concern the Officers and Council. (I would emphasise that what was achieved while I was working for the Society is to be credited to them; my role was a subordinate one.) They were no cloistered academics but brought a wide variety of experience to their work for the Society. (For example, S.E. Hollingworths’s 1962 Presidential address, Our Society and the geological sciences, ranged very widely.) Nor were the Officers in contact with staff only at Council meetings: the Secretaries and Treasurer were frequently in touch at other times. The implication that papers submitted for the Quarterly Journal were not thoroughly scrutinised is also misleading. This work was done, as would be expected, by the Publications Committee and the Secretaries rather than in Council, and it was done thoroughly. The assertion that QJ was allowed to fall into arrears because a Secretary (Brian Harland) was away, is very strange: routine editing was the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary. (The Journal was in fact on schedule from 1960 to mid-1966.) The work done by the Secretaries, in particular, is hardly mentioned. For example, Brian Harland is given scant credit for the work he did in initiating and editing The Phanerozoic Time- Scale volume, which was not only an important contribution to the geological literature but was particularly significant as the prototype for the series of special publications that followed and flourish today.

The statement that the library was at this time without professional expertise is also misleading. From 1961 the librarians recruited had relevant previous experience; and outside advice was readily available if required.

There are significant omissions from the book: the setting-up in 1962 of a Policy and Development Subcommittee to make recommendations on general policy and on possible development of the Society’s activities; the institution in 1963 of the preliminary postal ballot, which enabled Fellows throughout the world to vote for candidates for Council; and the fact that meeting in 1963 was given over to a discussion on Society matters.

An item given disproportionate prominence by Herries Davies concerns the doors installed between what is now the Fellows’ Room and the Upper Library. The then new Assistant Secretary did not, as related in the book, demand doors to his room: their absence did not trouble him and his concerns were very much elsewhere. Although relatively trivial, this item may indicate that some of the sources on which the author relied may not have been altogether reliable.

Professor Davies had, I realise, a difficult task. My object in offering theses comments is simply to shed further light on a period of which I have personal knowledge.

* (Assistant Secretary and Editor 1961-6)

Should we worry about "Intelligent Design"? - replies

From Roger Mason (Rec'd 29.02; Pub'd 03.03.08)

Sir, The January edition of Geoscientist has just reached me here (many thanks) with the editorial about intelligent design. Last month my wife and I toured Wuhan City Museum with an enthusiastic and intelligent young American teacher of English at CUG who cheerfully told me that "Darwin is now discredited," and that the Earth is 15,000 years old.

The evolution/ID debate has a different spin here because Darwin is a hero of the Communist pantheon whose portrait hangs in every school. Missionary activity is forbidden by law, but Christian organisations supply foreign teachers and some of them take private bible study classes under the label "conversation lessons". The Communist Party always finds out, but may turn a blind eye if the would-be missionary does a good job teaching English. Some years ago at another university, a particularly blatant American evangelist boasted to me that he got away with it because his university's Communist Party Secretary (a senior salaried post) enjoyed meeting him regularly to argue about life and international politics.

Only salaried Party officials declare their membership in public. It is an honour to be elected a Party member and in accordance with the teachings of Karl Marx it includes a declaration of non-belief in religion. Students in the Young Communist League are hoping for election to full Party membership, so reporting a teacher's missionary work would help. Thus, a likeable student who displays an apparently sincere interest in private conversation lessons may not be what he or she seems. Our university is not popular with Christians, one of whom translated our name as "Dirt University", but we do have our fair share of Christian teachers.

In this context, I support a declaration about Intelligent Design by the Geological Society on similar lines to that of the Royal Society's. I write as a regular Unitarian worshipper when I am in London. I agree that the argument is about rhetoric not science; but a lot of the world is less tolerant than the United Kingdom.

From Stephen W Foster (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.01.08)

Sir, Thank you for your excellent editorial and letters (see below) in the January edition of Geoscientist, in which a balanced view on the differences between science and religion was expressed and clear respect demonstrated to both magisteria (unlike some of our "scientific" colleagues, who's ignorance and prejudice is a disgrace and merely reflects and plays into the hands of fundamentalist religious bigots). I agree that the Geological Society should issue a statement along the lines of that of the Royal Society if only to continue to ensure that all teachers in all schools, but in particular those schools and academies which are sadly controlled by religious fundamentalist groups, are reminded of their moral duty: to recognise these non-overlapping magisteria and respect them equally.

In the USA religious bigotry has long and deep roots - we do not want to import it into our schools or society. It was correctly implied in your column and letters that science and religion are not incompatible - unless that is individuals (on both sides of the divide) choose to make it so. I wish to continue to teach (and live) in an open, tolerant community were all views can be expressed, evaluated and selected according to belief and argument - not in one where I am forced to believe by ignorant and prejudiced individuals of any persuasion. However to do this I must be prepared to stand up and be counted: our Society needs to do the same.

"Darwin" is two thirds "Rain"

From David Garnett*

Sir, My congratulations to Michael Price on his feature article ‘The wrong sort of rain’ (Geoscientist Vol 18, No 2, February 2008, pages 22-26). I particularly liked the concept of soil behaving like senior management in that it ‘top slices’ to make sure it gets its share before anything is passed on to the lower strata. Now that’s an idea that wasn’t in any of my soil science textbooks. 

I would, however, like to point out a small error in his map of global average precipitation (Fig 2). With three days to go to the end of February here in Darwin, NT, Australia we are currently averaging almost exactly an inch of rain a day for the month, yet Figure 2 purports to show that we only get 10-20 inches per annum. I can assure Michael that we get more than that. A lot more. A nice shade of green would have been more appropriate.

*CEO, Tropical Savannas Management,Cooperative Research Centre, Charles Darwin University, Darwin

Wager

From Marian Holness* (Rec'd 10.01.08; Pub'd 14.01.08

Sir, While the tragedy of Lawrence Wager’s early death did not deter Alex Deer from continuing with their plans for the 1966 Skaergaard expedition, Geoff Glasby’s illuminating article contains only an element of truth in the comment that “the cores they drilled during this expedition were never fully examined”.

Wager and Deer wanted to access the Hidden Zone of the Skaergaard Intrusion which they believed may have extended > 1 km below the surface, but the drill bit jammed in breccia after only 350m. After many fruitless attempts to retrieve the lower rods, the effort was abandoned. The basal ten metres of the extracted core is a mess of crushed fragments of gabbro mixed with basaltic dykes. The remaining time was used to drill another hole higher in the intrusion, and ~100m of the upper parts of the Layered Series were extracted.

The cores came back to Cambridge, but no efforts were made to test Wager’s ideas about the effect of closed-system fractionation. Instead they became the subject of numerous mineralogical investigations, under the guidance of Alex Deer and Stuart Agrell. Yin Yin Nwe studied pyroxenes, Paul Henderson worked on trace element composition, and Sven Maaløe looked at plagioclase (suggesting that the base of the first core was actually at or close to the base of the Hidden Zone, refuting Wager’s belief in a vast Hidden Zone).

While the second core has been replicated numerous times by commercial drilling operations, the first core remains the only available material from the Hidden Zone. When I started work on the Skaergaard I was directed to a complete set of sections cut every 10 ft through the first core, permitting me to confirm Maaløe’s suggestion that it reached the intrusion floor and also to demonstrate the pulsed filling of the magma chamber. Christian Tegner of Aarhus University in Denmark is now involved in bulk geochemical and mineralogical analysis of this material.

I am delighted to report that this unique and immensely important core, the product of Wager and Deer’s fine scientific judgement, while still strictly speaking not “fully examined”, is the subject of intense and rewarding ongoing research.

*Department of Earth Sciences

Wager at Durham

From Eric Robinson (Rec'd 14.1.08, Pub'd 15.1.08)

Sir, The excellent acount of the life and work of Lawrence Wager by Geoff Glasby in Geoscientist 17/2 brought back memories of Durham University in 1947-49 which might add to the picture of that very full and distinguished life. In 1947, I won a Shell Scholarship to Durham University, then in two distinct and very different halves, the Durham Colleges and King’s College in Newcastle. The Colleges were Wager’s empire and it was he who interviewed me when the award was made.

He wasn’t alone. As I remember it, it was rather like a scene from the canvas When did you last see your father? I sat in a large horseshoe of academics of all faculties to be quizzed as to why I wanted to be a geologist. At sixteen, I wasn’t too sure, but Wager drew me out into taking about places I had visited in my brief and solitary field work (Geology was not a subject formally taught in Grammar schools in those days). Wager brought a helpful informality to the situation, in shirt sleeves and sporting thick canvas braces which could have moored an airship, in contrast to the others who were wearing academic gowns.

The outcome was that I went to King’s while Malcolm Brown went to the Durham Colleges with Wager. This in some ways fulfilled a widely held notion that, in taking students, Wager was actually assessing potential mountaineers and Arctic Explorers, students who could match him in stern and testing conditions. Apart from Malcolm Brown who fitted the bill, my other Durham friend in those years was Doug Firman who obviously didn’t. The result was that Doug worked like a Trojan measuring joint patterns and field relationships in the Shap granite suffering great hardships on Shap Fell compared to his more robust colleagues working in Skye or Arran.

There was a rivalry between the two divisions at Durham which persisted right up to the year when King’s finally broke free, a rivalry which was tested on the sports field and in more academic circles. At King’s, we had a slight inferiority complex involving our two professors. While at Durham, Wager was awarded the Stalin Prize which he translated into an Austin 12 saloon, quite a motor in 1948. At Newcastle, Profesor Hickling possessed what at best we would call an Austin Super Seven, decidedly less grand, although he drove it like a maniac. In all respects, Hickling was the archetypal absent minded professor, capable of asking You are one of my boys? when we met outside college. As there were only four of us, and we were all boys in those days, it did little for our confidence, although we wouldn’t have done anything to admit it.

On reflection, I fear I might not have stood up to the rigours of the Wager regime. It did wonders for Malcolm Brown who went to Skaergaard as a second year student while I went to Alston and the Yoredales of the Nent Valley. Geology is still like that, a filter which brings diverse opportunities without the requiirement of a background acquired through Outward Bound or British Schools expeditions.

Should we worry about "Intelligent Design"?

From Mike Streetly (Rec'd & Pub'd 24.10.07)

Sir, For many years geoscientists in the UK have watched with bemusement the pronouncements of creationists in the USA and wondered why key figures such as Stephen Jay Gould should spend so much effort attacking this position. The recent decision in the Dover (Pennsylvania) case establishing that intelligent design (ID) “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” might have been expected to put the issue of the teaching of creationism/ID in schools to rest. However, three publications this autumn show that the issue is alive and well this side of the pond.

On 17 Sept the Council of Europe issued a report concluding that ‘Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes’.

Then the Government issued guidance to teachers explaining that ID ‘is sometimes erroneously advanced as scientific theory but has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community. Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the National Curriculum for science, but there is scope for schools to discuss creationism as part of Religious Education.

Also in early October Prof Michael Reiss (University of London) launched a book for science teachers who want their students to understand the scientific position on the origins of the universe and life on earth. He argued that a rise in creationism was making it increasingly difficult to teach evolution in British schools. Some science teachers were, as a result, ignoring the topic of evolution completely.

It is likely that some if not all of this activity is in response to a 2006 campaign by the Christian group 'Truth in Science' which sent every secondary school in the UK DVDs promoting ID. Truth is Science clearly has many parallels with the Discovery Institute in the USA which has been one of the main agencies in the recent development of Intelligent Design as a distinct off shoot of creationism. A key feature of both organisations is an emphasis on the scientific background of many of the Board of Directors. While most of the BScs and PhDs are of limited relevance to the evidence base for evolutionary theory, Paul Garner (Scientific Panel of Truth in Science) holds a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Science (Geology and Biology) and is a Fellow of the Geological Society.

With Charles Darwin's bicentennial coming up in 2009 (which is also 150 years after the publication of The Origin of Species) and given the current high profile of this subject would it not be appropriate for the Geological Society to have a position on this matter (as does the Royal Society for instance http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298)? 

From Antony Wyatt (Rec’d & Pub’d 8.11.07) 

Sir, I support Mike Streetly’s call for a published Geological Society position paper on creationism and intelligent design (ID). I would, however, stress that this is not just a question about evolution that can be left to trouble biologists and palaeontologists. Proponents of ID claim that their ideas are based on the complexity of living organisms, and imply that they have no basis in sacred texts (thus supposedly distancing themselves from creationists). But many, if not virtually all of them, having claimed that the scientific method is flawed, fall back on a belief in the Bible or the Koran. We should consider the implications for the whole of geology. 

The biblical creation myth is not very long (in fact there are several contradictory myths, so I will confine my comments to Genesis 1), but it sets out an order of creation that can be tested against the evidence. This includes not only the order of appearance of different life forms, which can be compared to the fossil record (which is simply a record of what has been found in rocks and is independent of, though best explained by evolution), but also the order in which a number of physical events occurred. 

The Bible has the Earth, and flowering plants, created before the sun, moon, and stars. I hope that all fellows of the Society would agree that this goes against modern scientific thinking. Not only is there the problem that the origin of the elements requires fusion reactions in stars, so the biblical view implies an Earth (and flowering plants) made up only of hydrogen and helium (all mineralogists, petrographers and botanists take note), but there is also the question of how flowering plants could survive without the sun. 

Going from an Earth alone in space, to an Earth/moon pair (and the rest of the planets) orbiting the sun is also a problem. There should be no tidal or Milankovitch cyclicity signals prior to the first flowering plants. And, of course, there is the matter of scientifically validated dates for rocks from the moon, and the calculated distances to other galaxies, both of which show that the moon and many galaxies were in existence long before the first flowering plants appeared. 

None of the scientific evidence fits with the biblical story. Creationists and ID supporters are not just arguing that evolution is false. They are also implying that much of the rest of science is also untrue. Any Geological Society position paper should make it clear that it is not just evolution that we support: it is the scientific method, and, in particular, the application of the scientific method to the study of the Earth. 

From Martin Lack (Rec’d 12 Pub’d 13.11.07)

Sir, With reference to Mike Streetly’s call for the Society to have a published position paper on Intelligent Design (24 October, see above), I should wish to stress that, while science is clearly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, it is not incompatible with faith in God. Furthermore, whereas there are numerous “dubious” organisations out there, there are also some that are entirely “serious”, such as Christians in Science (of which I am not a member, incidentally).

Hold the flyer, save the world - reply

From Dave Greenwood (Rec'd 4.01.08; Pub'd 8.01.08)

Sir, David Nowell's letter (see below), coupled with Alison Tucker's report (Geoscientist, November 2007 - also below) has led me to think of other ways in which the Society could reduce its carbon footprint. In particular, having now made extensive use of the Lyell Collection to download papers to my PC, it occurred to me that I do not really need to receive any further paper copies of GSL periodicals. Surely the time has come to offer Fellows the option of an "electronic only" membership category to all serial publications for a reasonable annual contribution. That would save countless trees, preserve china clay reserves, lower energy consumption, ease the load for the poor postman, and last, but not least, give some respite to my creaking bookshelves. After all, when I'm gone, my treasured back issues will probably all end up in a skip!

Neal Marriott, Director of Publishing, replies:

Dear David, Thank you for your timely correspondence regarding the options for electronic-only access to Fellow’s journals. The Society has been actively considering precisely this service for some time now and should be in a position to offer Fellow’s the option to decline print versions in the near future. The complications have had nothing to do with the technicalities of online publishing, nor the administration of a dual (ie print + electronic, or electronic-only) system; rather, it has been the implications of European VAT regulations which mean that print-inclusive subscriptions are mostly VAT-exempt, whereas electronic only subscriptions attract the full 17.5% VAT.

One word of warning, however! The additional VAT charges will more or less balance the savings in print and distribution – so there are unlikely to be any cost savings to pass on to Fellows.

Laminate this!

From Geoscientist January 08, p12.

Readers of the November issue may have noticed the correspondence suggesting that the Society’s Publishing House review its practices for the printing of flyers promoting new book titles, in order to reduce environmental impact.

The Publishing House has now completed a review of the material used for its book covers (and the flyers which are produced as part of the same continuous print run) and is pleased to announce that it will be changing to a new laminate from early in 2008.

In recent years our book covers have been finished using a high-quality laminate. This not only creates a bright and attractive finish, but produces a highly durable surface to ensure that our books are resistant to long term wear and tear. The downside has been that the laminate has been oil-based and this renders the flyers non-recyclable.

Starting with the earliest titles in the 2008 list the Publishing House will be switching to CelloGreen film, a printing product based on cellulose and derived from wood pulp produced from forests managed for sustainability. The finished covers (and promotional flyers) should be indistinguishable from those produced in the past – but are now recyclable, biodegradable and compostable.  Neal Marriott

Hold the flyer, save the world

From David Nowell (Rec'd & Pub'd 26.9.07)

Sir, Whatever we like to think, individually there is very little we can do to lessen our environmental impact without collective action, governmental intervention and international agreements. However, in its bicentennial year the Geological Society can set a small example by making its endless stream of flyers for special publications recyclable. These numerous flyers are printed on the back of very durable plasticized book covers, which unlike colour printed paper cannot be disposed of easily.

Given that flyers require a separate print run, there is no need to use the same energy-intensive materials as for these excellent covers. Even if paper flyers will appear slightly dull in comparison, this will significantly reduce their environmental impact and should reduce the cost of printing this ephemeral advising material.

Neal Marriott, Director of Publishing replies: The Publishing House produces its covers using high quality laminated papers not just to create an attractive finish, but to produce a durable surface to ensure that our books are highly resistant to long-term wear and tear.

The advertising flyers that Fellows and others receive are, in fact, produced as part of an extended print run of the covers themselves, and not by some separate process (this is by far the most cost effective way of doing it). The cover materials are not plasticised, but are manufactured using an oil-based laminate - though this does, unfortunately, render the flyers non-recyclable. There are recyclable alternatives available and the Publishing House is actively considering whether these more environmentally friendly options are suitable for book covers.

Chicxulub nemesis

From Tom Dunkley Jones (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.07)

Sir, Perhaps I'm one of many who were slightly surprised by the tone of your recent article, "Impact Factor", in this month's Geoscientist. I accept that scientists should be civil in their dealings with one another and allow a fair discussion of all the evidence. It is a great shame then, that you failed to provide any space for the "majority" view, which represents years of hard and painstaking work into the events across the K-P boundary. Inviting an expert reply on these matters may have been of more benefit to both your readership and the scientific standing of the Geoscientist.


I can understand your concerns about the way we do science, perhaps we sometimes delude ourselves beneath the veil of impartial and objective judgement, but it does not help when you dismiss years of work and cogent arguments without a second thought. The "grey" literature is highly important in society today, perhaps the place where science is communicated to a wider public, which, I believe, makes it all the more important for writers to accurately represent the current scientific debates to our best ability.

First, by a short Necker

From Norman Butcher (Rec'd & Pub'd 9.7.07)

Sir, it is good that Brighid O'Dochartaigh draws attention (17.8 August 2007 p8) to the BGS poster reproduction at half scale of John McCulloch's geological map of Scotland. However, MacCulloch's is not the first geological map of the country, as the headline states. That distinction belongs to the map presented by Louis Albert Necker of Geneva to the infant Society on 4 November 1808.

Necker's hand-coloured manuscript map was apparently accompanied by an explanatory memoir, which seems not to have survived. The map was not published until 1939 by the Edinburgh Geological Society and w2as the subject of a paper by Victor Eyles in the Society's Transactions in 1948, as noted by Gordon Herries-Davies in his recent history. Necker's remarkable map was reprinted by Bartholomew & Son in 1985, in Edinburgh.

"Janet Watson Lecture Theatre" 

Editor's note:  We reproduce here some of the letters received in reaction to the Council suggestion to name the Lecture Theatre for the Society's first woman President, Janet Watson.  The idea was publicisesd in the July and August editions of Geoscientist.  So far there have been three letters against and 33 in favour. Ted Nield

From Rex Davis (Rec'd 20.10; Pub'd 22.10. 2007)

Sir, During my five years as Head of the Geology Department at Imperial College in the 1970s, I successfully proposed three hard-to-get promotions to Professorships. These were: John Knill (Engineering Geology), Douglas Shearman (Sedimentology) and Janet Watson. All three distinguished themselves, among many others, at a time of great forward movement in geology generally, and also in the welfare of the Society.

The special and unique accomplishment of Janet Watson, however, was to earn the accolade of becoming our first woman President. I am delighted now to follow up my high regard for Janet over three decades ago by warmly applauding the Council proposal to mark this milestone in the history of the Society by naming our Lecture Theatre in her memory.

From Richard Symonds (Rec'd 11.10; Pub'd 15.10.2007)

Sir, Does the Geological Society Lecture Theatre need another name at all? It already has a long name. To change it to the Geological Society (of London) Janet Watson Lecture Theatre, for this is what it would have to be known as to everyone other than the officers, staff and regulars of the Society, seems too much.

The definite article holds the clue; there is just the one lecture theatre. To name it after Watson (or anyone else) implies there is another lecture theatre from which it needs to be distinguished. If the Society had more than one lecture theatre (as it does meeting rooms or libraries) then some form of additional identification would be needed; but it doesn't.

Unlike Lyell, Buckland, Holmes and the alternatives suggested (Smith and Darwin), Watson's reputation does not seem to be growing as time passes. As the other letters show, it seems to be limited to members of a generation with whom she had personal contact.

I don't doubt their sentiments are sincere. In this case sentiment is not enough. Fred Dunning wrote a polite and reasonable letter against the Council proposal suggesting that William Smith might be honoured instead, in view of the injustice done to him - to which the Editor responded by suggesting that the Society might have regard instead to the need to right "what many believe has been the Society's historical collective insult to the whole of womanhood". I doubt even the name of Janet Watson could right that wrong.

Please Council, pull back from adding to the sum of human misery by the generation of redundant monikers; but if you insist I would vote for Darwin.

From Darren Page (Rec'd 10.10; Pub'd 15.10.2007)

Sir, While I do not doubt Janet Watson’s valuable contribution to certain aspects of geology there are just so many individuals who have equally made their contribution to geology and the Society over the past 200 years who will never be fully appreciated and it does a huge disservice to these people to single out one person in this way.

I acknowledge that many have been acclaimed but by and large this has been many years after their death or a long time ago. For a learned society one’s legacy is the work they have done and their contribution to the betterment of knowledge. For it is only on this that they can be judged and remembered.

May I suggest that if anything is named after an individual that it is done so well after their death and also the death of their peers and acquaintances when a balanced and unemotional view of their contribution to science and society can be made? I am not in favour of this proposal and would strongly urge others to think again. I do not see that being a nice person, a woman or a great tutor are sufficient reasons for such an accolade.

From Michael D Max (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.10.2007)

Sir, I would like to express my strong support for naming the lecture Theatre after Janet Watson. I think it is very appropriate in general while I feel it is even more appropriate in particular. My first visit to the Geol Soc was in the company of Janet, who brought myself and some other hangers-on along with a group of Imperial College geologists to an evening meeting. I believe that she was also one of my proposers for fellowship. That began an extremely pleasant and useful period for me during what could now described as the golden age of structural and metamorphic geological researches in the 20th Century.

From Julia Hubbard (Rec'd & Pub'd 21.9.2007)

I have no views on this gallant gesture to the late Prof Janet Watson FRS: but I am reminded of the fact that until the revamping of the rooms at Somerset House for the Courtauld, the rooms still bore the titles of the Geological Society Executives' Positions over their portals. So I have little confidence of this type of gallantry lasting very long.

It is however a nice thought. Janet is certainly worthy of the honour on all counts. As Jake would say she doesn't need to adhere to fefeminist causes she is one by example.

From Tim Whitten (Rec'd 17.09.07; Pub'd 21.09.2007) 

Council’s recent decision in favour of naming the Society’s Lecture Theatre for Professor Janet Watson was, in my view, an excellent and appropriate decision because of Janet’s stature as a scientist and communicator; those skills were often displayed at Burlington House. I hope a wide cross-section of the fellowship agrees.

Because Janet’s untimely death occurred some 22 years ago, many fellows will not have known her personally. I was privileged, however, to have benefited from her wonderfully clear and crisp presentations in the Society’s lecture theatre during the 1950s, which was a particularly stimulating decade for British structural geology. Would that all papers were presented with such clarity! Although four years Janet Watson’s junior, I was on the academic staff of one of the other University of London geology departments from hers during the 1950s and followed keenly the development of her stimulating research and communication skills, which were displayed so frequently and regularly at the Society. It seems so appropriate to name the Lecture Theatre after a fellow who was such an excellent geologist and lecturer, who published extensively in the Society’s Journal, and who went on to be one of its distinguished presidents. I appreciate the opportunity to support the Council’s decision.

From John Richardson (Rec'd 13.09.07, Pub'd 21.09.2007)

In the mid-1950s, my undergraduate days, the work of Sutton and Watson in the Highlands was synonymous with excellence. Later when I lectured at King’s College and came to know them both I appreciated why. At Geol. Soc. Meetings and on visits to Imperial College I often met Janet and was even more impressed. Marjorie Muir, one of Janet’s colleagues, always spoke very highly of her and I am sure that Marjorie would want me to add her support to mine. Janet Watson was one of those very rare individuals who combined scientific excellence and success, and highly developed communication skills, with a helpful, pleasant, patient nature. She was an excellent lecturer and a brilliant teacher. The proposal to name the Burlington House Lecture Theatre for Janet Watson has my wholehearted support.

From Paul Compton (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.9.2007)

Sir, I met Janet Watson when she was my PhD external examiner in 1978. She impressed me not only as an excellent and skilled geologist, but as a warm human being, dedicated to her chosen role in geology education and research. While I cannot class her among the “greats” of geology (everyone has their own personal list), naming the lecture theatre after her is a fitting memorial, and makes a clear statement that that the Geological Society is not a stuffy, misogynistic organization.

From Barbara Dickinson (Rec'd 5; Pub'd 6 September 2007)

Sir, Yes! A thousand times Yes!

From Howard Johnson (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.2007)

Sir, I would like to give your proposal to re-name the GSL lecture theatre after Janet Watson my complete support. This has little to do with my present association with IC, but everything to do with the influence that Janet Watson had on me personally as well as so many other geologists of my generation. As an A-level student in the late 60's, the two Read and Watson books were immensely important and contributed to many taking up the subject in the first place, either at school or as a new subject at university. I don't think we can overestimate her enduring influence on both academic geology and its professional applications. Consequently, I am fully behind the Council's proposal for the Janet Watson Lecture Theatre.

From Stuard Baldwin (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.2007)

Sir, Many years ago I had the pleasure of sitting on a committee with Janet Watson. Both intellectually and as a person I found her exceptionally stimulating and kind and fully support the idea of naming the Lecture Theatre in her honour.

From Annette Cutler (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.07)

As the first female to become a Chartered Geologist, I note the proposal to name the lecture theatre for Professor Janet Watson, to which I am compelled to write and offer my support. Although I never had the honour to meet her, Professor Watson was an inspiration not only to myself as a budding female geologist but also to my male contemporaries. Professors Sutton and Watson texts were quoted on a regular basis throughout my university years, but it was she, who caught the imagination of those young undergraduates such that it was her name that was frequently mentioned in conversation. As a young professional geologist, I similarly frequently heard her name mentioned throughout Geological Society meetings and events. Professor Watson has clearly had a lasting influence on a great many of us and made a major contribution to geological knowledge in the last century. Council’s proposal is a fitting tribute to a highly distinguished and influential geologist and, in my opinion, a great woman of our time.

From John F Dewey (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.07)

Sir, The GSL should have no hesitation in naming its lecture theatre "The Janet Watson Lecture Theatre". Janet was a wonderful friend and mentor to many IC students, including me. She was not only one of the towering, original, and clever figures of geology but was an extraordinarily good teacher. She was not only admired but loved deeply by all who knew her.

From Jane MacKelvie Jutsum (Rec'd & Pub'd 3.9.07)

Sir, I would like to see the room named after Janet Watson as she managed to combine being a brilliant academic with being a kind and inspirational teacher and a delightful person. The fact that she was the first female president of Geol Soc is also relevant. Perhaps it is because she always came after the “and” (Read and Watson; Sutton and Watson), that her light never really shone from under the bushel in the way it should have done. This is an opportunity to put this right and give her the credit that she is due.

Although I no longer work in geology (I am a barrister with the CPS), I enjoyed my studies at Swansea and Imperial in the 1970s and 1980s with two remarkable groups of academics. I still like to try to understand the advances documented in Geol Soc publications, with a varying degree of success!

From Andrew Cheatle (Rec'd & Pub'd 24.7.8)

Sir, The Council's proposal to name the Society's Lecture Theatre after Professor Janet Watson is most fitting. As an undergraduate at the Royal School of Mines, Imperial College (1982-85) I was fortunate to have been taught - regrettably all too briefly - by Prof. Watson. Her lectures were always of immense quality and given with passion for the subject. Professor Watson was an inspirational lecturer who imbued a strong spirit of scientific inquiry into the students she taught.

Over the years, I have come to realise what a privilege it was to have her as a lecturer and to this day I can still recall (paraphrased here) her introduction to the Phanerozoic/Palaeozoic in first year General Geology: "....and moving onto the recent past; and by that I mean the Cambrian." 

I support the proposal.

From Dr Tony M Spencer (Rec'd & Publ'd 23.8.07)

Sir, This is a very good idea. I remember Janet at many GSL meetings in the period 1968 - 1979. She talked to everyone about geology and was full of interest in our subject.

From Prof. John Murray (Rec'd & Publ'd 15.8.2007)

Sir, I fully support the proposal to name the lecture theatre in honour of Janet Watson because she was an outstanding geologist and an excellent teacher.

From Eva Paproth (Rec'd 12.8: Publ'd 15.8.2007)

Sir, May I be permitted to express my real delight that Council plans to name the Society's Meeting Room for Prof. Janet Watson. I am very much in favour of that proposition. I had the honour to know her from working in IGCP Project 861, many years ago, and I shall never forget her most efficient and most amiable great personality.

From Prof. Fred Dunning (Rec'd & Pub'd 13.8.07)

Sir, I had a high opinion of Janet Watson as a person and as an outstanding Highland geologist. However, notwithstanding her eminence in British geology, she does not in my opinion (and I am sure not in her own opinion) rate as "one of the greatest geologists of the 20th Century" to quote the recent Geoscientist article. Her work is known to comparatively few Earth scientists on the world scene. 

However there is one great figure in British geology and geological science generally who does merit your description and that is William Smith. Although treated shabbily by the Society during much of his lifetime, the Society made up for this in later years and after his death, when the stupendous magnitude of his contribution as the founding father of stratigraphical geology and the first geological mapper of his native country came to be understood and appreciated. Short perhaps of naming the Meeting Room after Charles Darwin (for which a case could be made), nothing could be more apt than the "William Smith Room". No-one would demur at this and the world at large would applaud it. It would stand alongside William Smith’s famous map in Burlington House.

Would the Janet Watson proposal have been made if she had been a male geologist with the same body of work and reputation? I think not.

From Dr Malcolm Jenyon (Rec’d and Pub’d 11.8.2007)

As a comment on the "Society Business" section in the August Geoscientist I most strongly support the choice of naming the Lecture Theatre in honour of Professor Janet Watson. From early familiarity with her work in my undergraduate days, to the great privilege I had in the early 1980s of holding a fascinating conversation with her as a fellow guest at a dinner in London, I have esteemed this gentle, intellectually formidable lady. Her name certainly deserves to be included in any list of the great geologists.

From Helen Nattrass (Rec's & Pub'd 9.8.07)

Sir, I am in favour of the theatre being named after Janet Watson. I did Geology BSc in the mid 70s at the RSM. I had not studied geology at school but I thought it sounded interesting and might lead to exciting employment. Well, I arrived knowing virtually nothing about rocks or the Earth.

After three weeks there was a compulsory field trip to Devon. I can remember Janet Watson and John Knill, among others, on that first excursion.

I have a vivid recollection of standing on the sea-shore one October morning when Janet was talking about the Devonian limestone. She had a small group around her and she was explaining something of what could be seen in the specimen. I, who knew absolutely nothing, asked "So how do you know it's limestone?" There were a few gasps and titters. Janet stopped and explained very kindly and lucidly how one identified limestone in the field. She did not make fun of me, took my question seriously and gave the answer - such an elementary point for an FRS.

I ended up following John Knill's footsteps in my degree and professional life. But I have always remembered that early moment with Janet Watson. I was amazed that such a famous and senior member of staff could be bothered to accompany 1st year 'know-nothing' students on a low-level elementary piece of course-work.

From Prof. Rick Sibson (Rec'd & Pub'd) 9.8.07)

Sir, I had the immense privilege of being supervised by Janet Watson during my PhD research on the Outer Hebrides Thrust in the early 1970s. She was a wonderful and warm human being whose scientific acumen and perceptive insights were matched only by her thoughtfulness - and the care she took in overseeing the hesitant footsteps of young scientists while at the same time allowing them to pursue their own research paths.

I fully and heartily endorse the proposal to name the Burlington House Lecture Theatre after her - a very fitting tribute.   

From Prof. Gordon Craig (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.8 2007)

Sir, Excellent idea to name the theatre after Janet. If only all geologists could talk and write as clearly and concisely as she did. I first met her in 1953 when we were both speaking at the Geol.Soc. She was presenting a metamorphic paper on behalf of Derek Flinn: I was talking about Carboniferous paleoecology. In those days the theatre had opposing rows of seats, House of Commons style. Gertie Elles was there with her ear trumpet!

Afterwards Janet and I were invited to eat at the Dining Club - which turned out to be in a basement room down some dingy stairs at a nearby pub. At the end of the meal we were asked to leave because the members had private business to attend to! And so, somewhat perplexed and overawed by the occasion we found ourselves back on the dark streets of London... 

From Lady Diane Knill (Rec’d 3.8, Pub’d 5.8.07)

Sir, I strongly support the proposal that the Lecture Theatre should be named for Janet Watson. I was fortunate enough to be a Ph.D. student at Imperial College when both John Sutton and Janet Watson were members of the staff. Indeed John Sutton was my supervisor.

Prior to coming to Imperial (I was a geology undergraduate at Queen's Belfast - most regrettably a department that no longer exists) and was inspired by the work which Janet and John were publishing at that time. Indeed they, along with H.H. Read, were the magnets which drew me to Imperial for my research.

Although Janet was in many ways a very unassuming person there was no doubting her formidable intellect and geology owes much to her research into metamorphic geology and Pre-Cambrian stratigraphy. Janet was always approachable and I am sure she has been an inspiration to many female geologists. I have always been proud that I knew her both as a geologist and a friend. 

From Joe McCall (Rec'd 15.07, Pub'd 1.08) 

Sir, As her PhD student contemporary and one who spent a sabbatical year in 1967 sharing an office with Janet Watson, I think the idea about naming the lecture theatre after her is splendid. She was a most courageous lady with a brilliant brain. However, as Gordon Herries Davies emphasises in his excellent book, the Society has a long history of male chauvinism. I found it still rife at the University of Western Australia in the 1960s, where the late Professor Prider would not give field instruction to female students and passed them to me (he disliked me, and imagined he was doing me a disfavour, which was far from the case!). One year I taught five very bright female students, and one of them has remained a friend for life.

I suggest that a plaque be put on the wall stating the dedication to Janet, stating that it also reflects the Society's appreciation of Mary Anning, a strange omission by Herries Davies (for whom the Society contributed a relief fund and a memorial window to Lyme Regis church) and all those female geologists who have made important contributions to geology through the first 200 years of the Society's history. In this way, a longstanding wrong by our predecessors will be acknowledged and, I trust, laid to rest. I have a soft spot for Rachel Workman (Lady MacRobert) who lost three sons in WW2, but splendidly donated a Lancaster bomber in their memory named "MacRobert’s reply". She also donated funds for text books for ex-service students to H H Read, and I was one grateful recipient.

Desk Job (continued)

From Dr Deryck Laming (Rec’d & Pub’d 26 July 2007)

Sir, I wish to express my incredulity at the design of Society's new reception desk. Rather like the man who every day lunched in the Eiffel Tower because that was the only place from which he could not see it, the receptionist is the only one not condemned to view the pile from the front.

But I have another sad comment: the bleakness of the entrance hall. Where are the jolly book displays of yesteryear, the comfortable chairs where the London-weary traveller could sit for a few minutes (there was even a geological jewellery display cabinet, where once I was persuaded to make a purchase)? From the stark bareness of this new hallway we now see the pile of tombstones whose tonnes of uncouth and clashing design cannot boast even a milligram of sensitivity.

It stands as an object lesson: never let a geologist design a public building, and never let an architect design a geological feature, especially one in the heart of the profession's headquarters. 

(Further correspondence in this series can be found below - Editor)

Not ON...

From Anna Grayson (Rec'd 3 July Pub'd 17 July 2007) 

Sir, Readers should be aware (ONward and upward, Geoscientist 17,6 pp24-25) that the BBC did in fact commission a number of programmes and associated publications during the 80s and 90s with strong and robust geological themes including - Geology; Rock Solid; Postcards from the Past, Essential Guide to Rocks, Mars Weekend, The Ology Hour, Earthworks.

Neither Martine Benoit nor John Simmons had any involvement with these programmes. To lump these broadcasts with "weather porn" is false and to imply that their content might also have been limited to death, disaster and destruction inaccurate.

Global flatulence

From Michael F Ridd* Rec’d 11 July; Pub’d 13 July 2007

Sir, The Global Warming bandwagon gathers pace and it is hardly possible to open a newspaper or turn on the TV news without another story warning us that man’s actions are causing the ice-caps to melt or hurricanes to increase in intensity. The justification usually given that the warming is anthropogenic and not natural is that there is a consensus among climate scientists who agree that it is so. And now Colin Summerhayes tells us the same thing in the July issue of Geoscientist – “Global Warming: A Basic Primer”.

What has happened to normal and proper scientific scepticism? Geologists don’t wish to know what the consensus view is; we want to hear the evidence so that we can form our own opinions. Why, for example, was there a period of global cooling lasting several decades in the middle of the 20^th Century when atmospheric CO₂ emissions continued to rise? And what was the source of the high CO₂ concentrations that correlate with warm periods in the geological past? Is Colin able to prove me wrong if I opine that it may be the warming which causes the increase in CO₂ rather than the reverse?

Of course, we should seek to conserve our finite resources of fossil fuels and protect the planet from pollution. But when the broadcast media warn us (as they have this week) that the flatulence of farm animals is contributing to global warming we can be forgiven for thinking that maybe hysteria is taking over.

* michaelfridd@aol.com

Desk Job (continued)

From Robert Sandford, 
Julian Harrap (Architects) 
(Rec'd & Pub'd 23.5.07 )

Sir, Not being a geologist and at the risk of generating further correspondence, I thought that, as architect for the new Reception Desk at the Geological Society, I should attempt to explain the ‘stratigraphical confusions’ (Geoscientist vol. 17.5 May 2007).

The design concept for the desk was to use stones native to the British Isles, arranged in the three main rock groups, that is, igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic, with the lower levels at the base of the desk comprising granites, rising through limestones and sandstones to the genetically subsequent metamorphic marbles and slates at the counter top. The seventeen stone courses making up the desk were not, therefore, based solely on ‘aesthetic criteria’ but were arranged in geological age as identified in the National Stone Directory 2004–5.

Within each rock group the individual courses are layered chronologically so that, for example, the limestones and sandstones rise from the Devonian Caithness Flagstone (course 14) up to the Hurdcott green sandstone of the Cretaceous at course 3.

While it would have been geologically correct to complete the desk at counter top level with the youngest stones, in practical terms this would have been inappropriate as we needed to provide a durable and easily maintainable counter top.

According to my geological source books, as metamorphic rocks are formed from pre-existing rocks, I thought it justifiable to complete the desk at the upper level with Burlington Slate and Connemara marble (courses 1 and 2, respectively).

I appreciate that, from a purely geological viewpoint, it is regrettable that some of the layers are partially obscured, by overlying courses. Here, I must accept that architectural considerations took precedence.

As well as layering and grouping the stones chronologically, the design concept for the desk was also to reflect and exaggerate the stratification of rock formations in, for example, cliff faces and quarries - thereby to provide a contemporary piece of furniture that can be readily identified with the Geological Society.

As Eric Robinson’s article and numerous emails appear to suggest, the desk has already provided both a learning tool and a talking point for members and visitors alike!

History, man

From P Holroyd (Rec'd and Pub'd 16 May 2007) 

Sir, Rarely have I come across a book that is so readable, enjoyable and informative as "Whatever is Under the Earth" - the 200-year history of The Geological Society, written by Gordon Herries Davies.  Author and publisher are to be congratulated on producing an incredibly detailed record of the Society's history in such a high quality book.

Desk Job

From Prof. Dick Selley (Rec’d & Pub’d 8 May 2007)

Sir, Once upon a time, Bob the Builder bought a load of blank tombstones (Geoscientist 17.5 May 2007 p.10) at a knock down price when the monumental masons “Gravestones ‘R' Us'” went into receivership. He flogged them to the contractors refurbishing the Society's apartments. Bob delivered the tombstones when all the staff were out to lunch. As his white van was parked in Piccadilly he hurriedly stacked the gravestones in a pile with no thought for structure or stratigraphy. When the staff returned from lunch they thought that the pile was a work of art by Tracy Hirst, Damien Emin, or some such, admired them and continued about their duties.

The pile will no doubt stay there until the end of the Holocene, while Murchison rotates in his grave like a drill-bit shouting 'I just don't believe it'.

From Prof Bernard E Leake (Rec'd and Pub'd 10 May 07)

Sir, Connemara Marble is a metamorphosed impure dolomite (Geoscientist 17.5 May 2007 p.11). The characteristic green colour derives from serpentinised olivine (~98% Forsterite, Mg₂SiO₄), tremolite Ca₂Mg₅Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂ and some diopside CaMgSi₂O₆, all of which minerals require Mg from dolomite and Si from clay or quartz impurities and the last two also need Ca.The excess Ca makes the calcite part of the marble. The green colour comes from the presence of minute traces of Fe. As you already have several limestones in the desk, it actually is an improvement to have one dolomite!

 

From Dr Chris Thomas (Rec'd & Pub'd 29 March 2007)

Sir, It was interesting to read Professor Nick Petford’s call for geochemists to embrace the full range of statistical techniques available to analyse the now vast amount of geochemical data that exist worldwide (Geoscientist 17, 3, p3). How right he is!

In his brief critique, the Harker diagram (and its variants) is highlighted as still being the chief means by which geochemists seek out trends amongst compositional variables, with the aim of elucidating the chemical and physical processes that underlie these variations. He mentions that the main weakness of such diagrams is their limited scope in terms of multivariate analysis.

From a statistical point of view, there is a further, more serious issue. Multivariate compositional data are, by their very nature, closed – they sum to a constant. This means that the trends observed in any diagram of such ‘raw’ compositional data (wt %, ppm…) are subject to spurious correlations. These reflect complex interrelationships between variables that, at least in part, may have no origin in the processes by which the rocks formed. In strictly statistical terms, these relationships are indeterminate and thus un-interpretable when standard statistical techniques are applied to ‘raw’ compositional data. Yet this problem is still largely ignored amongst geoscientists, despite the warnings and efforts of a number of petrologists and statisticians in recent years, beginning with Felix Chayes in the 1960s (Chayes 1960, 1962, 1971).

As John Aitchison has elucidated since the 1980s, the key is to examine ratios of compositional variables. Happily, this is something geologists and geochemists are very comfortable with, but perhaps without being aware of the way in which the ratios, especially in more tractable log form, free the data from the confines of closure and open up the data to standard multivariate analysis, (subject, of course, to all the usual caveats).

The Geological Society has recently published Special Publication 264: Compositional Data Analysis in the Geosciences (Buccianti et al. 2006). This volume reflects some of the work that has taken place most recently since the publication of John Aitchison’s monograph “The Statistical Analysis of Compostional Data” in 1986 (Aitchison 1986). The volume includes a number of applied papers that point towards a new era of sensible statistical analysis of compositions and includes papers on using a well-known spreadsheet package and the open source R software for compositional data analysis.

The numerical properties of compositional data are now well-rehearsed; teachers and students should be aware of the issues. The methods with which to treat such data in a robust and statistically sound manner are available. It is time for we geologists and geochemists to run with the new methods, to think in more depth about the nature of the wealth of data we have at our finger tips, and how we analyse them. Indeed, it is time for more creative thinking – and for more robust and statistically valid modelling.

*British Geological Survey, Edinburgh

The views expressed in this letter are personal and are not a corporate statement of the British Geological Survey. Published with the permission of the Executive Director, British Geological Survey (NERC).

References

* Aitchison, J. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. Chapman and Hall, London and New York.
* Buccianti, A., Mateu-Figueras, G. & Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. 2006. Compositional Data Analysis in the Geosciences: From Theory to Practice. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 264.
* Chayes, F. 1960. On correlation between variables of constant sum. Journal of Geophysical Research 65, 4185-4193.
* Chayes, F. 1962. Numerical correlation and petrographic variation. Journal of Geology 70, 440-452.
* Chayes, F. 1971. Ratio Correlation. University of Chicago Press, Illinois.

Climate change - a sceptic writes

from Peter Easton* (Rec'd and Pub'd 26 Feb)

Sir, I am disappointed that Geoscientist does not do more to defend the integrity of science in the climate change debate. Whether believer or skeptic, any scientist should feel discomfort with how the hysteria of politicians and journalists seems to lead the public perception of scientific ‘truth’. Many argue it is too risky to admit uncertainty, but this is a political rather than scientific conclusion. I myself remain unconvinced that manmade climate change is either significant or a significant threat – a view derived from the science rather than any lack of concern for the environment, whose protection I strongly believe in. The case is not made for industrialising our best country side with wind farms, or of swinging back to nuclear power before deciding we are satisfied with its safety.

I meet many nationalities through my work, but find that universal conviction exists only in the UK, with more (healthy) scepticism elsewhere. I do not expect to influence the views of committed believers with my own, but I implore all scientists to make the effort to judge the science for themselves, rather than be led by the headlines, or even the opinions of other scientists. A good source is the IPCC scientific reports (not the politicised Summary for Policymakers), as well as many other good studies.

As a leading scientific community, we have a duty to ensure that the freedom of legitimate scientific reason and debate is maintained, and to avoid being directed by political correctness. Earth scientists have a valuable role in understanding climate change, being more able than most to appreciate the significance of natural climate change against which manmade change must be compared. In fact, I would like to see a survey of Geoscientist readers’ views on climate change .

*Brussels, Belgium

Misnomers

from David James* (Recd'd and Pub'd 14.2)

Sir, Ted Nield prefaces his informative and evocative article on Estonian kukersite (Geoscientist, February 07, p2; feature p22 et seq.) by gleefully pointing out that this 'oil shale' is neither a shale nor contains oil; bringing to mind student days in the Welsh borders when Stuart McKerrow was wont to remind us that the 'Psammosteus Limestone' was neither a limestone nor did it contain Psammosteus.

A further misnomer in the article is the reference to the mammoth NKMZ** excavator as a 'dragline'. The photographs show that not only is the bucket jib-mounted (rather than solely cable-attached) but that it scoops outwards rather than dragging inwards .

This relict behemoth of Soviet superiority is thus a power shovel. In my student days there was Cold War rivalry for building the biggest dragline excavator; the Brits being first to a 100 yard boom only to be eclipsed two years later by the Soviets with a 100 metre boom and bigger bucket. A year later we used an even bigger bucket but on a slightly shorter boom so one could argue a draw. Sadly the graceful giant walking draglines built in the UK by Ransomes & Rapier for the Northamptonshire ironstone field are now scrapped but Fellows missing their Tonka toys might like to know that an American-built relict of the genre, 'Oddball', is still visible at St Aidans, near Leeds (www.iarecordings.org/dragline).

*Finedon, Northamptonshire

** Notes and Clarifications

Editor writes: I am grateful to Peter Grimshaw FGS who points out that the power shovel illustrated in the February issue was made by Novo-Kramatorsky Mashinostroitelny Zavod, and that the letters on its side are therefore NMKZ, not NKME (the Cyrillic capital "Z" being of course written like a backwards "E" So much for my Russian O-Level.).

NKMZ is a heavy engineering company based in Kramatorsk, in the Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine. In the late 40s of the 20th Century, NKMZ started production of the Type SE-3 power shovels and Type ESH-1 walking drag-lines which supplied the immense development of opencast mining at that time, as well as large hydroelectric power schemes involving large earth-moving operations.

In the early 50s, concurrently with implementation of the draglines in service, heavy-duty stripping shovels with the buckets of 15 m³ and 35 m³ in capacity were manufactured in the USSR. Later on, these power shovels were exported to Germany, Russia, India, China, Iran, Cuba, etc. NKMZ became known all over the world and its trade mark received general acceptance. In half a century, over 2000 power shovels were produced.

In the late 50s, when the opencast mining technologies become the primary ones throughout the world, NKMZ was the pioneer in manufacture of the wheel-type excavating machines, spreaders, trunk belt conveyors, mobile crushing plants, etc. in the USSR. In the early 60s, NKMZ started supplying equipment for ore mining plants and opencast coalfields.

For more information of this sort go to http://www.nkmz.com/English/index.html

Ted Nield

A weighty matter

From John Heathcote (Rec'd 10.1; Pub'd 11.1)

Sir, Our magazine has had a re-vamp and it's printed on different paper. The paper is made from 50% post-consumer waste which is a good thing. The previous layout did not state the source of the paper pulp. But the new magazine is nearly 50% heavier than the old one, so the energy cost of moving them around the UK and the world is proportionately higher, which is a bad thing.

I treat Geoscientist as a magazine, not a journal. It survives only a couple of months before heding off for recycling. Therefore I don't think we need to use high quality paper suitable for long storage, only the cheapest, lightest and most recycled stuff that will take a reasonable quality of print.

Editor replies:

I am not sure what other magazines Dr Heathcote reads to give him the impression that they are printed on lower quality paper than academic journals, but I don't believe the correlation applies past the Exchange & Mart. However I can assure him on a few points. The previous paper contained no recycled material. It was difficult to use because of static build-up as it passed the press, and its grey colour and show-through meant that readability was compromised.

The new paper is not only heavier but whiter. This, combined with the new font has made the magazine more readable for those Fellows with failing eyesight (about everyone over 40). And John will, I hope, be happy to hear that subsequent issues of the year will be printed on slightly lighter 100gsm stock, not the 115gsm stock we used for the January issue. It may also interest readers to know that this improvement in quality has come at no extra cost to the Fellows, either from printing or posta