[meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:18:59 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikDTuX83G1N_1cwjEhOcMAklmpeTaCLCpBm2lH7_at_mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Michael Blood <mlblood at cox.net> wrote:
> Hi Paul, Carl and others,
> ? ? ? ?Paul ?wrote:
>> Some researchers argue that authenticating and publishing
> about stolen
>> artifacts and fossils definitely increases their
> commercial value and, thus,
>> rewards illegal activity. They
> would argue that this also encourages the
>> demand and trade
> in stolen artifacts and ultimately results in more artifacts
>>
> being looted.
>
> ? ? ? ? Artifacts are really a different category because theft is theft
> and they really do reflect a country's heritage - however, that does not
> mean withholding information just because an artifact was stolen is not a
> Blow against academic freedom and, in fact, a form of censorship.

No one is talking about "withholding information." If illegally
exported meteorites were to be submitted, you seem to be assuming, for
whatever reason, that the Nomenclature Committee/Meteoritical Society
would accept the submission, but not publish it. I don't understand
why you seem to be fixating on this one way that the system could, but
probably shouldn't, work.

> ? ? ? ?Carl wrote:
>> I think nomenclature needs to publish a set on guidelines for classifiers to
>> follow and allow and accept more peoples opinions and allow then to classify
>> there own meteorites. .
>> In other words if Jason says he found an ordinary chondrite he should be able
>> to submit it himself without having to have a SEM evaluation. As stated this
>> is an ordinary chondrite why do we need a scientist to tell us that?
>> Please understand what I am saying is that it does not take a Ph,D to
>> determine this.
>
> Really? This would open up a never ending can of worms. Labs and SPECIFIC
> Individuals approved of by the committee prevent the huge cluster **** that
> would result from such a practice.
> ? ? ? ?If you are really serious about this, the thing to do is join the
> Meteoritical Society and volunteer to head up a committee to set the
> standards and outline the process that would result in an ability to
> evaluate and approve of qualified individuals to perform such a service.

I agree - there would be quite a bit of chaos if people decided to
keep breaking international laws and illegally exporting meteorites --
if the Nomenclature Committee/Meteoritical Society decided to accept
the approach that you advocate.

If anything, at this point, I would simply advocate that all
meteorites illegally exported from their countries of origin have a
note somewhere in their write-up acknowledging them as illegally
exported meteorites. That way all of the information is there, and
people would know that they were supporting the illegal export of
valuable scientific materials from various countries.

> ? ? ? ?Lastly,
> ? ? ? ?Not all laws should be honored.
> ? ? ? ?Several examples can be sited:
> A) Pot will end you up in jail in most states, but you can smoke tobacco
> which kills over 33% of those who smoke over a lifetime.
> B) On a more serious note:
> ? ? ? ?1) In some countries slavery is still accepted.
> ? ? ? ?2) In some countries burning your wife alive is acceptable.
> ? ? ? ?3) In some countries killing your daughter, sister etc. is EXPECTED
> ? ? ? ? ? ?if she "shames the family" by being raped.
> ? ? ? ?4) many countries now forbid the export of meteorites as a violation
> ? ? ? ? ? ?against the "Cultural Heritage" of said country, completely in
> opposition to the FACT that meteorites (with very, very few
> exceptions) are in no way cultural nor are they heritage.

I agree; not all laws should be honored. But your argument here
is...strange. You seem to say that meteorites should be legal export
materials because, while the "Cultural Heritage" laws apparently
*should* be followed for archaeological materials, meteorites don't
fall under the category of "culturally" relevant materials, and thus
should be export-able.

This is simply an argument based on semantics. I agree, and I think
that everyone else here agrees as well, that the vast majority of
meteorites have no "cultural" value.
But the fact remains that they are scientifically important resources
that occur in extremely small quantities scattered about the surface
of the earth, and if a country decides to make exporting them
illegal...that's their business. And while I can see why a meteorite
dealer might oppose such a law (and collectors like myself, who see
fewer meteorites because of such laws), I have the feeling that most
people on here would generally try to abide by such laws.

> ? ? ? ?I believe I will leave this argument all together as I have not
> heard one single word to give me even the slightest inclination to
> Consider the withholding of information on meteorite types, names or
> Any other factors regarding them to be a good idea. In fact, I see it as
> fascist and not all that far removed from book burning.
> ? ? ? ?So, I will remain quiet on the issue and not interfere with others
> Expressing their own opinions. (unless it gets so out of hand I feel like
> Lewis Black - as though my head will explode!)
> ? ? ? ?Best wishes, Michael

I agree - withholding information probably isn't the best route to
take, but....it's not like burning a book.
Even *if* the information were withheld, it would still exist - burn a
book and you're left with nothing.

I'll get to the other posts shortly.

Regards,
Jason

> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sun 06 Jun 2010 10:18:59 PM PDT