How do you handle something that is “one of a kind”? With care?
Of Earth’s thousands of minerals, about 100 are very common. Quartz, the dominant mineral in beach sands from Maine to Texas, is a combination of silicon and oxygen, and it should be common because its component elements dominate the composition of Earth’s crust.
Unlike silicon and oxygen, two elements that are probably not on everyone’s list of common stuff are thorium and molybdenum These two combine to make a mineral called ichnusaite. Ichnusaite is the rarest of minerals. Mineralogists know of only one specimen from Sardinia. Just one, and it comprises a very small set of overlapping sheet-like crystals about 300 microns long. For anyone metrically challenged, let me say that’s really tiny.
Minerals form as substances of specific composition under environments with limited ranges in temperature and pressure, and they form only when there is both space to form and sufficient atoms to join in their crystalline structure. Those that we use for gems are specimens that formed under ideal conditions. But Earth is a messy place, so many natural crystals aren’t “pure.” An “ideal, perfect” diamond is a carbon mineral, not a combination of elements like quartz, but individual diamonds contain other elements as evidenced by variations in color. Some boron atoms, for example, lie within the crystal structure of the Hope Diamond, imparting a blue color.
I don’t know whether or not the single specimen of ichnusaite is composed of just thorium and molybdenum. Maybe it is. To discover whether or not it is a “pure” mineral requires destroying a small sample of it. The size of the specimen doesn’t give anyone much to work with. Beside, what might be accomplished by altering the only specimen? Could there be other elements incorporated in its crystal sheets? Sure. Thorium’s destiny is to turn into lead through radioactive decay, so we could assume that process is already altering the mineral’s composition.
That there is only one specimen is the point here. No one is going to care if you alter one 300-micron grain of sand on a beach. Probably some would take note if you altered the only specimen of ichnusaite by taking it apart to see its composition. Destroying one-of-a-kind leaves none of that kind. Yes, I know, there are some who would opt for the destructive analysis regardless of its obvious consequence.
Why is it that we don’t treat individuals as we do the only specimen of the rarest mineral? We call ourselves “individuals” for a reason: Each is one of a kind; each, rare; each worth preserving without destructive analysis.
Of Earth’s thousands of minerals, about 100 are very common. Quartz, the dominant mineral in beach sands from Maine to Texas, is a combination of silicon and oxygen, and it should be common because its component elements dominate the composition of Earth’s crust.
Unlike silicon and oxygen, two elements that are probably not on everyone’s list of common stuff are thorium and molybdenum These two combine to make a mineral called ichnusaite. Ichnusaite is the rarest of minerals. Mineralogists know of only one specimen from Sardinia. Just one, and it comprises a very small set of overlapping sheet-like crystals about 300 microns long. For anyone metrically challenged, let me say that’s really tiny.
Minerals form as substances of specific composition under environments with limited ranges in temperature and pressure, and they form only when there is both space to form and sufficient atoms to join in their crystalline structure. Those that we use for gems are specimens that formed under ideal conditions. But Earth is a messy place, so many natural crystals aren’t “pure.” An “ideal, perfect” diamond is a carbon mineral, not a combination of elements like quartz, but individual diamonds contain other elements as evidenced by variations in color. Some boron atoms, for example, lie within the crystal structure of the Hope Diamond, imparting a blue color.
I don’t know whether or not the single specimen of ichnusaite is composed of just thorium and molybdenum. Maybe it is. To discover whether or not it is a “pure” mineral requires destroying a small sample of it. The size of the specimen doesn’t give anyone much to work with. Beside, what might be accomplished by altering the only specimen? Could there be other elements incorporated in its crystal sheets? Sure. Thorium’s destiny is to turn into lead through radioactive decay, so we could assume that process is already altering the mineral’s composition.
That there is only one specimen is the point here. No one is going to care if you alter one 300-micron grain of sand on a beach. Probably some would take note if you altered the only specimen of ichnusaite by taking it apart to see its composition. Destroying one-of-a-kind leaves none of that kind. Yes, I know, there are some who would opt for the destructive analysis regardless of its obvious consequence.
Why is it that we don’t treat individuals as we do the only specimen of the rarest mineral? We call ourselves “individuals” for a reason: Each is one of a kind; each, rare; each worth preserving without destructive analysis.
RSS Feed