RE: paleonet Storing collections: Burgess Shale Geopark

[Peter Paul Smolka <smolka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Andy Rindsberg wrote:

> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:56:15 -0500
> From: Andy Rindsberg <arindsberg@gsa.state.al.us>
> Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: paleonet Storing collections
>
> Thank you very much, Peter. You raised issues that had not even occurred to
> me.
>
> What about the convenience of local and visiting researchers? If the
> collection comes from a single site (such as the Burgess Shale), there are
> advantages both in keeping the material in one place (reducing travel costs
> for visitors and allowing direct comparison of all specimens) and in keeping
> the material in more than one place (allowing more people to examine at
> least part of the collection). What is your opinion on this?

Synopsis: Only interesting for a small number of people, e.g.
geopark (Burgess Shale Geopark) and museum issues.

End of synopsis.

Dear Andrew,

I understood your initial question (storing collections) such
that for example reference collections, such as from various
Geological Surveys around the Alabama Geological Survey should
be stored, comparable to a core repository.

See in this context also the Geopark symposia/symposium on
the forthcoming International Geological Congress in Florence
(e.g. there much better inspiration might be available).
See also UNESCO intiatives on that. Potentially there is also
respective expertise and support.

Thus this question is from the logic fundamentally different:

It should, when reading the answer, be kept in mind that I am
not a museum specialist (e.g. how to put what most effectively
on display).

That is: A point of high value should (a) be made accessible
to the public (b) be made accessible to the research community
(totally different requirements) and (c) inform all, public and
community on the state of the art of geology applied to that point.

As museums are expensive: You might ask yourself which type of
museums, beyond own professional needs you visited and or which
museums you wanted to visit but did not do because you had no
time (e.g. where there is real regret that you didn t do it).

For me it was: The chocolate museum in Cologne (in case I ever
have a problem with fine-mechanical apparatuses that cannot
be solved within a university I will approach one of the makers
of the chocolate-making machines working there, e.g. with
signs of the manufacturers).

The technology museum in Paris.

Federal German Flower Exhebition (with a guest)

And, which I regretted not to have visited: The "Universe Science
Center" in Bremen (recommended by many). They even have outside
the building a sign: "You are currently outside the universe,
the entrance is there".

A Burgess Shale Geopark must rise this regret among those who
didn t visit it.

Directly: When it comes to thinking in such categories, it will
be expensive. Threes such Geoparks go normally beyond possibilities.

What might then speak for three: Easy accessibility for regional
people one might suspect.

Problem: If the site should be visited in one day surface travel
must be included. Are the people 100 km around the site enough
(and interested enough) to travel 2x100 km for visiting a normal
museum. How many will it be? What are the costs, divided per
visitor and year.

If anyway visitors will have to pay Hotel costs the radiius stretches
to 800 km (in the US maybe less). This requires a high attraction
level.

This requires an excellent didactical presentation, also of
related subjects. This requires a moderate investment but
high annual costs.

This however, to touch the sense for the earth should also
include side aspects:

Bill Hay (W. Hay) presented some years ago GCM calculations
with paleooceans that only could fit the observations with
changed salinities (e.g. a section on paleooceanographical modeling,
supported from NCAR, can be included, todays oceans, Burgess Shale
Ocean and possibly even a run with oceans on other planets (Mars)).

Carbon stored in oil/coal deposits as well as the large amounts
of Mesozoic Carbonates (gross estimates) had before that been in the
in the ocean (alkalinity) and before that in atmosphere
(regarding alkalinity: A recent contribution in Science but focusing
on young changes).

Doing that, even absolutely grossly, the changes of CO2/O2 changes
count in percent, not ppm.

That is: Together with NCAR the Burgess Shale Geopark can include
a didactical section on coupled modeling. Together with
other institutes related fields can be presented well - even
tomography (for paleontology) the method itsself (to open the
minds for geophysics) and expected advancements can be included.

You might even invite Boeing to support it.

Reason: Above changes change also the viscosity of air. Gliding
(not flying) of larger "objects" (bodies) is supported.

Visitors might get at the Burgess Shale Geopark an impression
why large insects lived and why planes must be designed as they
are (the latter by Boeing, see also below).

This is written quite fast and details can be improved.

An idea of what can be done with a Burgess Shale Geopark
(and where support can be attracted from) is possible to get.

In above-mentioned French museum of technology the L`Onera
aeronautical laboratories (French supersonic planes incl.
military) have provided a section.

Similar reasoning can be done by Boeing, even as at that time
only the atmosphere and the oceans looked different, the air-traffic
(insects) needed to come (please correct me if I overlooked advances
or if I am totally wrong; that area is well beyond my working area).

The idea: What was supported by which paleoenvironment, how to
convey the message (including even: How would a 747 look like
if being economical in a respective atmosphere) becomes clear.

Again: Keeping in mind: Is it such that people would travel to
that, spend a weekend (incl. 1 Hotel night, potentially with
four persons) and recommend it further.

If yes: Do it. It is a challenge. Beyond enthusiasm for our
own field: Would you personally spend the needed money
to spend one weekend at such a site, potentially not on
the Burgess Shale (if you are engaged in it) but in a site
focusing on neogene environments.

Eyeballing my own museum visits and the emptyness in many museums
(= the chance that in 10 years the collections at three sites
might orphan) I personally would recommend:

Either a high-end Burgess-Shale Geopark.

Or a: "Burgess-Shale Repository" (one) focusing on science but
being open for the interested public.

The question is (Universe Science Center in Bremen is, to
my knowledge, also economical a success):

Might, possibly together with the Federal Geological Survey
you be able to attract visitors from a wide region (e.g. highlighting
many aspects of geology, the state of the art, also open questions
(= where young people see things they might do in 10 years), if yes:

How many per year, how distributed over the year (e.g. to avoid crowds),
which costs, which fee. These are questions (properties of
the population in and around Alabama) which I cannot answer.

A high-end internet presentation (incl. X-Ray images of fossils,
CT and MRT images of fossils etc.) is in any case possible
(Louvre is in the internet, Eremitage is in the internet).

All this reaches well into the field of museum design. Thus
you might raise the question on a respective list and/or
at UNESCO (recommendations for / experiences with Geoparks).

Under all these aspects, things speak for one, well prepared, central
site.

This is however only one opinion among many.

As I am not familiar with the population structure and free-time
habits in and around Alabama I might be absolutely wrong.

There the Geopark symposium on the IGC might be the place to get
additional ideas.

>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
> Andrew K. Rindsberg
> Geological Survey of Alabama
>
Best regards, Peter
>

**********************************************************************
Dr. Peter P. Smolka
University Muenster
Geological Institute
Corrensstr. 24
D-48149 Muenster

Tel.: +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
Fax:  +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de
**********************************************************************