21
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: What is this rock? What causes the central cavity?
« on: 30/04/2015 19:17:37 »
Looks like petrified bark to me.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
22
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Amateur Fossil Hunter Finds Unusual Boulder
« on: 21/12/2014 17:51:45 »
I found a rock sort of like that once. In a bed of yellow clay there was a dark rock about a foot in diameter made of dark sand and it had nodules of harder rock embedded in it. the nodules were hollow. It was alone in the clay bank. Makes no sense to me how it formed.
23
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Sources of pumice in local argillite?
« on: 02/08/2014 02:44:14 »
For a long time I had though that the source of the tuff rock here in the Union County area of NC was due to the volcano became Morrow Mtn. And that still may be the case. But after moving to Stanly County I have had the chance to look more closely. The magma erupted through the argilite layer. It was already there before Morrow Mtn ever existed. The argillite is part of the breccia made by the magma that became Morrow Mtn.
When I put the argillite in a tumbler and tumbled it I found little salt crystal sized bits of pumice. It is very evident that those grains of pumice did not come from Morrow Mtn. There is no apparent evidence of any other volcanoes in NC that I can find.
So where did the pumice come from? I have been told that any volcanoes have eroded away while softer rock is still here. That makes no sense. There should be an outcrop of basalt somewhere other than Stanly Co area and other than basalt found in those cracks made when Africa pulled away from north America. I have even searched Africa for evidence of a volcano and there is nothing there but sand.
Where did the pumice come from? Is there any way to match the chemical composition to it's parent? There is a missing extinct volcano in nc somewhere. I want to find it. Or at least learn the source of this material.
When I put the argillite in a tumbler and tumbled it I found little salt crystal sized bits of pumice. It is very evident that those grains of pumice did not come from Morrow Mtn. There is no apparent evidence of any other volcanoes in NC that I can find.
So where did the pumice come from? I have been told that any volcanoes have eroded away while softer rock is still here. That makes no sense. There should be an outcrop of basalt somewhere other than Stanly Co area and other than basalt found in those cracks made when Africa pulled away from north America. I have even searched Africa for evidence of a volcano and there is nothing there but sand.
Where did the pumice come from? Is there any way to match the chemical composition to it's parent? There is a missing extinct volcano in nc somewhere. I want to find it. Or at least learn the source of this material.
24
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Pleas tell me what this is.
« on: 14/04/2014 22:20:38 »
Have you done a hardness test? An acid test? It is hard to tell from just a picture. Looks like quartz or calcite, but with just a picture it is hard to tell.
25
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: How reliable are present rock features as a guide to past geology?
« on: 10/03/2014 16:42:11 »
Maybe all the ice melted everywhere just before the last ice age and sea level rose 250ft? Like it is melting now? I have read that if all the glaciers and ice caps melted it would raise sea levels 250 ft. Is that what happened?
We can't ignore this. It is too obvious to not see. Anyone with Google Earth can see it instantly. So what is the reason? Is it erosion of miles of sediments uncovering an old ocean bottom or the remains of the last time all the ice was gone?
Darn it, I am trying to make sense of this area and all I get are crickets when I ask a question. And this seemingly is the most active geology forum on the net. There is no where to discuss this stuff it seems.
We can't ignore this. It is too obvious to not see. Anyone with Google Earth can see it instantly. So what is the reason? Is it erosion of miles of sediments uncovering an old ocean bottom or the remains of the last time all the ice was gone?
Darn it, I am trying to make sense of this area and all I get are crickets when I ask a question. And this seemingly is the most active geology forum on the net. There is no where to discuss this stuff it seems.
26
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / How reliable are present rock features as a guide to past geology?
« on: 08/03/2014 05:13:46 »
I was told once (I think it was on this forum) that today's topology has nothing to do with past topology. I took that to mean that things do not erode and expose previous landforms as they were before they were covered.
I was also told that there is a missing 5 miles of sediment in the Carolina piedmont and coastal plain.
If that is so, then why does it seriously appear that the coastal plain and the border area with the piedmont is ocean bottom and a shore line? If you follow 250ft asl it looks like it was a beach. It looks just like either the ocean lost 250ft of water or the area was raised up that amount.
I mean, how is it possible that erosion would so perfectly erode away all of that dirt and rock and leave such a perfect representation of the previous ocean bottom? Could it be the ocean was higher recently (geologically speaking) and the created landform is yet to erode?
Or could the area be subject to some sort of tectonic uplift? I have read that there was a period some 5 million years ago when the Uwharries experienced uplift and another 25 million years ago for the Appalachians. Could whatever event that caused the uplift have caused the sea bed to raise 250ft?
Or is the whole "65 million year old sea bed eroded out of 5 miles of sediments" thing orthodoxy and set in stone so to speak?
I was also told that there is a missing 5 miles of sediment in the Carolina piedmont and coastal plain.
If that is so, then why does it seriously appear that the coastal plain and the border area with the piedmont is ocean bottom and a shore line? If you follow 250ft asl it looks like it was a beach. It looks just like either the ocean lost 250ft of water or the area was raised up that amount.
I mean, how is it possible that erosion would so perfectly erode away all of that dirt and rock and leave such a perfect representation of the previous ocean bottom? Could it be the ocean was higher recently (geologically speaking) and the created landform is yet to erode?
Or could the area be subject to some sort of tectonic uplift? I have read that there was a period some 5 million years ago when the Uwharries experienced uplift and another 25 million years ago for the Appalachians. Could whatever event that caused the uplift have caused the sea bed to raise 250ft?
Or is the whole "65 million year old sea bed eroded out of 5 miles of sediments" thing orthodoxy and set in stone so to speak?
27
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Breccia updated
« on: 19/02/2014 04:24:38 »
After further scouring of Google Earth I found what seems to be the source of that lone piece of basalt. There is an outcrop about 1.2 miles from the rock and it is on a small hill. That is close enough to have been transported to where I found it. And the outcrop is up hill from it. Taking the extreme erosion purported to have happened in the area that would account for the lone rock.
I still can't understand how you can dig down and find things hundreds of thousands of years old, like the Carolina Bays have 80,000 years worth of sediment on them, but geologists say erosion is happening.
It is like in Appalachia. The mountains are supposed to be eroding at 1 millimeter a year. But you can go on ridges and dig down and find arrowheads a foot deep. Why are they not on the surface? They were lost on the surface and now they are a foot deep. Yet the mountain ia supposed to be eroding away.
You can dig in the Carolinas and find the remains of the Younger-Drayas and Clovis points under that. Why would they be buried if erosion is going on?
It seems disingenuous to say we lost 5 miles of sediment if you can dig down and find things buried that were left on the ground. And it still doesn't make sense if you say one part is eroding while other parts are growing. Nothing has been getting higher while the 5 miles went away. It would have to be all of it eroding in order to get the fairly flat plain we have on the Piedmont.
When I was a kid and I went arrowhead hunting with father we dug thousands of arrowheads out of the ground and not a one was at the surface anywhere other than in one creek. And we figured the Indian died in the creek and his quiver rotted there and that is how we found all the good points next to each other like that. What buried those thousands of arrowheads (many on ridge tops) while the rest of the mountain was getting shorter? And how? It seems to eat at me. How does erosion bury things on a ridge of an eroding mountain?
I still can't understand how you can dig down and find things hundreds of thousands of years old, like the Carolina Bays have 80,000 years worth of sediment on them, but geologists say erosion is happening.
It is like in Appalachia. The mountains are supposed to be eroding at 1 millimeter a year. But you can go on ridges and dig down and find arrowheads a foot deep. Why are they not on the surface? They were lost on the surface and now they are a foot deep. Yet the mountain ia supposed to be eroding away.
You can dig in the Carolinas and find the remains of the Younger-Drayas and Clovis points under that. Why would they be buried if erosion is going on?
It seems disingenuous to say we lost 5 miles of sediment if you can dig down and find things buried that were left on the ground. And it still doesn't make sense if you say one part is eroding while other parts are growing. Nothing has been getting higher while the 5 miles went away. It would have to be all of it eroding in order to get the fairly flat plain we have on the Piedmont.
When I was a kid and I went arrowhead hunting with father we dug thousands of arrowheads out of the ground and not a one was at the surface anywhere other than in one creek. And we figured the Indian died in the creek and his quiver rotted there and that is how we found all the good points next to each other like that. What buried those thousands of arrowheads (many on ridge tops) while the rest of the mountain was getting shorter? And how? It seems to eat at me. How does erosion bury things on a ridge of an eroding mountain?
28
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Too many rifts. Where's the effects?
« on: 18/02/2014 14:11:16 »
So you're saying the entire 4 feet of westward movement of the us continent since I was born has been completely absorbed by the subduction zone in Japan? I did not think the crust that rigid.
I knew about the spreading ridge that has been over run, but I thought it was no longer spreading since it is entirely under the continent. Where is it's subduction zone? Why is there not a chain of volcanoes somewhere in the middle of the US? I know there is a line of them from New Mexico to Nebraska, but they end and are no longer active. So doesn't that mean that the rift is dead and it is no longer spreading? Shouldn't it have locked itself to the continent over it and be one plate now?
I am trying to get a complete picture of just what is going on. I still think there should be a subduction zone on the east coast. There isn't and that is the mystery here. That is one hell of a strong plate to be spreading from the midatlantic and subducting in Japan. And wouldn't that mean both sides of the subduction zone are moving over each other? The spreading from Europe and then the spreading on the North American plate. Both converging on Japan. No wonder it is so active, but should it not be more active if that is the case? 8ft of movement in 45 years is really fast for a tectonic plate. Is it not? You'd think there would Krakatoa size eruptions fairly regular there and yet Mt Fuji Hasn't erupted in 200 years. Why is that?
I knew about the spreading ridge that has been over run, but I thought it was no longer spreading since it is entirely under the continent. Where is it's subduction zone? Why is there not a chain of volcanoes somewhere in the middle of the US? I know there is a line of them from New Mexico to Nebraska, but they end and are no longer active. So doesn't that mean that the rift is dead and it is no longer spreading? Shouldn't it have locked itself to the continent over it and be one plate now?
I am trying to get a complete picture of just what is going on. I still think there should be a subduction zone on the east coast. There isn't and that is the mystery here. That is one hell of a strong plate to be spreading from the midatlantic and subducting in Japan. And wouldn't that mean both sides of the subduction zone are moving over each other? The spreading from Europe and then the spreading on the North American plate. Both converging on Japan. No wonder it is so active, but should it not be more active if that is the case? 8ft of movement in 45 years is really fast for a tectonic plate. Is it not? You'd think there would Krakatoa size eruptions fairly regular there and yet Mt Fuji Hasn't erupted in 200 years. Why is that?
29
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Too many rifts. Where's the effects?
« on: 17/02/2014 13:20:12 »
The map shows my point. There are 3 rift zones in a row and no mountain building or subduction zones. I know about the ring of fire. The subduction is going on in the east pacific. That is on the other side of the planet from the US.
But you have two rift zones from California to Carolina pushing back against the mid atlantic ridge. No subduction in California or the east coast. No new mountains either. How can you have the continental US moving west at about an inch a year while you have the New Madrid moving at a millimeter a year and the Nevada rift moving at .23 mm a year?
Something does not seem right about that.
But you have two rift zones from California to Carolina pushing back against the mid atlantic ridge. No subduction in California or the east coast. No new mountains either. How can you have the continental US moving west at about an inch a year while you have the New Madrid moving at a millimeter a year and the Nevada rift moving at .23 mm a year?
Something does not seem right about that.
30
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Too many rifts. Where's the effects?
« on: 17/02/2014 03:52:32 »
Here is something that has been bugging me for a while. I hope someone can help me understand. In the west coast of California there is a strike slip tectonic fault. The plates slide by each other.
In Nevada there is a rift zone. The ground is pulling apart. That is why we have Death Valley.
In the midwest we have another rift zone that has been moving at about a millimeter a year for like a billion years. (The New Madrid)
And in the middle of the ocean we have the mid Atlantic ridge. Also a rift zone.
Where is the subduction? Shouldn't there be a subduction zone somewhere in there? Why is it all moving apart and nothing is moving under?
What if these east coast earthquakes are the very beginning of a new subduction zone? It seems like there should be one in that area. The Appalachians are not growing appreciably. They erode as fast as they go up which is caused by the lesser weight on the crust. Like an ice cube melting.
If no subduction, why not mountain building? We do not have that either. I do not understand how such a large amount of compression is not having any effects.
Any help as to why this is?
In Nevada there is a rift zone. The ground is pulling apart. That is why we have Death Valley.
In the midwest we have another rift zone that has been moving at about a millimeter a year for like a billion years. (The New Madrid)
And in the middle of the ocean we have the mid Atlantic ridge. Also a rift zone.
Where is the subduction? Shouldn't there be a subduction zone somewhere in there? Why is it all moving apart and nothing is moving under?
What if these east coast earthquakes are the very beginning of a new subduction zone? It seems like there should be one in that area. The Appalachians are not growing appreciably. They erode as fast as they go up which is caused by the lesser weight on the crust. Like an ice cube melting.
If no subduction, why not mountain building? We do not have that either. I do not understand how such a large amount of compression is not having any effects.
Any help as to why this is?
31
New Theories / Re: The fossil of people is found together with dinosaurs
« on: 12/02/2014 05:20:47 »
When I was 17 I made a living digging coal out of a seam on a mountain in WV. On one of the last loads of coal I dug out of the seam I found embedded in the coal a cheap gold plated necklace. It had a purple plastic heart on it and a modern clasp. I dug it 15 ft back in the mountain and there was no possible way it came from anywhere else. I had it for years until I felt compelled to give it to a girl I was dating. She had no clue how potentially valuable it was. You can buy similar necklaces from Walmart for less than $5.
I have no clue how it got there. The coal is 300 million years old. It was undisturbed ground. But I found it. Doesn't mean there were humans with factories 300 million years ago, but I will be damned if I do know what it means. Things turn up where they ought not be. No one can figure why. Doesn't make the Flintstones real. Certainly odd find though.
I have no clue how it got there. The coal is 300 million years old. It was undisturbed ground. But I found it. Doesn't mean there were humans with factories 300 million years ago, but I will be damned if I do know what it means. Things turn up where they ought not be. No one can figure why. Doesn't make the Flintstones real. Certainly odd find though.
32
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Did Neanderthals and modern humans interbreeed?
« on: 09/02/2014 15:51:47 »The entire debate underlines the fact that "species" is not a defined term, any more than "race" is. We can assign living things to large arbitrary groups based on appearance but such assignments are of little predictive value. At the other end of the telescope we can in principle write down the entire genome for any individual, and this should be predictive, but in practice it is very difficult to do.
I agree that it is arbitrary. That was my point. I think there should be some solid definitions to the terms and we should follow them. We all have 2% Neanderthal DNA. So that proves they could breed with us and have viable offspring. The morphological differences in skeletal structure are no more than the differences between races today.
We should be calling Neanderthals and Denisovians extinct races. Or we should be calling our African and Asian counterparts different species. Either way, doesn't matter to me. But we need to be more consistent with our terms.
33
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Did Neanderthals and modern humans interbreeed?
« on: 06/02/2014 05:06:47 »
If Neanderthals could and did interbreed with sapiens then it becomes clear that they were not separate species after all. And since Australian aborigines are essentially homo erectus then that would mean they were not a separate species either.
Methinks the scientists need to correct their terminology. Otherwise one will conclude that our negro cousins are not truly homo sapiens either. There is no appreciable difference between calling Neanderthals a different species and calling negroids a different species.
If you are going to use terminology then make it consistent. Just because there are no living Neanderthals is no reason to be up front about it and then say something different when the exact same situation is presented with living members of another "species".
Either call them an extinct race or start calling their modern counterparts separate species. Either way, but the inconsistency is extremely annoying. I do not care what is chosen, but chose one for goodness sakes. You can't call one a species because they are all dead and another a race so they will not get their feelings hurt. It is scientifically dishonest.
Methinks the scientists need to correct their terminology. Otherwise one will conclude that our negro cousins are not truly homo sapiens either. There is no appreciable difference between calling Neanderthals a different species and calling negroids a different species.
If you are going to use terminology then make it consistent. Just because there are no living Neanderthals is no reason to be up front about it and then say something different when the exact same situation is presented with living members of another "species".
Either call them an extinct race or start calling their modern counterparts separate species. Either way, but the inconsistency is extremely annoying. I do not care what is chosen, but chose one for goodness sakes. You can't call one a species because they are all dead and another a race so they will not get their feelings hurt. It is scientifically dishonest.
34
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: USA Carolina Bay formation theories:
« on: 08/01/2014 18:53:45 »
There is this guy on Google Earth who claims that they were created by an impact in the Saginaw Bay. His theory is that the bays are "splash marks" of trillions of tons of lofted sand and that the bays have cousins in Nebraska made from the same impact.
If that were the case wouldn't the sand in the coastal plain be made from shocked quartz? Would this not be easy to either verify or debunk?
I do not think that is what happened. Best I can figure is that they are remnants of wind/water erosion since there does not seem to be any other logical explanation.
I ever read that they are remnants of giant fish nests from when the water level was higher. But what fish would be big enough to clear out a bay the size of lake Waccamaw?
If that were the case wouldn't the sand in the coastal plain be made from shocked quartz? Would this not be easy to either verify or debunk?
I do not think that is what happened. Best I can figure is that they are remnants of wind/water erosion since there does not seem to be any other logical explanation.
I ever read that they are remnants of giant fish nests from when the water level was higher. But what fish would be big enough to clear out a bay the size of lake Waccamaw?
35
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Why is iridium much more common in asteroids than in the Earth's crust?
« on: 04/01/2014 14:33:52 »
Any impact large enough to disrupt a planet will fling the majority of it's mass far into space and would not be left behind to form any asteroid belt. This would have created a spherical shell of debris expanding away from the impact point.
This would leave very little mass in orbit (which we see) and would make intense cratering on the sides of any planets exposed to it. That is why most objects in the Solar system have more craters on one side versus the other.
This would leave very little mass in orbit (which we see) and would make intense cratering on the sides of any planets exposed to it. That is why most objects in the Solar system have more craters on one side versus the other.
36
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Breccia
« on: 14/12/2013 00:44:57 »
There is basalt in the same area so that would make the hydrothermal theory stand out. The fragments are all about 3 to 4 inches and angular. There is no bleaching, ans the quartz is mostly thin except for some places where the fragments are farther apart.
Yes I have read up on this area and it was part of an island arc like Japan. The meta mud stone around here was formed in a shallow lagoon type area. Interspersed with layers of what appears to be tuff.
The breccia occurs in the lower strata of the hill and there are large basalt blocks on the top of it. I suspect this was a dike or something that did not make it to the surface. It is like less than 5 miles from Morrow mtn so it has to be part of the same vein that fed Morrow mtn.
Another thing:
I was walking my dog here in Albemarle, about 8 miles from Morrow mtn and looking closely at the exposed layers of mud stone. There are foot thick layers of mudstone separated by tuff layers about 3 inches thick. Among this I discovered a block of basalt. It is a single lone block about 4 cu ft in size. Vaguely tear drop shape. It is part of the natural landscape and was not brought there by man.
Could this be a volcanic bomb? I mean, is it possible this rock was thrown there by the volcano that was Morrow mtn? Everywhere else I have seen basalt it was in a vein or outcrop. never a lone block in the mudstone. Am I on the right track?
Yes I have read up on this area and it was part of an island arc like Japan. The meta mud stone around here was formed in a shallow lagoon type area. Interspersed with layers of what appears to be tuff.
The breccia occurs in the lower strata of the hill and there are large basalt blocks on the top of it. I suspect this was a dike or something that did not make it to the surface. It is like less than 5 miles from Morrow mtn so it has to be part of the same vein that fed Morrow mtn.
Another thing:
I was walking my dog here in Albemarle, about 8 miles from Morrow mtn and looking closely at the exposed layers of mud stone. There are foot thick layers of mudstone separated by tuff layers about 3 inches thick. Among this I discovered a block of basalt. It is a single lone block about 4 cu ft in size. Vaguely tear drop shape. It is part of the natural landscape and was not brought there by man.
Could this be a volcanic bomb? I mean, is it possible this rock was thrown there by the volcano that was Morrow mtn? Everywhere else I have seen basalt it was in a vein or outcrop. never a lone block in the mudstone. Am I on the right track?
37
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Breccia
« on: 13/12/2013 16:29:06 »
I recently moved to Albemarle, NC. This is a place that at one time had a volcano. There are outcrops of basalt on the surrounding hills and rhyolite on Morrow Mtn.
At the base of a hill near Morrow mtn there is an outcrop of what appears to be breccia. It is shattered rock with the gaps filled in with quartz.
Can breccia be formed underground? Are there magmas that are nearly 100% quartz?
The rock all around this area is a meta-mudstone. The basalt and rhyolite pierce the mudstone in many places. I have found odd basalt rocks among the mudstone like it was thrown there from some distance.
I have read that pillow lavas are found around here too, but I have no idea how to tell if that is what it is. So how do I tell?
And why do they keep changing the sign on top of Morrow mtn? A few years ago it said Morrow mtn was a volcano on an island some 500 million years ago. Now it has been removed and it just talks about how the indians used the rock for arrowheads. I can see no other history for this mountain other than being the vent of an ancient volcano. What we see now may have never been on the surface, but it still was a volcano. Otherwise why the pillow lavas and rhyolite?
But back to my question, can breccia be formed underground?
At the base of a hill near Morrow mtn there is an outcrop of what appears to be breccia. It is shattered rock with the gaps filled in with quartz.
Can breccia be formed underground? Are there magmas that are nearly 100% quartz?
The rock all around this area is a meta-mudstone. The basalt and rhyolite pierce the mudstone in many places. I have found odd basalt rocks among the mudstone like it was thrown there from some distance.
I have read that pillow lavas are found around here too, but I have no idea how to tell if that is what it is. So how do I tell?
And why do they keep changing the sign on top of Morrow mtn? A few years ago it said Morrow mtn was a volcano on an island some 500 million years ago. Now it has been removed and it just talks about how the indians used the rock for arrowheads. I can see no other history for this mountain other than being the vent of an ancient volcano. What we see now may have never been on the surface, but it still was a volcano. Otherwise why the pillow lavas and rhyolite?
But back to my question, can breccia be formed underground?
38
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: What is this rock and why is it so light for its size?
« on: 13/12/2013 16:18:45 »
That is probably slag from a coal fired furnace of some sort. I have seen coal residue that looks like that. The clinkers are light and filled with vesicles where the coal was once embedded. It probably washed down the river from somewhere else.
39
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: What makes Lakes full of silt/mud or just pebbles?
« on: 13/12/2013 16:16:23 »
The reason is most likely sediment rates. If there is no mud being washed into the lakes then there will be no mud in the lake. That would be because the soil is mostly covered with vegetation and therefore can't erode.
40
Chemistry / Re: What are legal highs and how can we keep track of the new drugs?
« on: 03/06/2013 14:47:33 »With what we know now, tobacco could not be declared "safe for human consumption" by smoking. I heard that a study of cancers in bodies from archaeological sites showed a similar incidence to today's population - except for an excess of lung cancer in modern populations, which was attributed to smoking. I haven't seen the same evidence for less-popular modes like chewing or snorting tobacco.
The lung cancer increase is not due to smoking. It is due to the nuclear fallout from the testing they did in the 40's and 50's. I have known far more non smokers who died from lung cancer than smokers. Smoking causes emphysema, not cancer. The cancer rates are solely due to the large amount of plutonium scattered about every square inch of this nation. If you get it on you, no matter where you get it, you will get cancer and most probably die. You can't see it or detect it, but it is there and will ALWAYS be there. Forever.
Asia has the highest per capita smoking rate and the lowest lung cancer rate. They did not explode 450 atom bombs above ground in an area that would spread the fallout over the entire country like we did.
I know I got off topic, but people really need to understand just what our government did to us back then. There is no cleaning it up and ignoring it doesn't do anything but allow the people who did it to slowly die of old age without ever being held accountable. They blamed the cancers on tobacco and thought no one would figure it out.
Smoking, eating, or even touching any plant matter on the continental united states of America is a death sentence. Yet we think nothing of it.