Cave Sediments - are they any use?

[Ship-badger]

I am hoping that one or two of you out there might be able to answer this question.

Has the study of cave sediments ever told us anything that has been useful, or maybe beneficial, to mankind?

Please don't tell me that they can tell us a lot about how a cave has developed, or how interesting they can be; I wasn't born yesterday, so I know this. What I am interested to know is whether we have ever discovered anything from sediments that has been of use or benefit to us in a practical way; like say a vaccine. Do they perhaps contain precious stones in the jungles of Central America?

 

[mikem]

I wouldn't describe precious stones as beneficial to the human race (even though they may have been to some individuals)...

Mike

 

[graham]

What a strange question. Are you perchance a tory politician who will only fund science projects if they have a 'beneficial' outcome that can be predicted in advance?

Much scientific knowledge can only be shown to be beneficial to us with the assistance of hindsight over many decades.

 

[AA Speleo]

Some people obviously think they can play a part in developing ones Sandcastle building skills.  :spank:

 

[SamT]

I think shipbadger is probably fed up of weaving in and out of conservation tape that has been placed to preserve sediments of 'scientific interest' or wants to dig a load out without feeling guilty perhaps.

I helped a UCL student who used these forums to find a place where sediments are deposited on an annual basis due to flooding.
He took some sediments from Bagshawe, (with the permission of English nature  of course since its a SSSI).

He was able to map out the history of the Lead Mining in the area, including the dating of advances in smelting technology, by looking at the mineral content within each layer.  Quite an interesting project as it happens.

Not saying it saved any lives, or brought profound changes towards reducing world poverty. but maybe, a little bit of what he learnt in his study, may get taken by someone else, improved, tweaked, turned on its head, and used towards something that might.

 

[braveduck]

The answer is yes.
Inlet 8 ,has, after a study of the sediments,turned out to be
Outlet 8.How good is that!

 

[Andy Farrant]

Bit of an odd question, as it depends on what you call useful, which is somewhat subjective. If your asking what of value they contain, well, cave sediments have yielded a huge number of archaeological artifacts, including some of our earliest ancestors. You could argue whether that is 'practical', but I personally think mankind has benefited as a result.  If your purely interested in the economic worth, cave sediments have also been mined for saltpetre (eg mammoth cave), guano and various other minerals such as ochre - one could argue that some of the iron and lead deposits on Mendip are in fact cave sediments.

They can also tell us a lot about past climates and palaeoenvironments; for example most of the cave fills on Mendip date from cold periods.

On principle, I would rather protect them rather than trash them, as they are very useful for trying to work out how the cave functioned, and thus where to dig. Furthermore, who knows what techniques may be available to future generations; cosmogenic isotope dating of quartz and palaeomag dating of cave sediments were unheard of not many decades ago. So please, treat the cave sediments with respect. In that regard they are the same as stal.
Andy

 

[graham]

Bit of an odd question, as it depends on what you call useful, which is somewhat subjective. If your asking what of value they contain, well, cave sediments have yielded a huge number of archaeological artifacts, including some of our earliest ancestors. You could argue whether that is 'practical', but I personally think mankind has benefited as a result.  If your purely interested in the economic worth, cave sediments have also been mined for saltpetre (eg mammoth cave), guano and various other minerals such as ochre - one could argue that some of the iron and lead deposits on Mendip are in fact cave sediments.

They can also tell us a lot about past climates and palaeoenvironments; for example most of the cave fills on Mendip date from cold periods.

On principle, I would rather protect them rather than trash them, as they are very useful for trying to work out how the cave functioned, and thus where to dig. Furthermore, who knows what techniques may be available to future generations; cosmogenic isotope dating of quartz and palaeomag dating of cave sediments were unheard of not many decades ago. So please, treat the cave sediments with respect. In that regard they are the same as stal.
Andy

But andy, stal has never cured cancer ...

 

[Pitlamp]

Try exploring a big gloomy underwater passage in Dales peat stained water without reference to directional information which (to the trained eye) can be gleaned from floor sediments (ripple marks, imbrication, changes in particle size, etc etc).

 

[droid]

I think shipbadger is probably fed up of weaving in and out of conservation tape that has been placed to preserve sediments of 'scientific interest' or wants to dig a load out without feeling guilty perhaps.

Is this linked to Ship-Badger's attitude to gates on caves? :halo:

 

[Pitlamp]

Just one other example - haven't cave sediment studies told us a great deal about climate change (e.g. from pollen analysis)? Understanding climate change is of great benefit to mankind.


If the original question was prompted by the "cave scientist vs cave digger" issue, perhaps an example I remember from a few years ago would help? There was this very big passage in a very well known cave. A certain researcher was interested in paleomagnetism within the sediments which blocked the way on. A certain well known cave explorer was more interested in getting the sediments out of the way so the cave could be explored further. There was a bit of an argument . . . .

The scientist was eventually persuaded that if only some of the sediment was removed, leaving plenty for his paleomagnetic work, then his work (and that of future workers) wouldn't be compromised. The cave explorer was eventually persuaded of the importance of only removing the minimum amount of sediment necessary to achieve his objectives in extending the cave. Neither could initially understand the other's point of view but Natural England (in its former incarnation as English Nature) acted as a mediator. They consulted with other scientists and leading cavers, resulting in the obvious compromise - so everybody lived happily ever after.

The moral of this story? Use a bit of common sense in such situations.

 

[ian.p]

Do they perhaps contain precious stones in the jungles of Central America?

no real reason why they shouldn't infact given that cave sediments can provide some of the best insights into the errosive historys of our landscapes they are probably extreamly good places to go looking for tracer minerals that might indicate the presence of mineral deposits in the surounding landscape.

 

[Pitlamp]

Sorry (forgot to mention) the reason I highlighted using common sense is that it often means you can get on with things quietly without loads of beaurocracy but still keeping everybody with an interest happy.

 

[graham]

Sorry (forgot to mention) the reason I highlighted using common sense is that it often means you can get on with things quietly without loads of beaurocracy but still keeping everybody with an interest happy.

Sad to relate that 'common sense' is much overrated, especially in science. This stretches from the guy in the lab next to mine who had failed to prove why the product coming out of our chemical plant was rubbish despite, as he thought, the reason being 'obvious'* to any explanation of quantum mechanics.


*When called in to assist, it took us several days of very careful analysis to isolate the problem.

 

[Ship-badger]

To all of you who are trying to guess my reason for asking, you'll have to accept that I'm interested.
We're always being asked to not disturb the sediments, but if they can't tell us anything useful, then why not?
But we have had some interesting responses here. I didn't know that sediments could help point us in the direction of new digs, and I think that is useful. And if the trace minerals they contain can help us find new sources of minerals, than that too is useful.
I think they look better undisturbed, but accept that we must disturb them a bit if we want to explore beyond them.
So the answer to my original question would appear to a definite yes.

 

[Pitlamp]

It's a perfectly reasonable question Ship Badger - I understand where you're coming from. Being a normal caver myself (despite Langcliffe querying that elsewhere on this forum  ) it's a question I've also asked in the past. Sediments are of value in all sorts of ways but that doesn't necessarily mean cavers aren't justified in moving them. Using a little bit of common sense makes life run so much more smoothly.

 

[gus horsley]

You also have the example of Pikedaw Caverns, amongst others, where post-mineralisation caverns have eroded into lodes and created thick deposits of economic minerals.