[quote=LA Times, news that no one cares for division]Imagine yourself in an Old West film, standing in the middle of a deserted street flanked with saloons, hotels and brothels, the soundtrack from "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" wailing strong. At first you think you are alone with the tumbleweeds -- but then you see two figures facing down.
On the left is Sen. Gloria Romero (D-East Los Angeles), suited up in leather chaps and a cowboy hat -- and on the right, the state rock of California -- serpentine.
Until recently, most people probably didn’t know that there was a state rock -- far less that Romero wants to get rid of it.
Senate Bill 624, which has been passed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources but still has a long way to go in the Legislature, would strip serpentine of its state-rock title, held since 1965. Why? Because the rock "contains the deadly mineral chrysotile asbestos, a known carcinogen, exposure to which increases the risk of the cancer mesothelioma" and because "California should not designate a rock known to be toxic to the health of its residents as the state's official rock."
If you don’t know know what serpentine looks like, it looks like, well ... a rock. Shiny and smooth, it is typically green in color but can also be yellow, brown, gray or reddish brown. In natural environments, it can occur as large rock masses, but it also is commonly used for ornamental purposes in the form of cut and polished stone.
Chosen as the state rock as a symbol of California’s mining prowess, serpentine was also the first rock in any state to be given this title.
Asbestos, a known carcinogen, poses health risks when small particles and mineral dust are inhaled, the fibers then lodging themselves in the membrane of the lungs. Mesothelioma, the most serious asbestos-caused condition, is a highly aggressive cancer. California has the highest rate of mesothelioma deaths in the nation, a fact that SB 624 also notes.
So, how concerned should Californians be about their potentially carcinogenic state rock?
Not very, says John Rosenfeld, emeritus professor of geology at UCLA. According to Rosenfeld, SB 624 "is a bunch of bull." (This newspaper's editorial page also doesn't think much of this bid to change California's state rock, though it notes that some people with mesothelioma have taken up the cause.)
Of course, Rosenfeld said in an interview, people working with asbestos should wear masks and protect themselves from the mineral dust. But he goes on to explain that there are different types of asbestos, some of which are harmful, and others not. The green asbestos, chrysotile, is the least dangerous type, he says -- and, fortunately, the most common type of asbestos found in California serpentine.
"Serpentine is a very beautiful rock. Holding the rock is not a problem and it’s nothing you should be concerned about," he said. "It's part of the history of California, noticed by the early settlers of this state. It's a beautiful stone and shouldn't be removed."
If we're going to get rid of serpentine, do we have to get rid of our state gemstone, benitoite, found with it? And what should we have as our state rock instead? (Quartz? Maybe not -- the dust, when inhaled, can cause a condition called silicosis.) Or do we even need to find a replacement for it? After all, we still have our state mineral, gold, to stand proudly behind.[/quote]
I can understand a state bird, or song.. even flag.
But who the fuck cares about the state rock, and its cancerous qualities?
I bet the rock now really feels bad for being the way it is. Maybe you shouldn't use it in building materials.
[url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/07/california-serpentine-state-rock-.html][State Source][/url]
So wait this is all over a piece of rock?
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;23153896]So wait this is all over a piece of rock?[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_season]Silly season[/url]
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;23153896]So wait this is all over a piece of rock?[/QUOTE]
Yes, a type of rock.
The senate in California is pretty much slow all year round, and no major issues to worry about. So they have to worry about the holy position of state rock, and if its cancerous or not.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's head is our new state rock.
[QUOTE=TH89;23154098]Arnold Schwarzenegger's head is our new state rock.[/QUOTE]
You're from California TH89. What are you going to do now that your beloved state rock will be thrown out to the curb while some newer, hipper, rock comes into place. Just not fair is it?
Crack rocks
Good to know they solved all their financial problems and can move on to slightly less important things, like rocks...
[QUOTE=TH89;23155818]Crack rocks[/QUOTE]
I live in California too, let's go smoke weed, snort coke, drop some acid, get a bunch of a hookers and make them fight to the death and then double team the survivor and then eat her dead body in hopes to absorb her courage and strength and then we can end the day by shooting ourselves up with heroin, one more drop of acid, and then eat an eighth of shrooms, man. Then maybe we can go get some Popeye's
Oh for crying out loud. Serpentine minerals produce chrysotile asbestos, which unlike other forms of asbestos, has only ever even been remotely found to be a threat to the people who work with it every day without proper protection.
For people not working with the stuff, and for people who work with it under proper precautions, the stuff isn't a problem.
EDIT: And for the record, it is serpentinite, not serpentine.
once again, some dum senator being stupid
Who ever decided upon having a state rock must have been a stoner...
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23158932]Who ever decided this must have been a stoner...[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that a senator from California smokes pot?
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;23158970]Are you implying that a senator from California smokes pot?[/QUOTE]
Well, it is California after all.
But it was aimed at whomever decided to have a state rock.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
