| Original Message: Oversimplifying |
|---|
|
Hi Nancy, There are two issues here, but they are related issues. The deteriorization of amber is concerned with: 1) the surface of nodules that have been in the earth for millions of years; as oppoised to 2) the surface of objects cut from amber, subsequently exposed to environmental elements and circumstances, that cause similar decay (though over a much sorter period, of course). In any peice of amber, these are related issues, but should be separated from one another and dealt with as separate issues. One should not be confused with the other. The decay of amber is essentially caused by oxidation—but this is not the only cause or the only issue. It also does not always have the effect of darkening the amber. Sometimes oxidation causes a lighter-colored "bloom" to occur on that piece. The decay is often red-tinted more than other colors, but this is not necessarily aways the case. A lot depends on the resins from which the fossil resin is composed, as well as unpredictable and unexplainable issues—such as what may have happened to the "proto-amber" while it was still in a fresh state, and what may have occurred to it during its time in that local environment, then in the ground, or under water. Also, it is an oversimplification to remark that amber chemically is a plastic. Amber is "nature's plastic," and shares many features and charactertistics in-comon with artificial plastics. It would be more pertinent to say that some plastics are like amber, than the reverse. In any context, with any subject(s), you can explain how and why these things are alike, and how they are different. We learn valuable information from BOTH concerns. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|