I got a note Saturday asking, "Where is the best place to live if you are an amateur geologist?" This is a question with so many answers that I can't think of them all. So you're invited to add your answers, too. Anyway, my answers are these:
- Anywhere is a good place to live, because geology is everywhere. Now a place might not be rich in rocks, but rocks aren't all there is. Water and soil are the opposite of rocks; landforms and fossils also add to a place's geological appeal. Mines and quarries matter, too. It's a wretched place that has none of these, and I can't think of such a place.
- Naturally I must argue for California, where I happen to live. The Bay area alone has many rock types, landforms, fossils, mines and water bodies, plus highly active tectonics. But it has nothing older than Mesozoic; to see that takes a day trip. I'm not complaining, just saying that not even the best place has everything.
My correspondent complains that his locality, the Houston area, "has plenty of geologists and a very nice museum," but he doesn't care about all the fossils.
What do you say?