Why is chalk white? (page 2)

Jeffro

Scully, you beat me to it. EvilForce's source is also verbatim at http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chalk
Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil EvilForce!. (My source for that comment is "Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail", but change "EvilForce" to "Zoot"

EvilForce

Good god no I am not that smart folks!!!! Scully & Jeffro both of you quoted 2 sources. I got my "cut and paste" from a 3rd source you didn't mention. That's part of the problem...you don't know who to credit for the source....any time there is a study or a statistic I will provide the source. In this case it's more of an "explanation" and found many similar if not the same information on many websites so am never sure who to credit since none of those websites cites an authority. Especially if I cut and paste from two or three sources.

If it's medical I will either A. give my opinion or B. quote medical resources with references.

When Q'bert asked about chalk I was curious myself, looked it up, and posted my findings. Scully, should I be doing anything differently?

Edited: I did some more research on various university and professional sites and found a few comments:

***No definitive guidelines exist for citing electronic sources. Many groups are discussing the issue and are producing guidelines for review.
***Much of the text on the Internet was originally published elsewhere, so you may have access to the original source in the library. Citing the primary source is an option. Use signed articles whenever possible since not every source on the Internet is reliable. Quoting an unsigned article is risky. *****NOTE QUOTING UNSIGNED ARTICLE IS RISKY"****
***The usual authorities, which include professional associations such as the Modern Language Association and the American Psychological Association, are still debating specific standards for scholars in their disciplines. The Chicago Manual of Style, among other reference books, simply refers readers to an international standards organization, which is still struggling to reach agreement on new guidelines after five years of painstaking debate.
***An Internet version of the print source may not include the pictures, graphs, or the advertising included on the print version pages. In some cases the online source may be more authoritative or current than the print version. Also, how the material is transcribed, if it's scanned, if it is modified in any way, or if it is created only in an "Online" version is difficult to determine for electronic sources. So HOW the document is ACCESSED is an important part of citing electronic sources. It determines a certain credibility about the source.
***Many Internet sites will not provide you with the basic information for a citation. You should consult with your professor or a librarian to decide whether you want to use a source if it can not be cited adequately.

So my understanding has always been that unless the author or researcher is KNOWN and QUOTED you do not need to list the "source" if you will. Just as we all know that seat belts save lives....pulling a "cut and paste" COMMENTARY on such does not need to be noted unless the author is known. If a study or thesis is presented then of course YOU MUST list the information. The internet is a wily, rapidly changing place. The rules I lived by in school may no longer be the most up to date etiquette of the web. So if I'm not on the same page as most of you I would like to hear your views.

Respectfully,
EvilForce

Jeffro

EF

Good god no I am not that smart folks!!!! Scully & Jeffro both of you quoted 2 sources. I got my "cut and paste" from a 3rd source you didn't mention.

You could have simply mentioned the source that you did get it from. We can't have everyone thinking you're smarter than you really are, can we? :)
Jeffro - of the overly (ex)cited class.

Dan-O

"why is chalk white"

Probably for the same reason why semen is white and urine is yellow ... so a guy knows whether he's coming or going.

BluesBrother

The context of the question included a reference to the composition of chalk as from seashells, as stated by those wishing to find evidence of the flood. In AlanF's link it said

England the Chalk topographically forms what are known as the 'Downs' in southern and eastern counties. It is exposed in quarries and roadcutting but the best exposures are along the coastlines where Chalk often forms spectacular clifflines, the most famous of which are the 'White Cliffs of Dover.' It is comprised of a sequence of mainly soft, white, very fine-grained extremely pure limestones which are commonly 300-400 m thick. These rocks consist mainly of coccolith biomicrites formed from the skeletal elements of minute planktonic green algae, associated with varing proportions of larger microscopic fragments of bivalves, foraminifera and ostracods. The planktonic coccoliths and many of the foraminifera (the planktonic species) lived floating in the upper levels of the oceans. When they died their skeletons sank to the bottom, combining with the remains of bottom living bivalves, foraminifera and ostracods, to form the main components of the Chalk.

So it seems to me that the chalk is the remains of sea creatures, but I do not know what that proves? I am nowadays uncommitted on these matters

Evanescence

What are you all on about? I've seen coloured chalk before!!! green, red, blue etc.

Evanescence

Scully

So my understanding has always been that unless the author or researcher is KNOWN and QUOTED you do not need to list the "source" if you will. Just as we all know that seat belts save lives....pulling a "cut and paste" COMMENTARY on such does not need to be noted unless the author is known. If a study or thesis is presented then of course YOU MUST list the information. The internet is a wily, rapidly changing place. The rules I lived by in school may no longer be the most up to date etiquette of the web. So if I'm not on the same page as most of you I would like to hear your views.

From the Posting Guidelines that you implicitly agree to whenever you click
[Submit Post (I have read the guidelines)]:

You may post a small amount of third party material, but please help us to avoid breaching copyright by naming its author and publication. We are unable to investigate all third party material, so where possible, please provide a link instead.

exJWs are such a suspicious bunch, dontcha know!

EvilForce

IMHO what I posted was a "small amount". But I will try to do a better job adding a snippet of source info. JWD is not Macintosh friendly so therefore I cannot post clickable links...hence the simple text drag overs.

Caedes

chalk is white because it doesn't absorb any of the colour in normal light, it reflects all the colours so you see it as white. The only reason that there is little impurity in chalk is that litle sand or silt was deposited along with the original material. i would imagine there could be lots of reasons why that might happen.

Qcmbr

The best answer I'm finding is that chalk can be deposited far enough out at sea that sediment from costal areas is not mixed in with it. There are areas where there is relatively little oceanic disturbance and so the rain of shells becomes the main deposition hence its not brown chalk deposits in parts of the world.

Why is chalk white?

Share this