FourWinds

quote: It appears we have a group of people, perhaps with no statutory authority, who would like guidelines re placing caches near ancient sites. This does not seem unreasonable to me. You are right. Absolutely no statutory authority whatsoever, just a concern that is obviously shared by a great many geocachers. There is no point in anyone getting aggressive/defensive over this. In these troubled times let there be at least some hope for diplomacy in the world.

quote: From what I remember, he isn’t exactly flavour of the month with the Modern Antiquarians himself. No comment....

The fact that the mobile phone aerial is already there and a far worse eye sore is not the issue. Does the presence of a dumped fridge in a layby justify the dropping of a sweet wrapper next to it? That comment is not aimed to get into the 'geocache = trash' argument, but simply used to illustrate the invalidity of your argument that it is ok to leave a cache close to a monument because the aerial is there already.

Since posting my message above a geocaher has emailed me with the following link (obviously concerned about it) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cachelog_details.asp?ID=53087&L=360612 It relates to this cache. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?pf=&ID=6491&decrypt=y&log= I will reserve judgement until I have emailed the cahcer responsible and spoken to people who know Lordenshaws better than I do.

quote:Team Blitz:That's about the same distance as the buildings from Stonehenge!!!! If you go to France, you'll find buildings etc within FEET of standing stones. 275 metres is quite a distance.... First of all the visitors centre is to be moved over a mile away from Stone Henge and the road is to be buried and moved quite a distance from the stones. In France similar things are happening at Carnac. The local people there have just stopped the gov't building a huge visitor's centre and car park complex. Let's bear in mind that just because someone else has done something doesn't make it right to do the same. You have to think for yourself everynow and then. Now to 'What is a safe distance?' Many standing stones are just that - a standing stone. They are nothing more than a boundary marker or similar. However, many mark extensive burial grounds which can be anything up to 150m diameter. There can also be extensive settlements nearby too. I am not going to get into the rights and wrongs of any of the particular caches mentioned above, because I feel they have been addressed fairly satisfactorily already, excpt that i do think 50m is too close. What does surprise me is the apparent 'So What!?' attitude displayed by some. Megalithic raised a genuine concern about something he had noticed. I think it's commendable that he is still looking and taking a concern and at no point was he offensive or over critical - he simply raised a couple of concerns. His efforts above are to resolve possible points of conflict beteween two communities before they (once again) get out of hand. So, please don't be so defensive. Take time to think about the issues raised. If someone put a cache on your grannies grave, no matter how small, what would you think? Thank you for your time.

quote: If the plastic that they made these containers out of was toxic, it would be a very bad idea to put, say, sandwiches in them Actually it is a bad idea. There are many studies that can tie in the chemicals used in these platics with the global reduction in the average sperm count (you asked!). Several experiments have proven that the waste from the producing factories when dumped into rivers (which it invariably is) can actually CHANGE THE SEX of mature fish. To quote a colleague: quote: The plasticiser compounds you mentioned are known as Pthalates (try saying that after a few sherbets!). You are right, they are used in the manufacture of plastics, particulaly PVC. They can leach out from PVC and enter the water supply. (incidentally the roof of the Millenium dome is PVC and was made after recommendations from scientists to use a more environmentally friendly substance) They also form a significant quantity of the waste from plastic factories (thats a Beefheart song isnt it?). Anyway the study you mentioned about the caged trout was conducted by a guy in Brunel, who also released the latest work linking feminsation of fish and dropping sperm counts with the pill. He has done extensive studies of Pthalates and found them less potent than estradiol in causing these effects. Truth is a whole bunch of hormone mimicking chemicals are entering our water supply and the multinational chemical companies dont want us to know. It's all about endocrine disruptors :-) http://whyfiles.org/045env_hormone/main4.html

quote:Good Shepherds said:Thanks MCL - that's by far the best written and well-considered opinion that I've read on this whole situation. I have to concur. Beautifully written. Not that I agree with everything, it's just beautifully written. And with that I depart your forums. "Don't change places, let them change you." "Go far and leave nothing but footprints" My two phrases of the week

quote: Originally posted by The Good Shepherds:To some people, any man made object placed in the countryside is litter. quote: Stonehenge is litter Many of your houses are litter if you look at it like that. You said it ... knock 'em down! Actually great concern has been expressed about the effect putting a poisonous plastic box in the wild can have on the fauna around it. I believe on post on a forum here mentions an attack on a cache where it had been chewed. By the way, surprisingly I agree that if a farmer/landowner agrees to allow you to 'plant' (yes it would be good tactics to stop using that ... it could save mix ups you know ) a cache that it is not 'technically' litter. It is not illegal in that case. But ask yourselves this ..... Is it morally right to deposit a congealed lump of oil in the wild where it can be chewed by wildlife? And please don't say that there's only one known incident, because one is too many.

As a webmaster of a megalithic related site (not TMA), I have fully backed this set of guidelines. I still add an entirely personal amendment in that I'd prefer nothing to be left anywhere.

quote: I have no objection to a 'See this site for more info' as long as it is an information site, not commercial, which I guess, given your interest woud be the case anyway. Sadly this is the case You would think that given our interest that such a site would not be commercial, but sadly it is. There you go. I am not surprised that Andy (who calls Mod Ant - "the Other Side") has come out appearing to be 'on your side' - he might sell you something! Many of you may not have seen (actually I doubt that) my opinion, which is somewhat degraded by the verbosity and vitriol of my initial reaction, which in turn possibly made this issue snowball into what it has become, about leaving anything in the countryside, so I won't repeat that here (everyone say "phew!") Also I have (in part) said sorry for the strength of my initial reaction and I will echo that here, but not the sentiment behind it. Nor am I going to re-iterate what Holy McGrail stated previously - again bug sigh of relief everyone - but will add my support to his comments. It would seem that the majority of our concerns (i.e. the protection of ancient monuments) are, in the main, not valid. I think we fully accept that the overwhelming majority of you pose no threat to these. However, the concern still remains about leaving ANYTHINGbehind you when you go out, no matter how small. Again, there are insurmountable differences here I feel. We also know that what you might consider to be our community - the New Age Hippies etc - are far worse then yourselves for the rubbish they leave behind. Let me assure you that these people get exactly the same treatment as any other litterer and they are not considered to be 'one of us'. The vast majority of us on TMA are, what we call, Antiquarians. An odd term, but it's the closest there is. We study antiquities, so it fits. While many of us do have moving (or some would say spiritual) experiences at these sites, this is hardly surprising. As many of you have stated some of the locations where the 'ancients' chose to site some of these wonders is, frankly, mind blowing. Anyway ... I'm rambling. I have offered some help where possible to help in anyway I can to ensure that historic sites aren't impinged upon, looking upon it that if I can have some effect it's better than getting all sulky and having no effect at all. I am also considering setting up some virtual caches in Ireland - perhaps in the vain hope of converting a few of you to our way of looking at things