Source: Wired, 2014
Having looked at sand under a microscope for many, many hours: kinda? These images are not just heavily curated but arranged. Yes I've had a bunch with random shell fragments and forams SOMETIMES but notice in those images the pieces are carefully spread out?
Most clean sand looks like the bottom right two images but even those are already filtered for interest. I have a bunch of stuff that looks like the bottom middle photo, which is a contentinal glacial sand deposit that is sorted by wave action to have more heavy minerals (pink garnet, black probably magnetite, a splash of green epidote and white qtz splashed in there). It's usually a thin THIN layer found on some beaches. It's like a "pretty" sand people know about and not indicative of the vast majority of sand.
Most sand even in a variety of environments is quartz and random lithic (rock) fragments.
I get a little annoyed when these images (usually the top 3) are shared and layman say, "look at how beautiful ALL sand looks! Appreciate the micro world blah blah some inspirational quote." It's straight up misinformation but because it's "just sand" most people don't care.
I care. Regular sand IS pretty and it's neat to look at for a little bit. Stop making sand feel bad with unrealistic beauty standards :p.
