Slashdot Mirror
Yellowstone Super-Eruption Threat Debunked
GennyCream writes "The Internet has been all a-buzz with tin-foil-hat geeks have been in a tizzy over supposed government coverups of a soon-to-come super eruption in Yellowstone (especially see The Shadow Confederacy, but also Rense.com, or BlackVault for entertaining examples). I found an article on ATSNN.com (the Above Top Secret News Network) that cut the paranoia with the proverbial knife and went straight to the source. Their interview with USGS Yellowstone scientists covers all the angles and should inspire the mad-hatters to find something else to fear (for now)."
What I don't understand is why anyone who suggests something like the government covering up a disaster or questioning something like the moon landings is immediately ridiculed. There is precedent for such a thing, particularly in the case of near Earth asteroids. In an effort not to alarm the public and to prevent the media from distorting the facts, things are covered up while examined and studied. Stuff like this is plausible and questions need to be asked. If the events such as the seismic activity are still being studied, and nothing is being said to keep the story away from the media, certainly one interview with a member of the USGS isn't going to change things.
My point is this: why is it so bad to ask these questions? We're perfectly willing to believe conspiracies between SCO and Microsoft but we accept the government at face value on things such as this and ridicule the doubters? Why is this?
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I'm genuinely curious why we take such negative attitudes toward questions such as whether the government doesn't yet want to inform the public over seismic concerns in the Yellowstone area. I'll probably get modded down, but I'd like to know.
I pretty much hold with the crowd that predicts massive volcanic eruptions, shifting of plates, the erosion of entire mountain ranges, massive glaciation, massive floods...big canyons being carved in deserts, cities sinking under the ocean, deserts turning to forests, forests turning to desert and every single thing you can imagine.
The sad thing is that I only get to live a human life span and will miss most of it.
BTW, there is a hot spot under Yellowstone and big cinder cones and a lot of lave flows in Idaho. I think there is a better than average changes of some major event in a short geological time frame.
One thing I have encountered is the bias, whereby someone is so in love with a theory that they are blind to the fair maden that comes along later. It's hard to let go of the comfortable setup you have built over the years, and when some fresh outsider comes along and tells you different, it gets the blood boiling.
I have encountered this with grizzled old prospectors who were positive they had found the next Sudbury or Ft. Knox, as well as 'cultured, educated' folks who have spent most of their time in the drawing room discussing theory. I have found numerous rich deposits, but due to economics, politics, or other obstacles, most shall remain ummined for now. In most cases, I dispensed with current trends and went back to the old stuff.
Too often, someone will arrive at a "conclusion" that might look good at the time, but prove to be very wrong later. So what? Someone has to get it wrong. But one has to be able to release that burning stick.
The Earth has many very serious events in its' past. We can expect more, and we have truly been living in a period of relative peacefulness. I've been to Yellowstone many times, and know what it is like to slip into a pool heated by the Earth, while Elk and Bison graze nearby. Been to Crater Lake, too. Now THAT was a big ol explosion, but it happened way before I got there. I've been in 3 volcanic eruptions, 2 in Alaska. It's quite exciting. One time I raced an oncoming cloud of ash.
Funny, but when I read this I thought of the people I read of near Mt. St. Helens, and some friends I had in the Phillipines.
-cp-
The interview above simply debunks the idea that there are currently any clues that an eruption is imminent (although much of it seemed to say "we're not measuring that"). However, there really is a giant magma chamber under Yellowstone, and if it ever breached in the right (or wrong) way, the continental US would be toast, and the rest of the planet would experience a nuclear winter style scenario.
Depending on how you project the historical numbers, we may already be overdue for the next eruption. Then again, the margin for error is measured in millenia, so it's a little like the major asteroid strike scenario: it could happen anytime, but it probably won't.
This past semester in my geology class we did an in depth study about volcanos and this caldera in particular. My professor has a great deal of enthusiasm about this supervolcano because it is most likely going to erupt within the next 50-100 years.
So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
Here's the scoop from the Alaska Volcano Observatory. And here is some information on what to do during an eruption. "Alaska is home to more than 40 volcanoes that have erupted in the last 200 years, and more than half of the state's population lives within 100 miles of an active volcano. The single greatest hazard from an explosive volcanic eruption is ash, fine fragments of rock blown into the atmosphere during volcanic eruption. Ash is carried downwind where the coarser particles fall to the ground and fine ash forms a cloud that is carried with the air currents. Ash is extremely abrasive, does not dissolve in water, and is heavy and slippery when wet. Inhaling ash can be dangerous, especially for those with breathing problems, for children, and the elderly. While ash is falling to the ground, you may experience prolonged darkness, loss of water and electricity, and have transportation and communication problems.
I remember day being like midnight during one of the eruptions. The description above is very conservative. But it is my choice to live here, and I am well aware of the hazards. I've nearly been stomped by a moose in my year, and charged by bears, so a volcano is seemingly less of a threat. At least we don't have any muggers here.
And here is a page for very recent earthquakes in Alaska, Russian Far East, Japan, etc.
-cp-
My point is this: why is it so bad to ask these questions?
I don't think it's bad to ask the questions. However, when people start constructing massive theories based on scant evidence and then cling to them madly, that's a different matter.
Scientists are smart people, and many of them are happy to answer questions from people who don't specialize in that area. It can be frustrating, though, when one of those people is dead set on believing something that is completely crazy.
For comparison, I went to a lecture by Brian Greene (author of The Elegant Universe) last night. He's a very, very smart guy, but he is also good at explaining things like quantum mechanics and string theory to non-physicists like me.
At the end of the lecture, there was a question and answer session.
One of the people asked a lengthy question about similarities between the language of mysticism (the "word of God" and the vibrational jibber-jabber that some people are into now) and that of advanced physics (e.g. string theory and the idea that all particles are actually the result of vibrations). He was obviously a misguided UFO guy, but because he asked the question in an open-minded way, Greene was able to turn it into an interesting topic.
Later, a woman came to the microphone and started off by accusing him of being biased towards "European mathematics," and that if he's interested in the higher dimensions that string theory predicts, he should be investigating the Africans who can enter the fifth dimension and that Einstein was looking for some Buddhist chant that would function as a unified theory. Because she was dead set in her crazy ways, he couldn't turn it into an interesting discussion and basically had to just tell her she was wrong.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Hahah... What is with these people? check out the posts by "Dragonrider" on the shadow confederacy web site
This guy is certifiable. Ahh.. isn't the internet wonderful.
Seems the Yellowstone scientists don't know this. For example, the first question...
Even as someone who approached this story with an open mind and no preconceived ideas, when I read this answer I had two immediate thoughts...
If animals were leaving due to some sort of environmental change then that wouldn't be migration, so saying that the "migrations were not unusual" doesn't answer the question. (ie: The migrations may have been perfectly normal but what about the thousands of animals leaving for unexplained reasons?)Don't dead fish wash up on the shore? So isn't that where they'd be found? Again, saying that they weren't found *in* the lakes doesn't strictly answer the question.
Anyway, I'm not trying to side with the conspiracy folks here because to be honest I don't actually know what their 'side' is, but that interview did set off some alarm bells for me. Whenever I see answers that are very specific, but specifically not an answer to the exact question that was asked, I become suspicious.
"North Pacific and Russian Far East air routes (gray lines) pass over or near more than a hundred potentially active volcanoes (red triangles). Aircraft flying along these routes, some of the busiest in the world, carry more than 10,000 passengers and millions of dollars of cargo each day to and from Asia, North America, and Europe. In the North Pacific region, several explosive eruptions occur every year. Ash from these eruptions, which has caused jet engines to fail, is usually blown to the east and northeast, directly across the air routes."
And here's what happened to one 747: "As the crew of KLM Flight 867 struggled to restart the plane's engines, "smoke" and a strong odor of sulfur filled the cockpit and cabin. For five long minutes the powerless 747 jetliner, bound for Anchorage, Alaska, with 231 terrified passengers aboard, fell in silence toward the rugged, snow-covered Talkeetna Mountains (7,000 to 11,000 feet high). All four engines had flamed out when the aircraft inadvertently entered a cloud of ash blown from erupting Redoubt Volcano, 150 miles away. The volcano had begun erupting 10 hours earlier on that morning of December 15, 1989. Only after the crippled jet had dropped from an altitude of 27,900 feet to 13,300 feet (a fall of more than 2 miles) was the crew able to restart all engines and land the plane safely at Anchorage. The plane required $80 million in repairs, including the replacement of all four damaged engines."
-cp-
Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets
"There is no continuous monitoring of ground movement of the lake bottom." "There is no continuous gas monitoring in the park." "There is no continuous monitoring of the magnetic field in Yellowstone." "..a more complete set of wider frequency seismometers would be very useful to monitor such signals throughout the entire Yellowstone volcanic field." "We have recently applied for funds..." One can say with certainty, not noticeable change was observed. How comforting.
Caldera: .
Definition: [n] a large crater caused by the violent explosion of a volcano that collapses into a depression
hmmm - so _that's why they're calling themselves SCO these days.
//rhi
Maybe when the asteroid hits it. Of which there is also certainly a chance.
..
...
The numbers game is different from the 'chances of asteroids hitting'. Let me explain, (following numbers are just for example, but you get the idea) Chances of been hit by asteroid.
Year 1 - 0.0000001 %
Year 2 - 0.0000001 %
Year 3 - 0.0000001 %
Year 9999 - 0.0000001 %
Chances yellowstone errupting.
Year 1 - 0.0000001 %
Year 2 - 0.0000002 %
Year 3 - 0.0000003 %
Year 9999 - 0.0009999 %
The difference between Yellowstone going up in smoke, and an asteroid, is that the chances of erruption increase each year an erruption hasn't occured, due to the previous years magma adding to the pressure. Eventually, the chances will become large enough that it will be more lightly to happen than not. As opposed to the asteroid hitting, that might happen, but probably not... and also not subject to the previous years non-event effecting this years chances.
If you live on the east coast fear the half kilometer tall super-tsunami thats set to slam into the east coast as far as 12 miles inland when one of the canary islands collapses into the ocean during its next eruption, which could be any day now. Just something to think about. :)
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
For those who haven't seen "Bowling For Columbine", the last part delves into this subject. It posits that the government and news media like to keep the US populace living in fear. Fear of anything - just as long as there is fear. The movie doesn't really answer the question of whether it's a conspiracy, or maybe that the populace likes to be fearful and the government/media are just "selling what sells." I sort of came away with the feeling the movie was saying the government realizes that if people are afraid they'll turn to the government to protect them, and they're milking that for all it's worth.
Anyway, it's an interesting take on the national psyche.Can't say much for the rest of the movie, but I'd mod the "fear" part +1 insightful.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Do a google search for "new madrid earthquake". I don't recommend that you make long-term plans to live in Memphis.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Sure - I'm always up for an adjustment of the status quo. All you have to do is breach the main magma chamber such that it is exposed to more or less normal atmospheric pressure. The gases that are currently dissolved in the magma, under pressure, will then release explosively.
It's analogous to the cork on a champagne bottle: you only have to remove the cork a little way - providing a route for pressure equalization - and all the gas bubbles dissolved in the champagne simultaneously decide to head for freedom, taking the cork with them.
But a champagne bottle is more like a regular volcano: it has a neck which constrains the flow of champagne, like an ordinary volcano's primary magma conduit. That happens because normal volcanos have magma chambers far below the surface of the earth, which severely constrains the escape of magma.
In Yellowstone's case, there's a large magma chamber much closer to the surface, the heat of which causes all the geysers and other geologic activity in Yellowstone. If that magma chamber is breached, the magma escaping under pressure won't have to force its way through nearly as much rock. Instead, much of Yellowstone and the surrounding region will become the cork on a well-shaken champagne bottle without a neck.
It just happens that I have 15 SS-21 warheads in my garden shed, and with some general pointers, I might be able to speed things along a little bit.
I suspect that bombarding the surface may not help much, unless you get lucky and vibrations deeper down cause something to crack. I think you're looking at a venture along the lines used in the asteroid-hitting-Earth movies: you're going to have to drill a bunch of holes a few miles deep, preferably at widely spaced points around the caldera's 1500 square mile area. Then insert your warheads, rigged with remote detonators or people very dedicated to your cause, down to the bottom of the holes. Unless you have a death wish, I suggest being on the other side of the planet when triggering the detonation.
In the Yellowstone calculation, you should take into account the chance that Yellowstone will erupt in a non-devastating way. If there's a minor eruption, that's no big deal (except for tourism, I guess), and it resets the build-up. I suspect there will be some sort of eruption within my lifetime, but I suspect it won't be anything to worry about.