Slashdot Mirror


Expert Warns Of Giant Tidal Wave

Kieckerjan writes "Forget about asteroids and start worrying about the unassuming Cumbre Vieja volcano. According to prof. Bill McGuire of the Benfield Grieg Hazard Research Centre, if this mountain erupts, it could cause a tidal wave that would wipe out America's east coast. Google news has the same story over and over again. (This makes you wonder: how much would it take to trigger an eruption for one bent on destruction?)"

19 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Clearly. by Ieshan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, clearly. Americans need to be afraid of MORE things. Since cancer, terrorism, guns, murder, disease, nuclear (nuk-you-lar) war, security levels blue through hot pink, killer bees, and France aren't scary enough.

    1. Re:Clearly. by Sepper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, clearly. Americans need to be afraid of MORE things.

      I think they should be more affraid of the 'Wave' of Hollywood crappy movies this is gonna create...

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
  2. Cliff by Tomahawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember seeing something about this (or something similar at least) in a documentary about tidal waves.

    Seemingly a particular cliff (which could very well be the volcano), if it were to fall into the sea, would cause a tidal wave large enough to take out New York (and would be in line with taking out New York).

    A few properly set explosives, and New Yorkers would have a few hours warning with no way to stop it.

    The particular documentary showed evidence of such tidal waves occuring where there had been rock slides of this sort. Volcano isn't actually necessary, but would give a large tidal wave (hence the east coast of the US would be affected).

    I think coming up with a method is dispersing such a tidal wave before it hits the coast would be the best way to counteract this. However, how, exactly, do you stop a large tidal wave in the middle of the Atlantic ocean?

    T.

    1. Re:Cliff by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Funny

      Couldn't they just send a bunch of missiles to break the wave before it hits?

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    2. Re:Cliff by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 3, Funny

      would be in line with taking out New York

      Well it's just going to have to take its turn. There are others who want to take out New York, and they've been waiting much longer.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
  3. Large Explostion to set off volcano by justanyone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe they thought of doing mining (as in for minerals, not data) in the 1950's and 1960's using nuclear explosives.

    While this was a great incomplete theory, it left out the crucial detail of environmental damage and subsequent release of radiation to the ore, the slag, and the mined-out areas. Of course, in that day-in-age it wasn't well known what the long term effects of radioactive byproducts of nuclear explosions were.

    There's also the crucial political perspective of Eisenhower's use of 'Atoms for Peace' to give political cover to the Atomic Energy Commission's mandate / goals of limiting proliferation. Basically, we promised the world that if they would NOT develop nuke bombs, we would give them reactors for free power. I am not "up" on the issue, I'd defer to some Ph.D.'s who do nonproliferation studies for a living. However, I'd wager there's a tradeoff between the lives saved by not having too many nukes out there vs. the lives lost in long term radiation exposure due to waste from 3rd world reactors.

    Regardless, this builds up to the idea that if you're a terrorist, and you're going to try to set off a volcano, you're going to need lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of conventional explosives, or one medium- to large-sized nuclear bomb. And, if you have a medium to large nuke, you're not going to use it on an off-the-wall gambit like an underwater or underground explosion.

    Geologists, please comment on any demonstrated effects of the use of explosives in the triggering of volcanic eruptions (if any) ?? I would suspect very few experiments, am I right?

  4. Re:Rock & Wave by Scarblac · · Score: 5, Informative

    This rock is HUGE.

    The BBC article linked to gives the size as that of "a small island", this other BBC news article gives it as "the size of the Isle of Man". According to the CIA World Factbook, that is 572 sq m., or "three times the size of Washington, DC. It also metnions that the rock is already in motion.

    Actually, this PDF (Google HTML version) gives it as between 150 and 500 cubic km of rock. That is obviously far too large to get rid of. If it slides into the sea at 100 m/s (as in a volcanical eruption), it could cause waves of up to 25m high in the Americas (well, it's 10 to 25 for the biggest rock size).

    (Excuse me if some of the above links are actually in the story, I had read a bit about it already so didn't look closely at the given links)

    --
    I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  5. Yellowstone Supervolcano by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Look those two keywords up on Google. You will find a new reason to be nervous.

    Yellowstone erupts on a 640,000 cycle, give or take a few ten thousand years.

    Last time Yellowstone blew it buried Nebraska under six feet of ash. Anyone within a 600 mile radius would die within minutes.

    It's about 20,000 years overdue to erupt.

    1. Re:Yellowstone Supervolcano by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's about 20,000 years overdue to erupt.
      The US Geological Survey doesn't agree with this:
      The fact that two eruptive intervals (2.1 million to 1.3 million and 1.3 million to 640,000 years ago) are of similar length does not mean that the next eruption will necessarily occur after another similar interval. The physical mechanisms may have changed with time. Furthermore, any inferences based on these two intervals would take into account too few data to be statistically meaningful. To say that an eruption that might happen in ten's or hundred's of thousand's of years is "overdue" would be a gross overstatement. On the other hand we cannot discount the possibility of such an event occurring some time in the future, given Yellowstone's volcanic history and the continued presence of magma beneath the Yellowstone caldera.
      So it might go off, but to say it's any number of years "overdue" is pushing it. If it last went off 640,000 years ago, you could argue it's "639,999 years overdue", or you could just say it's not overdue at all because it's not exactly running on a timer.
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. Re:Rock & Wave by scupper · · Score: 4, Informative
  7. IANAG, but... by incog8723 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wouldn't it be possible to plant (underwater) explosives on the rock, with velocity sensors on them, such that if the rock began moving at too fast a rate (say, greater than 5 mph), hundreds of underwater explosives start detonating it into shreds? I know demolitions is a very precise science these days. Cleverly mounted and directed explosions (of course, it would take several thousand tons)... But if you could split it such that it creates a somewhat negative movement of waves, seems as though it would work. I.E., split it in half north to south, then east to west, then the remaining pieces split in half and so on.

    Just an idea..

  8. Link to the original paper by cr00ked · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    I am neither insensitive nor a clod!
  9. Motives? by martyb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's look at the source:

    On the front page of the Benfield Grieg Hazard Research Centre web site is this interesting statement:

    BHRC is sponsored by Benfield, the world's leading independent reinsurance intermediary and risk advisory business. Benfield's customers include many of the world's major insurance and reinsurance companies as well as Government entities and global corporations. Benfield employs over 1,700 people based in over 30 locations worldwide.

    <sarcasm>Why would an insurance company post such an article?</sarcasm>

  10. Re:Don't forget by LizardKing · · Score: 3, Informative

    These are the models you seek.

  11. Whole or in pieces, same effect by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 4, Informative
    Aside from the wonderful time you'd have wiring up a few hundred cubic km of rock with explosives, there's the question of the good it would do. In this case, it would probably be zero.

    The problem here is that the rock goes down and displaces water, which comes up. The potential energy of the falling rock is partially converted into kinetic energy of the water, which becomes a tsunami when it hits the surface. You are not going to get rid of this energy by fragmenting the rock. Some tsunamis appear to have been caused by mudslides, and it's hard to get any more fragmented than mud.

    1. Re:Whole or in pieces, same effect by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The tsunami is created by the rolling motion caused by the material sliding down the slope of the Cumbre Vieja and the rest of the island.

      One big splash would dissipate and not create a tsunami...

      That's not what people who've studied the phenomenon say. I quote:
      The initial deformation is assumed to be fully and instantaneously transmitted to the sea surface, where, through restoring gravity forces, tsunami waves begin to propagate across the sea.
      The remnant of the historical landslide off California mapped here doesn't show any evidence of rolling motions required to create wave trains (that looks like one slump, like an avalanche in air); the water will do that by itself. All you have to do is drop a pebble in water and watch the ripples moving outward to prove to yourself that a sharp event will cause an oscillation - and if such events didn't cause waves, why are we concerned about asteroid impacts in the water?
  12. Re:Surf's Up? by putzin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reason this would be big is because the wave, as it approaches the coast, would expand upward as the depth decreases. The energy dissipation follows wave form rules, but as in any system, the energy involved doesn't go away. So, as the water gets shallow, the wave would grow up. Interesting to note that there would be no 300 foot wave in deep water, but the wave form itself would still exist and be travelling at a high rate of speed despite being essentially invisible.

    As a side note, Dr. No, GoldFinger, and Dr. Evil all investigated this and decided it wasn't grand enough for a take over the world plot. Not reproducible, like a laser or nuclear weapon, and possibly defensible (blow up the rock before it slides?).

    --
    Bah
  13. Re:Guns? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Karl Marx, to my knowledge, never called for the imprisonment, execution, and/or disappearance of millions who chose not to toe the line. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others chose those policies.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  14. Solution by j_w_d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Go to volcanic island. Locate large slipping rock. Make gravel and dispose of gradually filling pot holes in Italian roads and New York's city streets.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.