Slashdot Mirror
A Supervolcano Beneath Mt. St. Helens?
We've discussed the supervolcano beneath Yellowstone a few times here (not going to blow, 2004; going to blow, 2008). Now scientists are pondering whether a large area of conductive material beneath Mt. St. Helens might contain enough magma that the area could be classed a supervolcano. The jury is still out on this one. Reader nhytefall sends us a New Scientist progress report. "Magma can be detected with a technique called magnetotellurics, which builds up a picture of what lies underground by measuring fluctuations in electric and magnetic fields at the surface. The fields fluctuate in response to electric currents traveling below the surface, induced by lightning storms and other phenomena. The currents are stronger when magma is present, since it is a better conductor than solid rock. ... [M]easurements revealed a column of conductive material that extends downward from the volcano. About 15 km below the surface, the relatively narrow column appears to connect to a much bigger zone of conductive material. This larger zone was first identified in the 1980s by another magnetotelluric survey, and was found to extend all the way to beneath Mount Rainier 70 km to the north-east, and Mount Adams 50 km to the east. It was thought to be a zone of wet sediment, water being a good electrical conductor. ... [Some researchers] now think the conductive material is more likely to be a semi-molten mixture. Its conductivity is not high enough for it to be pure magma.. so it is more likely to be a mixture of solid and molten rock."
I suggest you actually read the summary. It doesn't say that Mount St. Helens is going erupt and destroy life as we know it, or anything like that. It says "Hey guys, what if that large area under the ground isn't actually water like we thought and is actually semi molten rock?". To which the answer is, "Well that might mean we need to classify it differently." That's it. No grand and dire warnings, suggest an idea that would further our understanding of at least a piece of the earth.
But don't let me interrupt your off topic rant.
It can be reasonably argued either way as to whether funding for volcano monitoring belonged in that particular bill (I urge you to consider how the economy might be affected by a volcano-scale natural disaster -- the possible nullification of any progress stemming from the bill's other economic recovery provisions).
More poignant however was the obvious subtext of Jindal's message, which was mockery of science. You probably wouldn't agree, but it'd certainly be worth my taxpayer dollars to fund a permanent residence for Gov. Jindal at the summit of Mt. St. Helens.
"Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." -- James Madison
If those bastards want to live in a hurricane zone, below sea level, fine. Let them. But not on my nickel.
How would you feel about dealing with the massive economic hit to the country involved in all of the people living in similar areas relocating? Whether the government funded it or not, you'd be talking about bringing huge pieces of industry to a standstill for years.
Oh, and don't forget about the ruin you'd wreak on the country by shutting down all of the ports on two of the three coasts. Nearly anywhere that is capable of being a useful port is also going to be victim to natural disasters of some kind - whether it's hurricanes in the South or earthquakes in the West. But, you know, while you're relocating all those millions of people, maybe you can have them dig a container-ship-sized canal to Idaho. Not many options for that in the South, since (AFAIK) most of the states between the South and e.g. Michigan (which already has water access) are hit by tornadoes.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
#1. Predict catastrophe
#2. Build highway
#2. ???
#3. Profit!
libertarians always go on about how a place with no government would be paradise. Well there is such a place: Somalia. Why don't you move there to establish the libertarian paradise. That neither you
nor the other libertarians don't shows that libertarians are just wannabe freeriders.
I lived in Seattle for 12 years and during that time.... and every time I laid eyes on Mt. Rainier my hind brain went fraking ballistic.
something deep within me said, " Get the fuck out of here... You shouldn't be any where near that mountain!!!"
I can't explain that feeling. For most of my time living there I believed that volcano to be extinct. I never even looked into it. Much later I did and found that it is not extinct... or dormant or sleeping.... it's considered ACTIVE.... so is there something to it?
I don't live in flood plains.... I grew up in Earthquake regions and have been through some of the worst in the last 40+ years... and I am still here to tell those stories.
IMO: It is a form of ignorance that typical humans will move their families onto a flood plane and blindly trust that their personal relationship with God will protect them from their ignorance of nature's laws, facts to the contrary not withstanding.
OTOH: There is no safe places on this planet. Every possible substrate that is conducive to human well being has some form of devastating environmental feature that promises one might make an untimely exit at Nature's whim....
*shrug
There is no free lunch.
Without claiming that either side is correct politically, I will say that it is my experience that those on the Left, relatively speaking, tend to be more concerned with idealism than with verifiable facts. Which is a very dangerous thing to let loose on the American people.
On the other hand, idealism or no, the Right has done considerable damage to the American people and their society over the last 8 or 10 years itself. So... it has just been one variety of bad after another.
I tend to find that both ends of the political spectrum have their dangerous idealists, but it's that very idealism that's led conservatives astray in the past two decades.
Conservative idealists told use that when we went into Iraq, we'd be greeted as liberators, the war would paid for itself with Iraqi oil revenues, and we would put a stop to Al-Qaida and spread democracy and Western values throughout the region. Ample evidence before the war could have told us what would result, but the people in charge didn't look hard.
And conservative fiscal idealists have told us for decades that prosperity would be around the corner if we just kept deregulating Wall Street. Rational self-interest would keep businessmen from overreaching and destroying the lives of millions for their own gain. It's not like history doesn't teach us what happens in the absence of regulation, but it's a matter of idealistic principle that the markets be allowed to take care of themselves -- no matter the human cost until the people affected get angry enough and we get a New Deal or a big Bailout (or something worse like a revolution).
Similarly, conservative social movements push for the teaching of abstinence-only education under the notion that horny teens will be too scared to have sex to follow their hormonal impulses and just do it anyway. They tend to pooh-pooh STD & teen pregnancy statistics that show that more teens are put at risk by these programs because it's more important that teens uphold the moral values they want (having less sex) than not ruining their lives (by doing it correctly).
These are all examples of idealism over practicality.
Every side frames its "common sense" as "verifiable facts" -- don't get me started on the global warming debate -- but the truth is that both sides of the political spectrum (and every stance in between) are dominated by uninformed, fickle voters who vote more based on dogma and whim than a cold, hard look at the facts. Sometimes its because they aren't interested in all the facts. Much of the time, it's because people don't care about the facts and automatically perceive anything that contradicts their worldview as wrong. And even in the best of people, it can be just because it's not possible to be an expert in everything. It's human nature.