Slashdot Mirror


Iceland's Seismic Activity: A Repeat Show for Atmospheric Ash?

In 2010, ash spewed into the atmosphere by the volcano beneath Iceland's Eyjafjallajökull glacier grounded European air traffic for days (and, partially, for weeks). As reported by The Guardian, a series of similarly situated earthquakes may herald a similar ash-ejecting erruption, and the country has raised its volcano risk to its second-most-severe rating (orange). From the article: Iceland met office seismologist Martin Hensch said the risk of any disruptive ash cloud similar to the one in 2010 would depend on how high any ash would be thrown, how much there would be and how fine-grained it would be. Bardarbunga is Iceland's largest volcanic system, located under the ice cap of the Vatnajokull glacier in the southeast of Iceland. It is in a different range to Eyjafjallajokull. The met office said in a statement it measured the strongest earthquake in the region since 1996 early on Monday and it now had strong indications of ongoing magma movement. "As evidence of magma movement shallower than 10km implies increased potential of a volcanic eruption, the Bardarbunga aviation colour code has been changed to orange," it said. "Presently there are no signs of eruption, but it cannot be excluded that the current activity will result in an explosive subglacial eruption, leading to an outburst flood and ash emission." ... Hensch said the biggest risk in Iceland itself was from flood waves from any eruption under the glacier. He said the area of Iceland mainly at risk of flooding was mostly uninhabited but that roads in the area had been closed.

16 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So I'm confused... by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, its both. Iceland is worried about flooding because that's going to cause major damage to infrastructure, but the ash cloud in 2010 stopped air travel in the UK.

  2. Unfortunately by halivar · · Score: 5, Funny

    The only way to save the planet from the volcano is to pronounce its name backwards. Correctly.

    1. Re:Unfortunately by RivenAleem · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't understand the problem, you pronounce it exactly as it's written.

    2. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (Fuck Slashdot's UTF-8 handling by the way!)

    3. Re:Unfortunately by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      Do you know the first signs of a stroke? Seek medical assistance for yourself immediately.

  3. Re:So I'm confused... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the major threat to Iceland is the flooding. Sure its airspace will be affected but if you're house is being washed away that's a significantly more pressing and dangerous issue.

    Europe on the other hand is at no risk from the flooding. So the threat to air travel in Europe, based on the 2010 experience, is significant.

    Add to that the factor that European air travel is probably orders of magnitude greater than Iceland's...

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  4. Badabunga! by grimJester · · Score: 2

    I'm quite certain they named it after the sound it made when it first erupted.

    1. Re:Badabunga! by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Close.
      It was named after the sound of the nearest resident bowels evacuating.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. The roads are designed for flooding in Iceland by joe545 · · Score: 4, Informative

    South of Vatnajokull is an area of gravel desert with little to no inhabitants. As there are frequent floods and ever changing "river" estuaries, all of the many small bridges in the region are specifically designed to be washed away easily. It's simply cheaper to build them new ones after every serious flood. The Icelanders know what they are doing!

    1. Re:The roads are designed for flooding in Iceland by avgjoe62 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Actually, no, that's not the way the bridges work.

      You see, that area of Iceland is actually rather swampy and it is sort of daft to build a bridge on a swamp, but they build them all the same, just to show it can be done. Then it sinks into the swamp, so they build a second one. That sinks into the swamp. So they build a third. That usually burns down, falls over, and sinks into the swamp. But the fourth bridge -that stays up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest bridges in all of Europe.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    2. Re:The roads are designed for flooding in Iceland by skastrik · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... all of the many small bridges in the region are specifically designed to be washed away easily. It's simply cheaper to build them new ones after every serious flood.

      The Icelandic director of transport states in this mornings paper that "bridges are expensive". Just rebuilding two particular bridges that are candidates for being washed away would cost roughly 25 million USD. In addition there's the disruption and inconvenience until some rudimentary bridges have been put in place.

      The plan is therefore to try to save the bridges. If necessary, heavy machinery will be used to dig the roads apart the allow the flood to go that way. Rebuilding roads is a comparatively quick and painless process.

  6. Re:So I'm confused... by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

    In fact, by the end of the last event, I believe it has been established that those ash clouds do not harm the air planes, and you can just fly through them without worry (Airplane companies' CEOs got together to do a fly-through to inspire confidence). Anyone got more detail on that?

    Actually, more to the point, that the ash cloud has dissipated so there's less of a threat. Because this was at the end of it and air traffic had been shut down for over a week and a half, so people were skeptical that things have changed so much that you couldn't fly yesterday, but you can today. (Plus, airline finances are such that if you're not flying them, you're losing money, so the CEOs were really desperate to get moving again and stem the losses).

    Volcanic ash is still nasty stuff - it erodes surfaces and glasses up in engines, which causes them to fail. In fact we didn't know about ash clouds until the late 1970s when a 747 was barely able to land in Indonesia after all of its engines failed and won't restart (until the engines cooled to the point the glassed ash broke off AND they were below the ash cloud and could restore limited power). And on landing, they realized they couldn't see out the front windshield because the ash was like sandpaper to it.

    The CEO show was basically to say that there wasn't enough ash to down your plane anymore and that it was safe to travel again. (Though I'm sure they probably called for extra inspections because of buildup could cause a failure later on down the line).

    There is worldwide monitoring of ash clouds and all that because of that accident because it's still harmful. It doesn't happen TOO often that air travel has be diverted because of volcanic activity, but it's still something pilots avoid.

  7. Re:So I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, that's not what happened. What they determined is better constraints on what ash concentrations are significant. There is still a hazard of engine shutdown and windshield frosting (decreasing visibility) if ash density is high enough, and besides those hazards, there were also questions about maintenance (i.e. not hazardous to the flight, but having a lot more wear-and-tear on the engines, meaning higher costs/maintenance). Starting out, regulators and airlines weren't sure where that threshhold was, and there wasn't much in-air calibration of what density was being picked up in satellite imagery. This all meant they had to err on the side of caution if any ash was present. Now that those threshholds and the image calibration are better established, the safety limit is set at a lower ash concentration than previously, which should make it easier to deal with. The aircraft will still have to avoid higher-density parts of the plume, and if the eruption is bigger than Eyjafjallajökull it might be a moot point.

  8. Re:At least you can pronounce Bardarbunga by theVarangian · · Score: 3, Informative

    At least you can pronounce Bardarbunga.

    It is a composite word: Bárður - A man's name. Bunga - In this context it means mountain or peak. So in English: "Bárður's Peak"

  9. Re:How big is this thing? by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    Bardarbunga is a very large volcano and potentially capable of a huge eruption. At this point it's impossible to tell how large an eruption may occur or even if it's actually going to erupt enough to break through the ice cap over it. This is a different type of volcano than Tambora. The volcanoes on Iceland are formed because the Earth is splitting apart along the mid-Atlantic Ridge and the magma tends to be runny flowing magma. Tambora is located near a subduction zone where two plates are pushing together. The volcanic eruptions along those areas tend to be more explosive.

    So, at this point it's impossible to tell how big an eruption Bardarbunga might have. It could be nothing or it could be immense. All you can really do is prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

  10. Re:So I'm confused... by houghi · · Score: 2

    It stopped airtravel in more than just the UK. How about all of Europe (exept Portugal).

    Here an image of where it was disrupted. Red is completely and orange is partly.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.