a reply to: TheJesuit
Just a couple of points of order here.
The technique they suggested is not fracking, which is a bastardisation of fracturing, as in hydraulic fracturing, which is the process of forcing
water into the Earth, to fracture shale underground, releasing gas trapped within the rock, in order to then collect the gas when it emerges from the
No, this is actually quite different. Where as fracking seeks draw a fuel from the ground, so that it can be transported to elsewhere, sold off to
whomever as would like to buy it, the technique involved in this NASA idea is somewhat different. The notion seems to be that injecting relatively hot
water at high pressure, would result in a slow, controlled, cooling effect over a long period (and when I say long, I mean on a geological scale of
time), as well as having an interesting by product, that being the heat ejected from the system, which could replace between five and six regular
power plants in terms of its energy output, providing power for tens, or even hundreds of thousands of years.
The idea behind this however is to cool the volcano slowly enough that it no longer poses a threat, slowly enough that no thermal shock event causes
catastrophe, but cools it enough to reduce the pressure at its head, and over time calm the region down well enough that no more threat issues
therefrom, over tens of thousands, perhaps a hundred thousand years.
Now, I am not saying that this is necessarily a good idea, and there are some pretty significant risks associated with the plan, not least of which
is the potential for the plan to backfire and accelerate the inevitable explosion of Yellowstone... But, that explosive eruption is not just a
possibility, or something that may potentially happen. It is something that will, without fail, occur at some stage. When it inevitably does occur,
the damage that it will do, which has been detailed repeatedly on these boards and gone over at enormous length, will come to pass. This will happen
if we do nothing, for an absolute certainty, if left to its own devices.
To put that into some perspective, we are talking about an event that will up end everything from the chemical composition of our atmosphere in the
short term, to altering crop growth cycles and growing seasons in length and timing, changing the temperature dynamic in the atmosphere, as well as
causing an explosion that will shred unimaginable amounts of land, cost the lives of millions before you can say "Oh daaaaayum!" and, basically
decapitate the American continent entirely. This will be an event on a par with a comet impact, something we simply have not seen since civilisation
really kicked off. It will make Pompeii look like an M80 firecracker, make even the mighty Krakatoa eruption seem like an irrelevance in comparison.
Its more than likely that if it kicks off as a detonation first, the blast alone will travel around the world multiple times. It will rain brimstone
and fire for thousands of miles in every direction, as well as launching ash deposits in vast quantity, into the air.
We have seen devastation from volcanic eruptions before. Mt. St Helens, various eruptions in nations and on islands in the Ring of Fire. We see these
tiny islands populations running for their lives, and say to ourselves "Well, I feel bad for these people, and I want to help, but damn... I am glad I
don't live there!!". The detonation of Yellowstone is not an event that we will be able to say this of, because its effects will be felt all over the
world. Much smaller explosions than Yellowstone is brewing up to, have had global effects, but nothing like Yellowstone has happened in recorded human
history. There was no civilisation, last time something like Yellowstone happened, so we are way out in the weeds when it comes to the threat posed.
The Thera eruption was much smaller than Yellowstone will be. It was also so powerful that you would have to have between 40 and 50 Tsar Bombas, that
is forty or fifty of the largest nukes ever tested, to replicate the force of the Thera eruption.
So, before you go off at NASA for thinking about mitigation for this event, you need to understand, that Yellowstone will go off without the effort
concerned, that when it does America and everyone in it will be at best living in a kind of Mad Max wasteland, and at worst be VERY dead, and the
globe will suffer inability to reliably produce crops as a result of rapid and extreme atmospheric disturbance as a result of the depositing of
unimaginable quantities of earth and rock being blasted into the air and staying there. I cannot stress enough, that this could well be an extinction
level threat to the species, depending on how it shakes out. Doing nothing means that this will come to pass at some stage. Waiting it out won't help,
doing nothing GUARANTEES doom. Doing something merely comes with a percentile risk, reducing the potential for a mega eruption from certain, to merely
possible. From the perspective of the species as a whole, and from the perspective of its survival for millions of years to come, doing something is
more preferable than doing nothing.
This is NOT the same as fracking, not in the slightest. Fracking is meant PURELY to make money and causes ENORMOUS damage to the environment, the
nature of which will likely only become clear in a little while, once the radioactive materials and the toxic chemicals that come up in the waste
water, have found their way into the groundwater. Its a profit making exercise at the expense of habitats, ecologies and the health and safety of
human beings exposed to the by products.
The NASA proposition is about saving lives, and may be a money maker as a by product. There is a massive difference in inspiration, method and
motivation, and comparing them is no more sensible than comparing apples to oranges.
This plan may not be real, it may be a hoax, but SOMETHING needs doing at some stage, and we have to prepare for that.
edit on 9-10-2018 by TrueBrit because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-10-2018 by TrueBrit because: added detail.