reply to post by Spacedman13
Thank you for the links to the videos.
No reflection on you, these are the typical MSM hype and over-reaction to something that has been happening for centuries, but which they have only
just become aware of.
I was appalled to hear a geologist (a Scotsman I think) working for Iceland refer to the swarm under Eyjafjoll prior to the first eruption as '
terrifying'. 'Interesting', 'Unusual', 'Concerning', 'Worrying' perhaps but NOT 'Terrifying' He is young and has obviously been influenced
by all the hype, however in my opinion he has no
place as a geologist
using that word. Just what impression does he think that has on
others? OMG the geologist is terrified! Panic! Panic! Panic!
The whole of the documentary seemed more concerned with how much this cost and not so much with the effect on the people.
At one point Iceland is the most volcanic place on the planet, and then when it suits the hype Kamchatka is the most volcanic place. Billions for
this, billions for that, OMG the poor airlines etc, etc. Not once did I hear them say anything that I could interpret as concern for the people other
than that it would 'affect' them. If you have read my earlier post with the descriptions of the effect on the people you will understand where I am
coming from. I care not one jot about the airlines and their profits. It is high time they ceased their polluting and unnecessary business anyway.
Let's get back to airships and ships and a calmer way of life. Do we actually need food to be flown in? No. I don't need to eat tomatoes in January.
I can enjoy them in season locally grown. (Just one example)
Yes of course there is a risk, but like the twisting of your President's words from (précis) "Look Katla is going to blow sometime, you should be
ready" to "Katla is about to blow" the whole documentary is full of suggestive IF scenarios which have some basis of truth but which have been
expanded beyond what is reasonable.
All of a sudden Kamchatka is going to be a super volcano? Just where does that idea spring from?. There is no plume under Kamchatka. Actually if the
Icelandic Plume theory is correct Iceland has far more potential to be a super volcano that Kamchatka.
The inference was that for example Laki in producing sufficient lava to cover London 10 metres deep, did so explosively. This leaves people with the
idea of a massive highly explosive eruption, whereas whilst obviously there was an explosive content at Laki, it was a fissure eruption - on the style
of the Hawaiian volcanoes but larger.
Katla will erupt some time in the future, there is no doubt about that. This does not actually mean that the erupt WILL be 10 times larger than Eyja.
You cannot state that. There is a certain amount of evidence to suggest crystallisation of the magma chamber beneath Katla according to some
geologists, and if that was the case an eruption at Katla may be no worse than Eyja. My point here is that we don't know. You cannot state it will be
10 times worse as it may not.
Personally my concern would be at this time for something to occur in the Vatnajokull area or to the North of there.
I ran out of steam. I could find lots more to say but......
Apart from that it was nice to see the scenery!