It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
LONDON (Reuters) - The bad news is tens of millions of people along the eastern seaboard of the United States and Canada may drown if the slow slippage of a volcano off north Africa becomes a cataclysmic collapse.
But the good news is the world is not likely to be destroyed by an asteroid any time soon.
Originally posted by Tanin
I watched a show about this on the History Channel or Discovery, entitled "Tsunami" that was shown in a natural disaster marathon. Very interesting... a whole half of the island is on the verge of sliding off into the sea. Now that would be a creative weapon for terrorists.
Originally posted by thematrix
I saw that on National Geographic Channel.
I sure hope they make good work of monitoring that volcano, not only to check when it might slide, but emagine this:
A Terrorist organisation sees the same Documentary as we did. He sees all those nice places in the middle of nature where noone would be able to monitor him and his palls and gets the most brilliant idea a terrorist could get.
He gets some buddy's of his together and starts planning where to put charges along the breach in the volcano, on the TV show alone I saw a douzen places noone would ever see you do your thing and heck, if they did see, you could act asif your a research team doing drills to check the place out.
He assists nature in letting the volcano slide, its already ready to slide, so not much explosive power is really needed to make it go.
Next thing you have a 100 meter high tsunami making its way to the US and a whooping lot of other places. When it hits, really big $hit hits the fan on the US coastline.
The US shouldn't be pushed to monitor that place. They should be doing it already. Its a place outside of US soil that if used by terrorists could mean utter catastrophy comming their way.
Originally posted by kegs
I'm wondering why this all over the papers now? It's old news, I heard about it years ago and it must of been known about long before I heard it.
Originally posted by victor was right
does anyone agree with me that those wave height estimates might be a bit exagerrated??
Originally posted by Netchicken
For goodness sake, will someone just jump up and down on it a bit so it collapses!
The suspence is killing me....
Originally posted by Big Erle
Reading the paper Tanin posted you can see that the volume of rock they are talking about is on the order of 150 to 500 cubic kilometers. If it is mostly Basalt, density ~ 3.3 g/cc, that's 3.3x(150 to 500)x(1,000,000cc/cubic meter)x(1,000,000,000cubic meters/cubic kilometer)/(1000 g/kg)=3,300,000,000,000x(150 to 500)=495,000,000,000,000kg to 1,650,000,000,000,000kg. Divide by 2.2 kg per pound, that's 2,250,000,000,000,000 to 750,000,000,000,000 pounds or 1,125,000,000,000 to 375,000,000,000 tons of rock. Thats a big rock. Aint no nuke gonna move that baby. When it goes, it will go with great enthusiasm, and aint no one gonna stop it. There is another paper out there, I found it last week, but I can't seem to locate it today, describing a series of experiments investigating the creation of waves using this type of mechanism, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale. Results support the conclusion that if this baby goes, you best be well inland. Hope my math is right above, shouldn't be too far off.