How can the US Government........

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Spend.....

$TRILLIONS on weapons of war

$BILLIONS on snooping on their own people and the rest of the world

Yet cannot afford a PALTRY $8 MILLION to fund the very necessary Alaska Volcano Observatory?

Budget cuts pare real-time monitoring of volcanoes

You will have to go and read the link as they expressly forbid any republication alteration rewriting use as toilet paper etc.

Like 1 x F35 less is going to make such a huge difference? Yet that could fund the Alaska VO, The Yellowstone VO, The Hawaiian VO etc probably for several years.

It is a matter of priorities and it seems to me as an outside observer that the US Government has theirs very wrong. Am I surprised? No. This is the case with most governments, but that is no excuse for endangering their own citizens and those of other countries visiting them or flying over their turf.





posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


The same reason they give away more money in a day then it would take to feed all of the hungry people in the United States.

Because we let them!!!

Yes it is that simple...

We allow it to happen...

To our defense... They have rigged the game by labeling anyone who speaks out a "terrorist". People ignore the situation so they don't get moved up higher on the IRS list or whatever agency they decide to truly Terrorize americans into submission.
edit on 15-5-2013 by knowledgedesired because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


What would studying that volcano do to benefit them? That is the question you need to answer to get that money! That F35 will be a deterrant against some sort of terrorism.....It is complete BS, I know but that is how they feel I am afraid...



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I wrote my Senators and Congressman concerning the USGS budget as a whole about 6 weeks ago. I only got one response, from the Congressman, who appreciated my input, but let me know "tough cuts" had to be made.

Basically, our representatives can't get any good kickbacks out of an agency like the USGS, where as, there are lucrative deals to be had for friends and family when the Defense department has money to spend...sickening.
edit on 5/15/2013 by Olivine because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I think the answer lay in the fact it's far more "fun" and politically sexy to make new ways to kill people ...as well as discover new reasons why that is necessary. It's just no fun at all to hold news conferences about funding breakthroughs to SAVE people or protect them from natural threats. Where would a story run about higher funding to those guys? In some tech journals? Who would attend the Press Conference? National Geographic?

*I* would love to hear about it....but the MSM doesn't figure I'm enough. Obviously. So...If it bleeds, it leads ...and Congress isn't immune from the bloodlust. They've learned what gets people pumped up.

New Main Battle Tank or...Sensor Package to watch a Volcano that may, someday, kill thousands of people? Well, the fact this thread has to exist answers that.


I'd still like to hear about more funding, not less.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Because our government is corrupt as hell, and no one in Washington gives a damn about funding the sciences unless it directly benefits them in profit.

That's the simple & shameful truth. We're a capitalist country run by people out to eek any extra buck they can out of things that end up in front of them, and if they can't do that, it's a useless venture to them.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Nyiah
 


A question to everyone.

Let's say the AVO had a Facebook page, or something like that and ran a campaign to "Adopt An Alaskan Volcano" in the interests of promoting science for the public good. Do you think there would be any mileage in that sort of scheme?

If say one sponsored a volcano for $5 what sort of information or contact would you expect to get by virtue of your sponsorship?
edit on 15/5/2013 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Nyiah
 


A question to everyone.

Let's say the AVO had a Facebook page, or something like that and ran a campaign to "Adopt An Alaskan Volcano" in the interests of promoting science for the public good. Do you think there would be any mileage in that sort of scheme?

If say one sponsored a volcano for $5 what sort of information or contact would you expect to get by virtue of your sponsorship?
edit on 15/5/2013 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

That's actually a brilliant idea to mitigate the cuts. With the right publicity coupled with Facebook, maybe National Geographic or any other given wide-reaching sciences magazine or website, it could have the potential to be a successful fundraiser. What would be the legal limitations, if any? Can something government funded like the AVO even take donated funds to operate on? I'm assuming it can, it's just the funds used to operate being taken away, not the sites, correct?

If it is something that can be done, I'd say definitely allow access to tremor monitoring, temperature monitoring, maybe video feeds if possible (not sure if they do that already) Gas monitors, ash cloud monitoring & forecasts (obviously) I know I'm being conservative in the data offerings, but I bet most wouldn't complain. Perhaps others more interested in the more fine details would have access to it with a higher donation amount?



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
From article in OP:


A second Alaska volcano began heating up Monday. Pavlof Volcano, 625 miles from Anchorage, does have seismic instruments, which picked up tremors signaling a possible eruption. Satellite imagery also showed a lot of heat in the mountain.


Picked up tremors signaling a possible eruption? Yeah? Is that right...

Cause I pulled raw data back to 5/6/13 from three working stations at Pavlof, went over them with spectro, and I completely disagree with that statement.

There MIGHT be a couple of long period (and not really all that long) events, but even those I question with the lack of highs present- meaning, they could be deep events- or they aren't events from there at all- or they are cultural noise. But ready to erupt? That's an outright fabrication in my opinion. There is no where near enough seismic activity to indicate that from what I saw.

So.... Sorry, show me the money. Puter, you might want to pull some raw data yourself, and perhaps we can finally agree on something.


Little Sitkin volcano was one of those cut, and it has showed WAY more seismic activity. Granted, it probably isn't as much of a threat as Pavlof, because it is so far out. But same for Iliamna- plenty of activity that came and went- and neither has erupted.

I hate the budget cuts too- screamed about it before, for those following my threads- but come on guys, Pavlof, ready to erupt? No. Just...no. Show me. Someone's looking at waveforms maybe, because there are some signatures that can fool you that look like long tremors. But in spectro they are bunk. Very little low frequencies between 2-4 Hz, (ok maybe some), but they are not accompanied by high frequency, showing they are local. I see signatures like this all the time. I don't know what they are thinking up there.

So I have either denied my ignorance for the day, or made a fool out of myself... Puter, you figure it out...
edit on Wed May 15th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Cancels the fancy and planes and this program because its really not needed.

From the article:




For example, gone is a plan to install seismic monitors at Cleveland Volcano, a remote mountain on an uninhabited island in the Aleutians. The volcano experienced a low-level eruption earlier this month that continues to discharge steam, gas and heat, although no ash clouds have been detected in the past week.


We can tell fairly easy when an eruption is happening and can direct resources as needed to monitor it. This is nothing more than people want every inch of ground tracked which is a waste in my opinion. Tell the pilots to look out the _..if they notice an ash cloud they may want to think about going around it.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
We can tell fairly easy when an eruption is happening and can direct resources as needed to monitor it. This is nothing more than people want every inch of ground tracked which is a waste in my opinion. Tell the pilots to look out the _..if they notice an ash cloud they may want to think about going around it.


At an unmonitored volcano, that is not true. We cannot tell fairly easily. We can't tell fairly easily if a MONITORED volcano is about to erupt. Little Sitkin, Iliamna, and so many others prove that day in day out. And by the time they can tell, it may too late. But we can advidse for elevated activity, and when it reaches a threshold, then advise the airlines of the threat. At an unmonitored one you cannot do any of that.

I'll be sure and direct the families of the dead crash victims to your post.

And Oli, you nailed it. No surprise. You rule.


Lol, I just went over the data again. If that qualifies as VLP tremor, then someone better start freaking the hell out. Cause we are in deep do do at Yellowstone then. Been screaming about it for a month or more- MCID.

Magma rising creates quakes, and there would be at least some form of accompanying short spiky earthquakes to go with it, even if just slight and intermittent- and even if just low magnitude. And I see nothing like that at Pavlof.
edit on Wed May 15th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Hopechest
We can tell fairly easy when an eruption is happening and can direct resources as needed to monitor it. This is nothing more than people want every inch of ground tracked which is a waste in my opinion. Tell the pilots to look out the _..if they notice an ash cloud they may want to think about going around it.


At an unmonitored volcano, that is not true. We cannot tell fairly easily. We can't tell fairly easily if a MONITORED volcano is about to erupt. Little Sitkin, Iliamna, and so many others prove that day in day out. And by the time they can tell, it may too late. But we can advidse for elevated activity, and when it reaches a threshold, then advise the airlines of the threat. At an unmonitored one you cannot do any of that.

I'll be sure and direct the families of the dead crash victims to your post.

And Oli, you nailed it. No surprise. You rule.


And you can't just redirect flights from overflying volcanoes?

Sorry if they got to use a smidgeon more gas....oh well.

And I'm sure we have ways of seeing a giant ash cloud hovering over an area without the use of expensive monitoring equiptment.

This is nothing more than a bunch of whiney geologists wanting more toys they don't need.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
They seem to cut things that are important, otherwise if they cut things that didn't matter, people would not complain and they would not get their money back. It's like these groups slapping the public in the face, cutting necessary programs first. This has been going on for a long time, it is not new. What is new is the fact that because of these practices the government is over 16 trillion in unhidden debt.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
And reading this article its talking about seismic monitoring.

If I'm not mistaken, monitoring that does not indicate how big of an ash cloud is actually created or if one is even created at all.

They are still going to have to detect this through means they currently use so all this does is tell them how much the ground is shaking.

Please correct me If I am wrong however, it is not any area of expertise for me.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I see you don't know the history of Okmok volcano in Alaska, do you.

Then again, I can't fault you for that, cause very few people do. But the point is:

I'll tell you a little story, that came straight from one of my sources. And this is from a scientist who sent me the actual sac file of this eruption. (I just reviewed it again to be sure my account is accurate).

Back in 2008, just after the duty seismologist had left her shift, Okmok started acting up. A quake here, a quake there, no big deal right? I mean we see this all the time at volcanoes. But then all of a sudden, the quakes started increasing, more and more until finally they merged into full blown, all out tremor, in one continuous line. This is actually what I am seeing right now, on the plot itself.

Literally from the first quake to ash at 50,000 feet, it was less than 6 hours. And a mere 1.5 hours before the actual eruption, that from the plot any volcanologist would start getting nervous with what they were seeing and made a phone call. Had a plane been flying over that thing at the wrong moment, they'd have been in trouble.

This can happen. It did. I am looking at it. They have since rectified that problem with an auto paging system, so if that were to happen again today at any of their MONITORED volcanoes in the middle of the night or after hours, they might still have very little time to act and save an airplane. It could still fail in other words now, if they couldn't get word to the plane in time.

No, this is not a bunch of whiny geologists. These are people concerned with your life.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I understand your point but why not just redirect flights out of this danger zone in the first place. Then there is no danger and no money wasted on equipment we don't need.

Seems rather obvious to me.

Kinda like jumping into the middle of a school of sharks and wearing expensive monitoring equipment so you can tell if a shark is getting to close to you and you should move.

How about just not jumping in the water in the first place?



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Having taken a trans-Pacific flight myself, from Oregon to HI to S. Korea, I'd imagine not ALL flights take the same path due to the huge mileage factor. If there are flights following a chain of islands such as the Aleutians, versus the Big, Deep Blue, I'd prefer the islands flight route myself. At least if something goes horribly wrong mid-flight, they have half a chance of finding land quickly. Not so much in the middle of the ocean halfway to anything.

Just a guess, I don't actually know the answer to that question, but the land factor does make more sense.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


On the surface that may look like an obvious solution, but it isn't. There are major routes flying all over that place. Flights to Russia, flights to and from Anchorage, and many more. Diversion= time and money. They depend on the AVO to be on top of their game. And they are. But they can't without monitoring. Their systems are literally in shambles. So many stations need repairs at nearly every one of their volcanoes. I see it myself all the time, as I spend a fair amount of time monitoring them.

The OP makes a point. I have made it before too, many times. It is worthwhile money to spend on the AVO. Much more worthwhile than lining the MIC's pockets, and sending Americans home in body bags with form letters of supposed sympathy. BS.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Well correct me if I'm wrong but quakes do not indicate an ash cloud which is the point of concern here right?

Is there not plenty of seismic activity without ash clouds going on up there?

If that is the case don't then need to independently verify there is an ash cloud outside of the seismic monitoring?

If so then they don't really need seismic monitoring, they need a radar or more observation towers.

What I'm getting from this article is that they want funds to repair their equipment and are playing the fear card of planes crashing if they don't get it when the actual equipment has nothing to do with planes crashing.
edit on 15-5-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well correct me if I'm wrong but quakes do not indicate an ash cloud which is the point of concern here right?

Is there not plenty of seismic activity without ash clouds going on up there?

If that is the case don't then need to independently verify there is an ash cloud outside of the seismic monitoring?

If so then they don't really need seismic monitoring, they need a radar or more observation towers.


The best answer I can give to that is that seismographic plots from seismic stations at volcanoes often can, and do, have special eruption signatures, beyond tremor and quake signatures. But by the time tremor is continuous and strong, someone is already concerned, and phone calls have been made, and lives saved. Hopechest, the point is clear. They need the monitoring. I don't know what else to say to help you understand.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join