Mapping a Monster Volcano 105
bmahersciwriter (2955569) writes In one of the biggest-ever seismology deployments at an active volcano, researchers are peppering Mount St Helens in Washington state with equipment to study the intricate system of chambers and pipes that fed the most devastating eruption in U.S. history. This month, they plan to set off 24 explosions — each equivalent to a magnitude-2 earthquake — around around the slumbering beast in an effort to map the its interior with unprecedented depth and clarity.
And this doesn't seem like a bad idea? (Score:1)
'most devastating eruption in U.S. history. This month, they plan to set off 24 explosions — each equivalent to a magnitude-2 earthquake — around around the slumbering beast in an effort to map the its interior with unprecedented depth and clarity.'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'd much rather see the explosions given in megatons.
~15 kg of TNT worth of energy, so about 0.000 000 015 megatons. Although surface explosions, and even buried ones, couple their energy poorly to seismic waves, so they will actually be using 1000-2000 lb of explosives (according to their public information sheet on their website, doesn't say what kind of explosive). So alternatively about 0.000 001 megatons.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No worries, it's actually a secret plot by the Scientologists to release Xenu.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
But it is scientist approved.
Or are you going to go back on the scientific process and just join the same group as climate change deniers.
Re: (Score:1)
Your statement indicate you have no idea how volcanoes work. Volcanic eruptions are caused by phenomenons that occur deep below the volcano itself. Nothing you do on surface can cause an eruption. Even nuking the volcano would not cause an eruption.
Re: (Score:3)
There are intermittent efforts to develop various mineral resources in that area. But the details in the press are limited. What I can see is compatible with anything between literally tearing a mountainside apart and turning it into dust to driving an adit into the hillside and following a vein. That's a large variety of different mining techniques.
The people of the area have procedures for assessing environmental damage likelihood, and for balancing the likely effects of empl
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding fracture propagation is a pretty basic part of materials science, and (probably) fundamental to many courses in mechanical engineering. (I'm a geologist, and
Re: (Score:2)
You could trigger an eruption with a relatively small explosion - enough to displace a few hundred cubic metres of rock - BUT only if the volcano were already on the brink of erupting already. You'd need to have magma or gasses to within a few hundred metres of surface.
You'd feel the earthquakes from the rising magma for at least several days before the event. You might not notice the earthquakes - if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. The 1982, 1984, and 1985 tests [wikipedia.org] of using rotational energy of the turbines to power the emergency pumping system all went just fine. The 1986 disaster happened when the operator ignored the test procedure (specifically, the instruction "Reduce reactor thermal output to between 700MW and 800MW. If reactor thermal power output drops below 700MW, abort test and shut down reactor" -- the operator reduced t
Re: (Score:1)
The Chernobyl experiment was not ordered by scientists. It was ordered by a political appointee who wanted to exceed his boss's expectations and show that the plant could also generate useful power at low neutron densities. The onsite engineers protested to no avail. Unfortunately, the reactor graphite core did not shut down evenly. Instead, full neutron current ran in small sections of the graphite without adequate cooling. When the graphite reached the temperature to dissociate water, the free oxygen
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's absolutely no difference between "faith in scientists" and "faith in wise men". If you believe the conclusions of some area of science because you did some research and you understand, at least shallowly, the arguments and evidence, then you can claim a difference from religion. But anything you just believe because the "smart people" say it's so? That's religious faith, plain and simple.
(It's also quite silly to disbelieve something just because of its source, of course, though skepticism is oft
If you can observe it, it is not religion (Score:5, Insightful)
But anything you just believe because the "smart people" say it's so? That's religious faith, plain and simple.
Wrong. There is one HUGE and critical difference. I can at any time I wish attempt to duplicate the experiment of the scientist. With religion there is no possibility of confirming the assertions of religious "wise men" because they are making claims that cannot be falsified. For example I haven't actually gotten out a telescope to confirm the existence of the moon Titan around Saturn even though plenty of scientists assure me it is there. However I can actually do so any time I wish. That is not religion, it is simply pragmatism. I don't have time to confirm everything for myself but I'm willing to lend more credence to observations I can replicate myself if I so choose.
Religion is taking something on blind faith that cannot be confirmed with observation. That is enormously different than trusting to a scientist who is describing his observations.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you COULD observe it, doesn't mean you actually will. Thus, until you actually observe it yourself, your knowledge of reality is still coming through faith. For one, you believe that the person telling you these things actually knows what he is talking about, and also that he is not attempting to lie to you. I very much doubt that many could afford a telescope that could see Titan, and so their knowledge will never rise above a simple belief that the scientist knows better than he does and he
Trust != Faith (Score:2)
The fact that you COULD observe it, doesn't mean you actually will.
Which is irrelevant. Nobody has time to observe everything themselves. If it becomes important that I confirm it for myself then I will take the time and effort to do so.
Thus, until you actually observe it yourself, your knowledge of reality is still coming through faith.
Wrong. Trust is not the same thing as faith. I trust that which I have the ability to confirm even if only in theory. I trust the scientific process because I have copious evidence that (in general) it works AND I always have the option of confirming for myself if needed. There is no need for me to try to confirm every scientific obse
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, by definition, faith is:
defn: [merriam-webster.com] : strong belief or trust in someone or something.
Thus your ability to confirm is based upon a certain trust in the validity of the scientific process. It does not mean that it is unreasonable, but simply that it is of something that you cannot observe.
As far as the 'duplicated independently', certainly that increases the validity of the measurement. But the question arises: what if there is only one instrument that can measure the phenomenon [such as CERN] ? How much
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that you COULD observe it, doesn't mean you actually will. Thus, until you actually observe it yourself, your knowledge of reality is still coming through faith.
That's not at all correct. It's based on reason.
When a competent scientist publishes a result, they also publish the methods that they used to achieve it. Part of the scientific process is to validate them by having 3rd parties reproduce those results. That becomes evidence.
Incredibly stupid people will claim that because it's not proven it must be wrong, but science is rarely cut and dried as the religious imbeciles want everyone to believe. When 98% of the scientific community says that there is a 90
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. There is one HUGE and critical difference. I can at any time I wish attempt to duplicate the experiment of the scientist.
Sure, that's cool. Have you? Or are you taking it on faith?
With religion there is no possibility of confirming the assertions of religious "wise men" because they are making claims that cannot be falsified.
BS. Most of religion centers on claims about the right way to live - perhaps to have a happy life, or a successful community, or so on. Very testable claims. It's only the crazies who focus on the overlap between religion and biology/cosmology. That was never the interesting part of most religions anyhow.
For example I haven't actually gotten out a telescope to confirm the existence of the moon Titan around Saturn even though plenty of scientists assure me it is there.
Really? I have. It's fun. Or maybe it was Jupiter's moons (it was decades ago), but in any case, I certainly did the most basic and shall
You not understand does not equal faith (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, that's cool. Have you? Or are you taking it on faith?
Boy did you miss the point. The point is that I COULD. That is hugely different than simply taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning. What makes processes like science or open source software so powerful is not that I have to check everything myself to trust it. What makes them powerful is that I always have the opportunity to check for myself. If you cannot see the difference then there is not much I can help you with here.
BS. Most of religion centers on claims about the right way to live - perhaps to have a happy life, or a successful community, or so on.
Religions are based on nothing of the sort. Most religions are a philosophical interpretations of collection of fables detailing things that cannot be proven to reassure and generally to gain power over those who are insecure and afraid. All that nonsense about the "right way to live" is simply trying to put a digestible coating on a pile of unprovable nonsense. Telling people "god said to do it" is much easier to explain than actually making a rational argument about why killing other people is a bad idea.
Very testable claims.
Really? Prove to me that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Prove to me that there was a garden of Eden. Prove to me that Jesus or Mohammed actually said any of the things they are reputed to have said. Prove to me that there is a diety of any sort. The bible, the koran, etc upon which the major religions are based are based on nothing testable at all. They are stories told to prey upon vulnerable people's insecurities so that others may gain influence and power. Organized religion gives "answers" that cannot possibly be true or proven or known.
Only in quantum mechanics do I feel I'm still taking too much on faith, as the math there is just so much damn work to even understand the most basic results.
So because you are inadequate to the task of understanding quantum mechanics it becomes faith? Perhaps you feel the need to drag things you don't understand down to your level so you don't feel so bad about yourself. The observations are there to be made and whether you understand them or not is irrelevant to their existence. You not understanding doesn't make it faith. It simply means you don't know and there is no shame in admitting that.
Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. I suspect you've spent as little time studying religion as you have studying science
You know nothing of my background so you can keep your insults to yourself. I've plenty of background in both - enough that I find your assertion rather bemusing.
I have no patience for those who blindly follow religious dogma out of insecurity and then try to drag rational discourse down to the same level. If you want to believe in absurd things you have no basis for then by all means have at it. But don't expect me to follow along or condone your lunacy for even a moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy did you miss the point. The point is that I COULD. That is hugely different than simply taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning.
I don't get it. You're in fact taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning, but that's "hugely different" than taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning? Because you could do something you didn't? I'm not finding that argument coherent.
I'm skeptical by nature. Sure, there are many things I take on faith because they're just not interesting or important enough to question. I think that's true for everyone. But anything I have a strong opinion on, I'v
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Prove to me that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Prove to me that there was a garden of Eden. Prove to me that Jesus or Mohammed actually said any of the things they are reputed to have said. Prove to me that there is a diety of any sort. The bible, the koran, etc upon which the major religions are based are based on nothing testable at all.
Verifying what happened in history is tough, but earlier I made a list of testable claims from various religions [slashdot.org]. I don't know if they're worth going to the effort of testing, but there they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You conveniently ignore the religious aspects of modern left-wing thought in the environmental area. Who are Ghandi and Nelson Mandela but modern-day saints who can do no wrong? Nobody is allowed to ask how Mandela's people invented necklacing [wikipedia.org] because it is heresy.
Be real, real careful about claiming that science supports you and you alone. It has a nasty habit of turning against you. Because it is, you know, evidence-based.
Re: (Score:3)
It has a nasty habit of turning against you. Because it is, you know, evidence-based.
The fact that you have just questioned Mandella without consequence provides strong evidence that there is no barrier to questioning Mandela other than self-censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're attempting to argue that science is the same as religion
No, I make no such argument. My argument is that taking something on faith is the same regardless of which "wise men" you believe without diligence. Sure, it's often more practical to understand the argument and evidence for science than for religion - but that only matters when you actually do the work. Until you do, you're taking that belief on faith.
The Relativity of wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The relativity of wrong is unrelated. I love it that your argument for consensus is "see, the consensus of people disagree with you". Nice.
My argument is dead simple: you either have done the work to understand why something is right, or you are taking it on faith that the Wise Men are right. Sure, some Wise Men are more reliable than others, and that's great for them, but you are just lazily operating on faith until you do the work.
If you want to claim "but I put my faith in Wiser Wise Men than those gu
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely no difference between "faith in scientists" and "faith in wise men".
Sure, appealing to authority is unscientific but to assume there is no qualitative difference in the opinions of the two groups simply implies you think that all opinions are equal. Many people do express that ideological view, but they obviously don't believe it since nobody would go to the hairdresser to get their appendix removed.
What you are really talking about is informed trust. Why do you trust scientists to follow the scientific method and report honestly? Why do you trust wise men to selflessly
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, appealing to authority is unscientific but to assume there is no qualitative difference in the opinions of the two groups simply implies you think that all opinions are equal
It's not that all opinions are equal, but that blind faith is blind faith. Science is great because you can do the diligence and confirm the opinion, or at least understand the argument. But until you do that, the difference is as yet immaterial.
It amazes me how many people have strong opinions about issues they don't understand. I take a lot of things on faith: pretty much everything in my life that's both unimportant and uninteresting. But I don't have strong opinions on those things - I know I can't
Re: (Score:2)
BS. That's sophomoric laziness and extremism. The goal is to be able to make a solid argument, not philosophical certitude!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and scientists were in control of the research center that had to inoculate their staff as a precaution because they screwed up and let out some anthrax. Scientists also stored and then lost some recently found smallpox virus in friggin' cardboard boxes.
Scientists fuck up too and the bigger the play field, the bigger the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of when you scratch an itch, it's not like it's going to break a bone or anything.
As to being the equivalent of a magnitude 2, so what. A magnitude 2.5 is in the you won't even feel it category as it's less than light which doesn't even start until 3.
A magnitude 1 is said to be the equivalent of blowing up 6 ounces of TNT.
Of course, if you still want to be afraid of that, I know a few dozen "invasive species" you can ove
Re: (Score:3)
'most devastating eruption in U.S. history. This month, they plan to set off 24 explosions — each equivalent to a magnitude-2 earthquake — around around the slumbering beast in an effort to map the its interior with unprecedented depth and clarity.'
It will be fine. The guy planting the explosives is going to be wearing a red shirt (for safety). Last name was Smith or Jones or something, didn't catch the first name.
Re: (Score:2)
'most devastating eruption in U.S. history. This month, they plan to set off 24 explosions — each equivalent to a magnitude-2 earthquake — around around the slumbering beast in an effort to map the its interior with unprecedented depth and clarity.'
It will be fine. The guy planting the explosives is going to be wearing a red shirt (for safety). Last name was Smith or Jones or something, didn't catch the first name.
You probably won't need to remember his first name anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be fine. The guy planting the explosives is going to be wearing a red shirt (for safety). Last name was Smith or Jones or something, didn't catch the first name.
Excellent! Then it WILL be fine. At least for me.
Not for him maybe, but he won't be missed, we barely knew him.
Re: (Score:2)
Alias [wikipedia.org]?
Re:And this doesn't seem like a bad idea? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If they did that, how would they know if they're listening to a delayed echo from shot point #7, indicating a magma chamber at 17km depth, or a differently-delayed echo from shot point #13, indicating a magma chamber at 27km depth, or a differently-delayed echo from shot point #4, indicating a magma chamber at 7km depth, or a differently-delayed echo from shot point #2, indicating a magma chamber at 2km depth, ...
It gets repetitive, doesn't it? That's wh
Oh no, they say he's got to go (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"You fool of a Took". : ).
Re: (Score:2)
This the kind of lead-in you'd expect for the beginning of a Godzilla-style movie.
I was thinking of something else [imdb.com].
blast radius (Score:2)
I live within the blast radius (Portland) of the majestic Mt St Helens. I saw the 1980 eruption from my back yard. 24 explosions around the mountain? What could go wrong?!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm out of the blast range up north (Seatac) but would still hear it if it went off.
That said, magnitude 2 is basically "hit the ground real hard with a sledgehammer". A nearby major construction site causes a lot more vibration, so does a big truck on the freeway.
Re:blast radius (Score:4, Interesting)
I live within the blast radius (Portland) of the majestic Mt St Helens. I saw the 1980 eruption from my back yard. 24 explosions around the mountain? What could go wrong?!
I lived quite a bit further away, about an hour north of Seattle, but we actually felt the blast as a minor tremor. Someone in my family actually joked "Well, there went Mt St Helens". There was quite a bit of news about a possible pending eruption, of course. We were pretty shocked when we heard what had actually happened though.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived even further away than you. Denver. We did not feel anything but we ended up having about an eighth of an inch of ash covering our cars. I am certain of this because I had to clean it off.
I can only imagine what Yellowstone going off is going to be like. I suspect cleaning of cars in Denver is going to be the least of the problems there.
Since when does Slashdot cite The Onion? (Score:1)
Sounds funny (Score:2)
Like they're going to tickle the volcano's nose, maybe, if they're lucky, it will sneeze and they'll get all kinds of data!
Re: (Score:2)
Like they're going to tickle the volcano's nose, maybe, if they're lucky, it will sneeze and they'll get all kinds of data!
Would kinda suck for Vancouver, though.
Re: (Score:2)
True but it will cut Americas Carbon foot print and global warming by 98.6%
(Made up numbers may it may not exist in my math. Please see raw data below)
Data blows
Bad (Score:1)
Around Around (Score:1)
Bah (Score:2)
You're just paying for the name, it's not any better than the no name volcanoes you get at Newegg.
Monster Volcano? (Score:5, Informative)
Mt St Helens isnt that big as far as volcanos go. The main reason so much was damaged in 1980 was because it blew out sideways
Compared to others in recent geologic history it was just a fart.
(compare with Krakatoa 1883, or Santorini 11610 BC, or the various Taupo eruptions)
Re:Monster Volcano? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Monster Volcano" is perhaps a bit overstated, but comparing it to a super-volcano-potential such as the Yellowstone Caldera is perhaps a bit unfair. After all, no volcano in the world today can really compare to the potential of that one.
I live nearby (relatively speaking), and got a chance to see the devastation first-hand within the first year or two after it occurred. The forest service built a viewing station where you could look out over the devastated landscape, and, even neater, watch the forest start to grow back. It's easier to dismiss it as geologically minor when you haven't personally seen the miles and miles of trees snapped and laid down like so many matchsticks. On a human scale, it's incredibly massive, and was damn impressive to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that was the weird part. I lived close enough to feel the blast, but the winds blew all the ash east (I lived north of it), so didn't see a bit of the stuff. Felt bad for some folks in eastern Washington, who got blanketed by several inches of ash, if I recall. Fortunately, they're much better equipped for snow removal than in Western Washington, so that was fortunate. I'm guessing by the time it got to Texas it was a much lighter dusting? Still pretty impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, no volcano in the world today can really compare to the potential of that one.
I disagree. I can think of two, just in the US - the Long Valley caldera in eastern California and the Raton hotspot of New Mexico. Further, the largest volcanic eruption of the past 20 million years occurred at Lake Toba in Indonesia. What is special about that site (perhaps a large, geologically "rapidly" replenished reservoir of high viscosity, high volatile content magma?) may occur elsewhere in the Ring of Fire and other subduction zones.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, no volcano in the world today can really compare to the potential of that one.
I disagree. I can think of two, just in the US - the Long Valley caldera in eastern California and the Raton hotspot of New Mexico. Further, the largest volcanic eruption of the past 20 million years occurred at Lake Toba in Indonesia. What is special about that site (perhaps a large, geologically "rapidly" replenished reservoir of high viscosity, high volatile content magma?) may occur elsewhere in the Ring of Fire and other subduction zones.
Sorry, I meant currently active volcano. Unless I missed a major geological event, I'm presuming there aren't any currently active supervolcanoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I meant currently active volcano. Unless I missed a major geological event, I'm presuming there aren't any currently active supervolcanoes.
I'm not sure about the Raton hotspot, but the rest is currently active. Just not active on human timescales.
Re: (Score:2)
F*cker woke me up early on a Sunday morning. Can't get much worse than that.
Setting off a bunch of huge explosions.. (Score:2)
right on top of a volcano... What could possible go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "if it ever goes up" ; it's "when it goes up AGAIN" ; there have been 4 or 5 major eruptions of Yellowstone in the last couple of millions of years.
"World-killer"? Evidently not. Nation-killer? Possibly. Very destructive, when it next goes off? Certainly.
Am I concerned? See 2 minutes into this video [youtube.com].
The next eruption (Score:3)
My prediction:
The next eruption, if it happens within the next couple of years, will be blamed on this experiment. This will happen regardless of any scientific support for such blame.
So ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)