Hi Christoph,
I'll come back to you on the super-volcano point. It isn't a hoax. It
featured on a Panorama programme some weeks ago and, despite the fact that
the quality of the BBC has been going downhill for years, it still doesn't
choose hoaxes for this series. I'm copying this to FW because others will
be interested.
It is considered that there are probably about four or five sites around
the world which have been super-volcanos in the past and will probably be
again in the future. The one at Yosemite is the one that is most actively
studied. It last blew up about 600,000 years ago (if I remember rightly)
and is destined to do so again any time soon in geological terms (that is,
it could be tomorrow or in 10,000 years). Penultimately, an area of land
(of several thousand square kilometres) considerably greater than Yosemite
National Park blew up. Last time it was about half the size. The next time
about a third of the original area is considered likely to explode. (The
boundary of this area is quite well defined from evidence on the surface.)
Nevertheless, it will not be about the dumping of a "bit of ash" as you
have so quaintly described it. It will totally devastate (permanently, in
historic terms) about a quarter of the US, and the dust will block out most
of the sunlight for several years causing widespread failure of crops. If
it happened now, at least a million people would die instantly, followed by
the death of billions of people from starvation in the next year or so. We
might remind ourselves that, unlike the ancient Sumerians or Egyptians, we
don't have more than a few weeks supply of food at any one time.
At Yosemite, an area of land (about 50km x 50km if I remember rightly) is
gradually heaving up (about one metre in the last 50 years or so) and the
underlying magma is, so far, restrained by the weight of overlying rock.
The scientists studying the phenomenon say that this heaving will continue
until there's a catastrophic explosion when the magma can't be restrained
any further and many cubic miles of land surface and rock will explode into
the air for several miles and then circulate all round the Earth within
hours. It's possible, I suppose, that some method of sumultaneous tapping
into the magma might relieve the strain but this would still entail the
non-explosive emission of similar amounts of magma which would still cover
vast tracts of America.
This puts our existence into perspective, doesn't it? Man has only been
around for about 50-70,000 years and only civilised (in the sense of having
cities) for 7-10,000 years. This is just a few ticks of the clocks in
comparison with life on earth -- and of its likely continuance (unless
there is a super-super-volcano!).
It's to be hoped that we will be colonising space long before Yosemite
blows up and safely looking down on Earth when it happens. The rest of
mankind might want to risk burying themselves under the ground with several
years' supply of food. But out in space we will, of course, be quite busy,
not only making new habitats (between which a lot of free trade will be
necessary!) but also deflecting the occasional large asteroid from crashing
into the Earth and wreaking further catastrophes of the same order as
Yosemite.
Most people can't cope with considering such scenarios. Their sheer
awfulness means that they're dismissed instantly. Only vulcanologists and
astronomers can put these planetary events into temporal perspective and
think (and plan) constructively about our chances of survival. But, in
considering the longer term future, it is clear that mankind as a whole
will have to have the sort of intellectual quality and discipline that only
an advanced scientific training can give. Otherwise, there would be
complete breakdown of order and, probably, the cessation of civilisation as
we know it, long before a catastrophe occurred.
Finally (a small point), super-volcanoes are ideal topics for UFO-people,
Doom-sayers, Flat-Earthers and other similarly demented souls. However, I
think if you looked around the Net more assiduously you'll find more
reliable information about super-volcanoes. If you haven't time, as I
haven't, telephone your nearest university geologist.
Keith Hudson
At 00:44 09/04/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>please bear with another reply:
>
>
>> As to your volcano comments, I wasn't talking of CO2 emissions. It's just
>> another example of natural events beyond our control. (I suggest that you
>> read something about these.
>
>
>I did a web-search on your Yosemite super-volcano, and up came only 2
>_UFO-websites_ which predict the end of the world.
>
>OTOH, on the world's premier Volcano website, http://volcano.und.edu/vw.html
>a search for "Yosemite" only gave 2 irrelevant mentions. I would think that
>such a website would mention this important "doom-supervolcano" -- unless
>it's a hoax.
>
>Bottom line: It seems you have swallowed a hoax.
>
>Btw, volcanoes have only local effects -- unlike the man-made climate
change !
>A bit of ash around Yosemite -- so what ?
>At any rate, this can never be an argument for "laissez-faire" anthropogenic
>pollution !
>
>
>
>> >Invalid cop-out. The 30 governments that have ratified it DO have the
>> >backing of their electorates. (developing countries!)
>>
>> Sorry. I'm sure that only about 1 in 50 of the electorate in any of the 30
>> countries would only have the vaguest idea of what Kyoto is proposing.
>> Certainly so in the UK anyway.
>...
>> You've come nowhere near criticism of my main point -- that highly complex
>> matters cannot be decided by mass electorates and that this is why Kyoto
>> has been ratified, agreed, or whatever, by back-door methods.
>
>This is not due to Kyoto details, but due to the structure of today's
>"democracies": In almost all countries, there's no direct democracy
>(at least not on the federal level), so a direct vote on this would
>be impossible anyway.
>
>Btw, things like WTO are "agreed" by back-door (greenroom) methods too.
>
>
>I think I have come pretty close to criticism of your main point :-)
>-- e.g. when I wrote:
>
>>> I think it would be a better idea to improve public education (as opposed
>>> to misinformation and monopolization of knowledge) and public discussion
>>> (as opposed to one-way media), so that the whole electorate can make
>>> informed decisions.
>
>Btw, you didn't elaborate on the details of your "special interest groups
>-democracy", and it wasn't a rethorical question when I asked:
>
>>> who will decide who can become member of a deciding group ?
Self-selection?
>>> This opens the door to vested interests. Who decides about
qualifications?
>
>
>Greetings,
>Chris
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
