IN PLAIN SIGHT: Mount Rainier, a volcano which has a background level of activity, looms about 50 miles outside of Seattle. Its last major eruption was about 1,000 years ago, according to the USGS.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/TASHKA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
In the Republican response to last night's presidential address to a joint session of Congress, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal chided the lawmakers for earmarking "$140 million for something called volcano monitoring." The funds he was referring to are part of the $787 billion stimulus package signed into law by Pres. Obama earlier this month; some 12 percent ($98.3 billion) of the monies are set aside for transportation and infrastructure projects, including volcano monitoring and other natural disaster prevention programs.
The U.S. Geological Society (USGS) is in charge of keeping tabs on volcanoes in the U.S. and its territories. The agency is currently monitoring more than 150 of them (from Yellowstone in Wyoming to Kilauea in Hawaii), some 65 of which show signs of seismic activity and are more likely than the others to erupt (including Redoubt in Alaska and Mauna Loa in Hawaii). But USGS officials aren't just worried about Hollywood-caliber lava blowups. Other threats include potentially deadly landslides, falling rocky ash, and inundation by toxic gases that can be triggered by volcanic eruptions.
But most active U.S. volcanoes are in remote reaches of Alaska, where few people live and relatively little economic damage stands to occur. So is monitoring volcanoes really necessary?
To find out, we spoke with Ed Venzke, a specialist at the Global Volcanism Program at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
What is volcano monitoring?
It's exactly what it sounds like. There are a lot of different methods, but it's basically researching exactly what is happening at the volcano. That can include seismic activity, small earthquakes, gas emissions, deformation (bulging of the volcano or sinking), stuff like that.
What can we learn from volcano monitoring?
The main purpose of the monitoring is to learn when new magma is rising in the volcano that could lead to an eruption.
Is it important?
It's extremely important. There are obvious hazards to nearby residents. Beyond human safety, there are huge economic concerns. It's not that eruptions can be stopped, but, like a hurricane, it's good to know when it's coming.
Associated with the monitoring is research of the surrounding area to see where previous lava flows have gone and to see where previous ash fall has occurred. So you get some idea of the history of the volcano and the types of eruptions it typically has. Each volcano is different, so you have to do individual research and individual monitoring.
There's a huge hazard in the air from eruption plumes. Volcanic ash is not like ash from the fireplace. It's basically pulverized rocks and glass particles. Putting glass in a jet engine isn't good. That's why the monitoring in Alaska is extremely important to the aviation industry.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThe point? Of volcano monitoring? I dunno, I guess there's no point, really. Just ask the Pompeiians. They lived right next door to one, and they'll tell you they're perfectly safe. No reason to pay any attention at all. Here's hoping Mr Jindal, in a defiant show of man over nature, moves his primary residence to the base of an active volcano, where he can demonstrate just how silly all this science mumbo-jumbo is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice explanations and rationale by Venzke. Yes, you have to wonder about the tendency for Republicans to discount any scientific inquiry. Democrats may go overboard, but Republicans would rather not know at all.........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn inconvenient truth in the hand is worth two in the Bush.
Yes, what's the point in volcano monitoring or hurricane monitoring or pollution monitoring or... white collar criminal monitoring if... it's just gonna lead to "big government." After all, the worst that could happen is the deaths of thousands and billions of dollars in damage when a volcano erupts, causes a tsunami, or a Cat 5 hurricane drowns a major coastal city like..., well at least we can skip monitoring white collar criminals because the worst that could happen is they could bring down the US and global economies. But - BIG GOVERNMENT - now that's gonna wipe us all out like an mountain-size astroid (which also doesn't need monitoring) striking Earth .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil three years into the Bush Era, I leaned mostly Republican. I'm in my sixties and have "seen it all" - but NEVER have I seen (or even imagined) anything like the Evil Clown Circus the Republican Party has become.
Notice the desperate parading of "New Republican Leaders." First came Totally Blonde Palin, then came Fat Rush Limbaugh (usurping the role of iconic Elephant and Emperor in one swoop), and now we are treated to Gov. Bobby Jindal riding forth to rebut the "ill conceived" Democrat's economic stimulus bill because it's "wasteful spending."
At least we have to heed Gov. Jindal, after all he just reeks of "high tech" - like the computer tech support guy we talk to in Bombay when our PC crashes.
All of us science-worshipping atheists had better watch out: the Republicans have this leadership stuff down "perfectly." We should all be writing this saga down in our journals. For when our grandchildren ask, "What was it like when we had that other party, the one with the funny elephant, grandpa?"
Then, like a certain TV journalist, we can breath... "Oh, God."
"But most active U.S. volcanoes are in remote reaches of Alaska, where few people live and relatively little economic damage stands to occur. " Did you all skip that line in the article? C'mon, volcano monitoring will NOT stimulate the economy. It needs to be in the regular budget.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm in favor of volcano monitoring, but not in favor of paying for it in an economic stimulous bill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStella M wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Did you all skip that line in the article? C'mon, volcano monitoring will NOT stimulate the economy. It needs to be in the regular budget."
1. Of course we all skipped that line (actually, it's called a sentence) in the article. What we're doing here isn't about picking apart inconsequential "errors" like putting the wrong program in the wrong, uh, funding program.
It's about making fun of ridiculous Republican statements, like, "It's wasteful spending." Monitoring volcanoes, in case YOU missed all the lines, is necessary, not wasteful.
2. And perhaps you'd like to point out this "big mistake" to President Obama in person. Maybe we could all chip in and have you two get on television so you could scold him and we could all watch - and of course benefit from your example of punctiliousness. Or maybe you and Bobby Jindal should get together and just abolish funding for volcano monitoring altogether.
As NASA has said about their portion of the "stimulus" and as USGS said in the article, this money is going for maintenance and upgrades anyway. Probably, your right and such things should have been left for the budget. But if you remember, this was a rush-rush deal and it was pretty much expected by everyone that there'd be some mistakes coming out of the haste.
I'll even grant: there'll be another stimulus bill to make course corrections once this program's effects become known. I'll even predict: more will be done for "the Average American" in the next such stimulus bill because consumers account for 70% of economic activity in our economy. Consumers, are not feeling very stimulated (toward optimism) lately.
I have a question I'd like answered, not related to this topic. How do I submit a question to Ask the Experts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be nice if there was some performance data regarding the USGS's current capability in predicting the occurance/severity/etc. of dangerous or disruptive volcanic events to justify their need for upgraded or expanded operations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have an idea, while we are debating volcano monitoring, why don't also debate funding for the National Weather Service. You know, those folk who predict and warn us of impending hurricanes and track tornadoes. I'm sure Governor Jindal could really make points with those who live in Louisiana.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello gzacny,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo to: <http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_directory.cfm>
Then you can enter a question. Notice that questions are then reviewed and a few (probably out of many) are posted for people to vote for. The winning question gets answered.
As a Louisianian
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a Louisianian, I would like to apologize for the antics displayed by my governor, the dishonorable PBJ. Interestingly, I had very good information on the hurricane that put 9 feet of water in my home 3-1/2 years ago, and I am now spending some vacation time near Mount Hood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis misstatement, while bad, pales in comparison to the assault that PBJ wants to invoke upon the children of America in the form of Intelligent Design. How a man with a degree in biology can advocate this, I'll never know, but perhaps it goes with the territory of being an exorcist.
Those of us who live in the Pacific Northwest have a couple dozen more-or-less active volcanoes as neighbors. Mt. St. Helens is the one people hear about, but Mt. Rainier, for several reasons, is probably the most dangerous, followed by Baker, South Sister, etc., etc. Of course, we're only one area of the country, so the rest of the country doesn't have to worry about themselves. Gee, what a relief! Evelyn Pratt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this