Researchers: Global Risk of Supervolcano Eruption Greater Than Previously Though 325
rbrandis writes "The eruption of a 'supervolcano' hundreds of times more powerful than conventional volcanoes – with the potential to wipe out civilization as we know it – is more likely than previously thought, a study has found. An analysis of the molten rock within the dormant supervolcano beneath Yellowstone National Park in the United States has revealed that an eruption is possible without any external trigger, scientists said."
Ok (Score:4, Funny)
Any spare ( one way ) tickets for Mars left?
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, on the chance that you're not joking:
You think that Mars is going to be a better environment than a post-volcanic eruption earth? Post-eruption earth would still have oxygen, survivable air-pressure, water, and soil (though you may have to dig for it). We may have to retreat underground for a few years--but still way more survivable than the barren, cold iron desert of Mars ever will be (if there were a way to even get there).
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
All these threats make me wonder if instead of exploring Mars if maybe we wouldn't be better figuring out how to build long-term survival habitats underground or on the sea floor (or both).
Re:Ok (Score:4, Insightful)
False dichotomy. Do both. Plus anything else prudent in the long-term.
Underground? (Score:3)
Couldn't we all just dress warmer and eat seals and seaweed instead?
It's easier to move with the food.
I'm not much for underground....and seals are quite tasty as long as you have garlic or onions.
Puzzling (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean that up til now it has been widely believed that a super volcano required an external "trigger" before it erupted? I'm no vulcanologist, but I've been intrigued with super volcanoes for over ten years now, and in everything I've read or seen I don't recall anyone saying that some sort of external trigger was needed to "light the fuse", so to speak.
Re:Puzzling (Score:5, Funny)
I'm no vulcanologist, but I've been intrigued with super volcanoes for over ten years now, and in everything I've read or seen I don't recall anyone saying that some sort of external trigger was needed to "light the fuse", so to speak.
Any good vulcanologist knows all you need is a cold fusion device to stop a volcano.
Re:Puzzling (Score:5, Funny)
I'm no vulcanologist, but I've been intrigued with super volcanoes for over ten years now, and in everything I've read or seen I don't recall anyone saying that some sort of external trigger was needed to "light the fuse", so to speak.
Any good vulcanologist knows all you need is a cold fusion device to stop a volcano.
Any good vulcanologist would use logic to solve the problem, instead of approaching it with emotions.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Aaachooooo! ...... oh shit ...
Re: (Score:3)
No need to panic, you may return to your basements.
Dr Perrillat said there are no known supervolcanoes that are in danger of erupting in the foreseeable future, and it would take at least a decade or so for the magma pressure within a caldera to build up to a point where an eruption is likely.
Unless, of course, our understanding of these volcanoes is still incomplete and it's really triggered by a high pressure magma surge from further below the surface where we have even less understanding of what's going on.
So I don't think it's ok to stop panicing yet.
Re: (Score:3)
How exactly does panicking help?
Just relax and enjoy life, there's not much you can do about Yellowstone anyway.
Re:Puzzling (Score:4, Funny)
How exactly does panicking help?
Just relax and enjoy life, there's not much you can do about Yellowstone anyway.
It gives me something to look forward to every day as I cautiously leave the bomb shelter to see if the earth has been destroyed over night.
Re:Puzzling (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Puzzling (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately the Yellowstone caldera has been swelling
Oil! Time to send some fracking teams in....
Can eruptions like the be averted? (Score:3, Interesting)
If we know where the magma chamber is, why can't we tap the chamber to create pressure relief wells, allowing the pressure and magma to drain an semi controlled fashion?
Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? (Score:5, Funny)
Good idea. Some ABS pipe from the lumberyard should do the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
better go with the schedule 120 stuff. schedule 40 is too weak, and would rupture under the load.
Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? (Score:5, Funny)
And the military spec duct tape. Don't forget the duct tape.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I was thinking of using Big Bertha to do it after she finished laying the Alaskan Viaduct in Seattle.
Re: (Score:2)
Haliburton already started. Why do you think Mary Cheney dropped out of the Wyoming Senate race? She knows that by the time the elections happen there won't BE a Wyoming. Dick would rather blow it up that let it go Democrat!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, pollution of the water allows more variation in human genes so we can survive better!
Unless you don't believe in evolution.
Texans are so conflicted.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is a good question that has been asked many times. Even if we devoted much of out GDP toward creating such a well would reduce the pressure by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. It'd be like using sand paper to reduce the weight of an asteroid.
Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If we know where the magma chamber is, why can't we tap the chamber to create pressure relief wells, allowing the pressure and magma to drain an semi controlled fashion?
Sure, drill into it and slowly drain the pressure, or accidentally trigger an eruption through a previously unknown mechanism. (like maybe the well relieves pressure on one side, leading to instability on the other side and an eruption.)
Willing to take that gamble?
Re: (Score:3)
I say we nuke it! Show that volcano some mutually assured destruction. That will bring it in line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would not be the first such gamble. Until the first actual nuclear test the scientists were not entirely sure it won't ignite the whole atmosphere (burning nitrogen). All they had was "almost certainly no" - the Monte Carlo simulations are only simulations. The "micro black hole will swallow earth" controversy about the LHC was also interesting, although different - the scientists doing this were quite sure it wasn't possible, but the idea sounded intriguing to the media, leading to a swarm of interesting discussions and a lot of FUD.
If we get to the "almost certain" level of modeling the supervolcano and have the technology and knowledge to release pressure in a relatively controlled way it's a matter of risk analysis. If the eruption within a decade seems probable, the project will be launched. And yes, we might be wrong. Oops.
OTOH - how much energy would such a controlled drain release? What amount of ashes and gases? How much water would evaporate? That's actually more interesting than the "trigger" problem. Can we do it so that the effect will be acceptable, or will it be nearly as destructive to us as an actual explosion?
An intriguing thought - what if the explosion would ruin a significant part of the US (likely), a controlled drain could reduce that kind of damage a lot (likely), but the worldwide effects (chemical, climate, etc.) were very similar and disastrous (IANAVolcanologist, so perhaps). The supervolcano is on US territory. US risk analysis: do it ASAP, it's less destructive and the explosion is very likely. World risk analysis: don't do it EVER, every month without either draining or explosion is a month more for preparation. Imagine the dillema, the political tension... Ready material for a gripping novel or a blockbuster movie!
Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? (Score:5, Informative)
Go take a drill to a cannister of liquid CO2 and let me know how that works for you.
Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about the amount of energy released it's about the time it takes to release the energy.
24MT of energy released in an instant is quite bad, but if you could somehow spread that out over millions of years it wouldn't have any effect.
If we can double, quadruple, or otherwise increase the amount of time the energy is increased it wouldn't be as bad.
Of course this is a relative term because perhaps releasing the same amount of energy over 1000x the time still would be very very very bad.
If it was certai
Re: (Score:3)
If we know where the magma chamber is, why can't we tap the chamber to create pressure relief wells, allowing the pressure and magma to drain an semi controlled fashion?
The regulators will never approve it, after they see the environmental impact statement: In case of errors, relief well may become enlarged -- resulting in full scale eruption, and massive ash cloud posing a minor threat to local ecosystems
Re: (Score:2)
Introduce it to liquid nitrogen, then it will cease to be lava.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize it's all up hill from all of the midwest, right?
Guess what? Lava flows downhill!
Stupid shit.
Re: (Score:3)
How about if it's released from a hole the size of Wyoming? In massive quantities.
Might that change the dynamics?
Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? (Score:5, Informative)
You may not know this, but Yellowstone is largely in a state called Wyoming.
You may not know this, but the Yellowstone volcano complex has a history of massively explosive eruptions, not just pouring out lava. The Lava Creek ash bed from the explosion 630,000 years ago extends to the Gulf of Mexico and is as much as 4m thick in places like New Mexico and Kansas.
WTF is happening to slashdot (Score:2)
Re:WTF is happening to slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Forget the super volcano, there's a typo in the title!
Quiet! That typo could be enough to trigger it!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean /. programmers are old FORTRAN programmers?
Re: (Score:2)
It means the volcano went off and killed the submitter before he finished typing, and the same thing happened to the slashdot "editor."
So.. Who/what hit the submit button then?
Sequel to Sharknado (Score:5, Funny)
It's Been Done (Score:2, Informative)
Someone has actually written a novel called Sharcano [lawrenceperson.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Greater Crater plains (Score:2, Interesting)
The Great Plains will be really fertile again after that goes boom.
I don't see what the worry in the USA is... They're just "flyover states" they will just be a smoking crater for a few dozen years. The Appilacians and Rockies might keep the coasts from being utterly destroyed... But with no food and no resources because everything built will be knocked over it will be worse on them than the peeps that just go boom. It's like a couple of nuclear wars in a can.
No amount of "bunker" is going to save you bec
Re:Greater Crater plains (Score:5, Funny)
No amount of "bunker" is going to save you because most of North America will be knocked over and/or on fire. Even if you get out (as youll be under feet of hot ash) there will be no place to go, no way to get there, the grounds itself will be baren for a dozen years like Mt St Hellen's.
Listen to you, Mr. glass-half-empty.
Re:Greater Crater plains (Score:5, Informative)
No amount of "bunker" is going to save you because most of North America will be knocked over and/or on fire. Even if you get out (as youll be under feet of hot ash) there will be no place to go, no way to get there, the grounds itself will be baren for a dozen years like Mt St Hellen's.
Listen to you, Mr. glass-half-empty.
Actually these 2 graphs ya ya strange site [cuttingedge.org] show past eruption damage. People as far away as Houston and LA would die.
It is a fact. The dust is broken up glass particles and traces of rock that will cut up your lungs from the inside out and then cement into rock inside them! A very painful and awful death as this is what killed the Romans in Pompeii rather than being burned to death. There lungs got eaten away and it rained the next day or two and cemented their bodies with the ash and preserved their bodies for 2,000 years.
Now even if you live in Europe and feel you are safe the global nuclear winter will come complete with a full glacialization ice age. Crops will die and food will be scarce. Snow and freezing temperatures will fall well north and south into the tropics. Unless you live near the equator you wont be fine at all. Expect everyone to invade your country and kill you and your neighbors for food too as this land will be highly prized mixed with a new world where there wont be enough food for 6 billion people as 1/3 of it will be frozen tundra.
Excellent ! (Score:2)
How soon can we make that happen? Sounds like paradise, plus, we'll finally get rid of our do-nothing Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
The ejected material is going to really screw up the climate. There will be all sorts of mass extinctions.
Article has no numbers (Score:2)
One-in-a-billion is a thousand times more likely than one-in-a-trillion odds, right? I'm still not anywhere likely to win that bet, though.
The article doesn't even have any odds/numbers. Yet the headline contains "far greater." And then ends with this:
In other words, t
Re: (Score:2)
The perceived odds (not the "real" odds) have changed.
If a supervolcano can only go off during an earthquake, well those don't happen continually. But if a supervolcano can just go off whenever, the odds have changed in the opinion of the oddsmakers (us). Granted, the actual chance of a supervolcano spewing has never changed regardless of our knowledge (imo but I'm not a quantum mechanic either).
Don't leave us in suspense! (Score:2)
Researchers: Global Risk of Supervolcano Eruption Greater Than Previously Though
Though what? It'll only blow up America? There's a plan to move to Mars? I need closure!
Finally a cure for Global Warming (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
... You know that removing particulate matter requirements from pollution laws has long been circulated as a possible solution to global warming, by way of lowering planetary albedo, right? Humans can trivially reverse the temperature changes if we're willing to suck up some really nasty air.
Re: (Score:2)
Long cancer isn't nearly the problem lung disease is when your particulate matter is high.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's 100% effective, just like curing diabetes with a bullet to the head.
"potential to wipe out civilization as we know it" (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure a good portion of the world knows how to operate despite very dim sunlight and half of the US gone.
It takes power to make light to make food, and we can do that on a pretty decent scale, even if it takes burning the bodies of those who couldn't.
We're a pretty resilient pest.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you will get nearly enough energy from dead bodies. Maybe from dead trees but those will have already burned in the initial cataclysm. We can burn a lot more fossil fuels, or we can build a bunch of crappy nuclear power plants (built very fast and cheap with no regulation). And trying to manufacture enough greenhouses and lights to grow enough food for the world would take a long time too, plus the time for the first crops to mature, I doubt we have enough food stored up for very many people t
triple threat (Score:2, Interesting)
heck, for bonus let's throw a meteor in there, too
and the best thing? we can avoid all this, if we just create a tax for it!
Re: (Score:2)
Can we throw a Sharknado in there somewhere, too?
I won't believe it (Score:2)
Time to send this to the office sweaties (Score:2)
What? No imminent cataclysm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tricked again! The hysterical headline is exaggerated, and society as we know it survives another day.
My Yellowstone plan: Thorium energy & buried g (Score:5, Informative)
People must take precautions to avoid breathing ash. While even wet cotton can help, the use of respirators is recommended because the finest particles can be as small as 10 microns [usgs.gov].
While dry ash is not conductive, even a small amount of moisture produces a paste that is conductive enough to cause high voltage flash-overs [usgs.gov]. Tall pylons with ceramic insulators may manage to stay clean but electrical substations where ash can form piles, are especially vulnerable.
And if insulators accumulate ash after a rain or already have ice on them it's pretty much flash-pow grid down.
BBC did a great two hour docudrama depicting possible effects, Supervolcano [2006] [youtube.com] along with a companion program Supervolcano.The Truth About Yellowstone [youtube.com]
Beyond the ash fall there are long-term climate concerns. There have been two major eruptions that have affected climate severely in the Northern Hemisphere with a clear historical record, Tambora (1815) and Krakatoa (535AD). I cover these in this recent Slashdot post [slashdot.org].
My plan, and I am being pretty annoying about it in the hope that it becomes everyone's plan -- is to fast-track the two-fluid Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor to commercial deployment in North America AS SOON AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE, specifically the 1GW unit design with multiple on-site units sharing core salt reprocessing infrastructure -- that is a best-fit for our base load grid supply. These plants would deliver an unprecedented level of safety even if they are modularly constructed and mass-produced, will continue to operate even if rail or roads are damaged, and can store years of fuel on-site.
In short, a best hope for survival under many disaster scenarios, both natural and man-made.
The electrical grid is more of a problem since its points of failure cover a wide area and the vulnerability extends to the transformers in your neighborhood. For the grid I advocate a build-out of buried High Voltage DC conduits to interface between the three major North American interconnects, and to progressively deliver bridge junctions that can route around regional failures.
In short, we should be powering up new base load energy and building cross-country energy pipelines -- in addition to oil pipelines.
Re-tooling the grid will take much more time and capital than the deployment of LFTR but it is no less important. One of the advantages to LFTR is that it need not be sited near a large source of coolant water, so (unlike water reactors) there is NO region of North America that cannot accommodate this technology, and these plants can be built as far away from population centers as desired.
But it cannot and will not happen without your help.
See my letters on energy,
To The Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senate [scribd.com]
To whom it may concern, Halliburton Corporate [scribd.com]
And see the fascinating Thorium Remix 2011 presentation [youtube.com].
Also, here is an excellent overview on HVDC pipelines: Roger W. Faulkner [2005]: Electric Pipelines for North American Power Grid Efficiency Security [scribd.com]
Re:Extinction is good in this case because... (Score:5, Insightful)
NSA is on the east coast, Yellowbone will just kill the west coast, and starve the rest of the world a little.
Re: (Score:2)
"Be safe from Yellowstone, move to Mauritius with a container of Twinkies"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is we need global warming to cancel it out?
Many, many, many = 10 (Score:3)
Yellowstone super volcano is a planetary killer - or best scenario: many, many, many years of the equivalent of nuclear winter.
With "many, many, many years" meaning about 10 if you read the article (yes, I know it's slashdot...). However if you are worried about the more immediate effect then I'd rather be west than east of the super volcano given that the prevailing winds are westerlies and will distribute the ~1,000 cubic kilometres of ash mainly to the east of the eruption.
However there is some hope for the long term. With global warming predicted to hit +4C by around 2100 having a super volcanic eruption may actually be a g
Re: (Score:3)
"Planet Killer" is a bit extreme. Unlike, say, an asteroid strike, Yellowstone wouldn't do much to the other side of the earth (or even the east coast) besides block sunlight and bury soil in a foot of de-facto concrete sludge. In other words, nuclear power plants will still work, and so will anything else not directly destroyed by the explosion. We have something the dinosaurs (and early humans) didn't -- food that's edible for years, and the means to (expensively) grow it without sunlight. Life would suck
Re: (Score:2)
No, airflow is to the south and east. Mostly would kill the South and the East, anything west of the Rockies will be fine.
Re:Extinction is good in this case because... (Score:5, Informative)
Airflow has little to do with it. That part is what gets leveled by a shockwave. Multidigit gigatons equivalent. The dust layer chokes out most of the worlds' plants for decades, but not all of them. Humanity is adaptable enough to survive as a species even at current tech levels.
Re:Extinction is good in this case because... (Score:5, Informative)
First, the pyroclastic flow (superheated gas and ash) would play havoc with the western half of the U.S.:
It would kill all life within roughly a 300 mile radius, in a matter of minutes.
It would most likely melt or incinerate anything with a boiling point equal to or less than that of iron.
After about 300 miles the heat would gradually start dying out, leaving people alive, but suffering first, second, and third degree burns.
About that time, the shockwave should hit. There's really no way to predict what kind of damage will happen, but it will likely leave almost anyone in the western half of the U.S. deafened, or with severely damaged hearing. Ironically, this will be the least of the troubles, because...
Though the gas has cooled enough to only scald people, for the remainder of the roughly 600 mile radius, people will have to also deal with their air being poisoned and acidic. Those not killed outright will soon have a very bad day, however, because...
The next effect will primarily cover twice the 600 mile radius in ash, most likely in an eliptical pattern to follow windflows, up to about 4 meters. A good portion of this ash will also come from the previously incinerated landscape. Those not killed by heat, poison, and acid, will now find breathing and moving extremely difficult as they wade through a 12-foot sea of fine powder.
Global Effects would be felt the same day and continue to worsen for the next 3-14 days, depending on the weather patterns. The would include things like.
Little, if any, government assistance. The largest disaster FEMA has ever had to face is 9/11, which stretched their resources to the limit. The affected area of the supervolcano is an estimated 10 million times greater than that of 9/11. To date, FEMA does not have a contingency plan for a disaster on the scale of a supervolcano. Though they have shown an interest in developing one, it is doubtful they will ever have the resources capable of dealing with such an event. So you might want to be prepared, either with supplies, with guns, and/or with your god.
Another problem that will have to be dealt with is the gas sulphur dioxide which forms sulphuric acid when it gets into the stratosphere. This has two main effects, one is blotting out the sun, the other is, of course, sulfuric acid rain.
Within a day or so, temperatures would plummet 15-20 degrees, on average, across the globe. While this wouldn't exactly cause the end of the world, it is likely to turn many temperate climates into arctic ones. Strangely, the greatest differences would be in the southern hemisphere, though thanks to the normally high temperature, it would probably make them a cool average of 72-degrees year-round, thus remove San Diego's monopoly on such temperatures.
Since most foodcrops depend upon a particular temperature and sunlight range, and most foodcrops are grown in temperate climates, and the breadbasket of the U.S. will be under a 12-foot layer of ash, and the damage to global infrastructure, one can expect that a lot of people will starve--roughly 1 billion, at best estimates.
Travel using engines would be severely limited for a while, though the time and location would depend largely on the ashfall. The enormous amount of particulates in the air would not only impair visibility on an unprecedented scale, but also clog air filters within a very short amount of time.
Anyone with breathing problems or allergies can count on a miserable life. Those with perfectly healthy lungs can count on developing breathing problems and allergies.
Most of North America would become uninhabitable until the ash had been beaten down by the acid rain, and hardened enough to walk on. Even then, the poisons within the ash, the topsoil covered with volcanic roc
Re: (Score:3)
A super-volcano isn't just a giant volcano. Different types of volcanos are different. Super-volcanos are like a giant lake of magma coming to the surface. There may or may not be localized explosions at the start of the event, before it opens wide; that depends on the amount of gas in the magma. That can range from lots of big explosions, to none at all. Once it starts to open wide into a super-volcano, the pressure is already being released. There would be a huge amount of out-gassing, but since it isn't
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mount Rainier wouldn't be a cork in the giant bottle that is Yellowstone.
Also, sorry you don't understand the level of output from a supervolcano. For a 1/100 scale, go look up Mount Pinatubo.
Re: (Score:3)
I understand that you're looking at the raw numbers, and they're damned impressive.
However, shock waves can be deflected - and multiple mountain-sized deflectors (from my POV, the Rockies and Cascades, featuring Mt. Hood) are more than sufficient to do the job of keeping my house and office from flattening.
Now that said, Anything North and East of the spot is gonna get it pretty hard for hundreds of miles in radius. But the shock wave isn't really what you have to worry about - odds are perfect it'll blow i
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed it would be.
Re:Extinction is good in this case because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Extinction is good in this case because... (Score:5, Interesting)
If by "those armed groups" you mean "the new government", then no, I'm not forgetting. The largest, most organized group wins fights. If that group isn't lead by the old government (and it most likely would be), then it would swiftly become the new government, as no one likes being shot back at. That's where most governments come from, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
No, airflow is to the south and east. Mostly would kill the South and the East, anything west of the Rockies will be fine.
Except for the flaming material falling from the sky in a ballistic trajectory igniting anything remotely flammable.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not including the protective smog layer from China
Re:Extinction is good in this case because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If Yellowstone erupts, it's the end for the USA. And even if the country by some miracle survives, it won't have the resources to waste on either playing superpower or gathering data "just because". It would be hard pressed to even power the data center.
Re:Extinction is good in this case because... (Score:5, Informative)
Prevailing winds if not disturbed by it, and they probably will be, will send the ash cloud east. Various estimates put the layer of ash on an Iowa cornfield from 6" to 40 feet deep. One estimate is as good as the next in this case because the magnitude of the Yellowstone blow cannot be known much before it blows. The correct term is S.W.A.G., which many here are familiar with.
And if as big an event as some have written, it will do more than "slightly" impinge on the world food production. While I'm not saying it will happen on such a scale, the potential to starve 99% of this planets population of all genus combined genuinely exists. IOW, an extinction event on a par with the KT Boundary 65 million years ago. Or worse. But the record seems clear that it will not be benign, there are known valid records here on this continent between the last blow 640k? years ago, and the arrival of the first humans perhaps 25k to 50k years ago. The rock layer between the surface today, and the KT boundary is a bit short on major bone finds.
And short of drilling into it, and removing that heat by using it for geothermal power on a scale that will run the rest of the planet, probably not a thing we can do about it.
Cheers, Gene
Re:Extinction is good in this case because... (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, another day at Slashdot.
Re:Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, "likeliest" is a subjective term, since there are so many factors at play and it's difficult if not impossible at this point to try to predict what roaming variable will arise that will push the volcano over the tipping point. The best we can do is compare previous events with current factors, but even then our predictions will fall further on the guessing side of the line.
So, on a serious basis, I think a higher priority at this point should be placed on developing ways to protect ourselves from an imminent disaster like that relative to the size of that potential disaster. Worst case scenario, we need to pursue solutions which involve leaving the planet entirely if it is rendered uninhabitable for a period long enough to exterminate us.
Re:Priorities (Score:5, Funny)
Your failure to predict it will still get you arrested in Italy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The journalists got it wrong, no one ever checked the sources.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. To be *accurate*, the scientists said there was insufficient evidence to suggest than an earthquake was imminent. The politicians said there would be no earthquake. Then, when there *was* an earthquake, the scientists were convicted because of what the politicians said, and the politicians got off scot-free because they "just said what the scientists told them".
Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years (Score:4, Informative)
It's still only happening about every 100,000 years. Will it eventually happen? Yes. Can we do anything about it? Nope. This planet is still the dog and we are still the fleas.
Depends what you mean by "do anything about it" - if by "do anything" you mean "preserve the human race", then we could easily have a permanent and self-sufficient base on the moon within a few decades if we dedicated half of our military budget to it, and a base on Mars a few decades beyond that. The entire Apollo project "only" cost around $170 billion in 2005 dollars -- the USA Military Budget is around $700B annually.
Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years (Score:5, Insightful)
It would cost a lot more than the Apollo project to get a permanent self-sufficient base on the moon or mars, probably hundreds of times more, maybe thousands, especially is it has to be truly self-sufficient (no external supplies ever, no margin for error).
And a super-volcano is not going to wipe out the human race. Maybe 99% (mostly via starvation) but that still leaves millions. Same for a comet/asteroid strike, nuclear war, etc. (a super-virus might do it). As far as knowledge preservation, a lot could be done regarding that on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
It would cost a lot more than the Apollo project to get a permanent self-sufficient base on the moon or mars, probably hundreds of times more, maybe thousands, especially is it has to be truly self-sufficient (no external supplies ever, no margin for error).
And a super-volcano is not going to wipe out the human race. Maybe 99% (mostly via starvation) but that still leaves millions. Same for a comet/asteroid strike, nuclear war, etc. (a super-virus might do it). As far as knowledge preservation, a lot could be done regarding that on Earth.
Have any sources for your estimate? Note that I already proposed spending 50 times the Apollo costs to set up a permanent self-sufficient Lunar base, while others have pegged the cost of a manned (though not self-sufficient) Lunar base at $35B [space.com] (or 1/4 the cost of Apollo). I'm curious how you arrived at a figure that's 200 - 2000 times higher. The Mars costs are more nebulous since if we did build a lunar base and can find sufficient natural resources there or via asteroid mining, that would drop the cost of
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could just have random pockets of civilization here on earth looking to create a locally sustainable lifestyle with careful attention to long range power supply issues (without power, modern civilization is dead, with sufficient power, we can do most anything).
Pretty much exactly what you have to do to get to Mars without the getting to Mars part.
Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still only happening about every 100,000 years. Will it eventually happen? Yes. Can we do anything about it? Nope. This planet is still the dog and we are still the fleas.
Depends what you mean by "do anything about it" - if by "do anything" you mean "preserve the human race", then we could easily have a permanent and self-sufficient base on the moon within a few decades if we dedicated half of our military budget to it, and a base on Mars a few decades beyond that. The entire Apollo project "only" cost around $170 billion in 2005 dollars -- the USA Military Budget is around $700B annually.
Or we could just do nothing, as humanity survived the last Yellowstone eruption just fine (or we wouldn't be around today). And they managed that without any of our modern technology or scientific knowledge. A base on the moon or Mars is definitely in the long-term survival plans for humanity, but we don't need one to survive a once-in-a-million year event like a supervolcano eruption, it's the once-in-a-hundred million events like asteroid collisions (or eventually the sun expanding) we need to worry about.
Re:Have no fear! (Score:5, Funny)
The risk of typos in the story headline are the same as always.
It's like Rob programmed a bit of himself into slashcode before he left.
It's the though that counts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As the AC below also said, it is how it works (assuming all 50 tickets were for the same drawing).
Re: (Score:3)
While I do agree with the first thought (why worry if you can't change it), I have to point out that your second doesn't follow. Here's your list:
jobs, debt, destruction of currency (gov't caused inflation), destruction of your freedoms.
Jobs are a function of the economy, and unless you're Warren B, I don't think you can individually do much. Maybe you can start a business and hire a few people. Kind of like buying a Prius. You get to feel like you're helping, and by way of a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction,
Re: (Score:2)