Why Were Tourists Allowed to Visit an Active New Zealand Volcano?

[Eugene]

Source: New York Times

Why Were Tourists Allowed to Visit an Active New Zealand Volcano?

Visitors were allowed to tour the mouth of the White Island volcano despite recent warnings about bursts of gas and steam.

By Jamie Tarabay and Damien Cave
Dec. 10, 2019
Updated 12:46 p.m. ET

-snip-

“A rolling rumbling mass of ash tumbled over the cliff face, in all directions, and it completely engulfed the island,” said Mr. Hopkins, a 50-year-old pastor. “It cut out the sun, it went dark. You couldn’t see that there was an island there. It was completely covered in ash."

That Mr. Hopkins, his daughter and dozens of others were allowed to go near the island — let alone scale the crater at its center — when geologists had repeatedly warned of increased volcanic activity is now the subject of an investigation, with the death toll from the eruption Monday having risen to six. As of Tuesday afternoon, eight others were also believed to have died, with emergency workers still unable to reach the island to retrieve them.

And the question heard over and over in the long hours since, heard as the injured were carried to the docks, is: “Why?”

Why was anyone — from retirees to children — allowed to tour the crater of an active volcano, despite warnings about bursts of gas and steam in recent weeks? Why would tour operators and cruise lines tout an adventure ride, with prices starting at $260 per child, at such risk?

And why, as of Tuesday, were there no clear answers to who is ultimately accountable for ensuring visitors’ safety: the family that owns the remote island, or the government charged with enforcing health and safety regulations?

“There has to be more respect for nature. We can’t assume we can access anything we want,” said Jozua van Otterloo, a volcanologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, who visited White Island — also known by its Maori name of Whakaari — in 2012. “This is something policymakers and the public need to consider. Even though this is such a great place, should we be allowing people to go in such large numbers?”

-snip-

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/world/asia/new-zealand-volcano.html

[SWBTATTReg]

1. The all powerful tourism dollars outranks common sense apparently. The same thing happened...

at Mr. Saint Helens, surrounding towns etc. were concerned about dire predictions of a possible impending eruption still wanted tourists to come etc. This could be related to the fact that volcano prediction science is not exactly 100% although they (the scientists) are getting better at it.

[tirebiter]

2. People like to be there

And will go there invited or not.

[hlthe2b]

3. Ever visit Yellowstone? It is an ACTIVE SUPER VOLCANO

No one knows when it might experience a catastrophic eruption, but as a super volcano even these cities could suffer



How about Mt. Saint Helens? Yup. An active volcano.

Kīlauea and Mauna Loa, Hawaii? Considered among the most dangerous, yet countless people live within their range

I'm not saying that this tourist group was not incredibly careless, but it is not the only site that allows people to come and it is true that not all eruptions can be reliably predicted.

Ditto all the following that allow tourists to visit:

https://www.rd.com/advice/travel/active-volcanoes-you-can-visit/

[Eugene]

7. "unfortunate but not completely unexpected" - Scientists gave recent warnings about this volcano,

having observed bursts of steam and ash. Apparently, these warnings weren't passed on to the visitors from the cruise ship.

New Zealand police are demanding answers over the situation that led tourists to be in the crater of an active volcano when it exploded, with an official inquiry into the White Island incident due.

One legal expert told the New Zealand Herald tour company operators could face manslaughter charges "if found criminally liable for failing to protect customers".

The explosion was described as "unfortunate but not completely unexpected" by experts, Stuff reports, with customers asked to sign a waiver confirming the unstable nature of the volcano.

One man who visited the volcano at Easter said the waiver made clear it was an "unpredictable and active volcano".

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/white-island-volcano-eruption-police-believe-no-survivors-on-new-zealand-island/live-coverage/b5dce1c793d1791841f1cb0ba12b4e65

As for Kilauea, an erupting volcano, tourists were injured by a lava bomb last year when their tour boat strayed too close.

Not all active volcanoes are bombs about to go off imminently, but geologists are complaining that tour operators are not taking their warnings seriously enough.

[hlthe2b]

13. So, I think you just answered your own question. Active volcanos are not

all that rare and even with USGS and the best seismic and DAILY continuous monitoring, we can not always definitively predict in time to allow for those living nearby or visiting or even volcanologists measuring to escape.

We shall see what the situation was here as more comes out, but it may not reflect the kind of negligence one might assume nor possibly any at all beyond the level of questionable risk-taking we accept for ourselves.

[stopdiggin]

9. you beat me to it

and I'd go further to say that we can't be certain that there was anything "incredibly careless" about allowing tourists near the volcano (any more than allowing tourists near the rim of the Grand Canyon .. or on walkways over acid pools in Yellowstone .. or in any one of the other "active volcano" you link to). If somebody (government regulators) had actually assigned eminent risk to this location or feature that would be one thing. But, as you point out, "active volcanic activity" is as common as dirt .. and true eruptions are notoriously hard to predict. Where is the "risk factor" in allowing access to something that might not actually erupt in the next 100-500 years?

we'll all wait for the actual reports to come in .. but right now this looks like a lot of "Oh, dear" .. and attendant finger pointing.

[Cartoonist]

4. They were not required to visit.

They chose to be there.

Don't touch the stove, it may be hot.

[Merlot]

5. Were they warned of the possibility of eruption and recent activity?

[Cartoonist]

10. Yes

. . . despite recent warnings about bursts of gas and steam.

[get the red out]

11. Perhaps more tourists will

consider looking from a distance, after this tragedy making the media rounds. But the tourists choose what approach they want.

People who live around them have made a choice. I think some types of volcanoes, with mostly lava flow instead of massive explosions, allow more of a chance of resident evacuation. This is not one of them.

[SonofDonald]

8. I was in Hawaii in late April last year

On a cruise ship and one of the excursions was to visit a volcano, I decided I didn't want to be anywhere near a live one.

And it went off the next day.

To me it was like taking a tour in a war zone essentially, I didn't want to see it up close.

[Jirel]

6. *eyeroll*

This opinion piece is either written by a moron or intentionally disingenuous.

Why are people “allowed” to live near an active volcano in Hawaii? Why is Yellowstone open to the public? Good gods, shouldn’t Mexico City be moved en masse away from Popocatepetl, forthwith?!?! How dare they allow people to go to Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Vesuvius or Eyjafjallajökull?!?!?!

People live near volcanoes. They visit these areas because they’re interesting. They know there’s a risk. White Island was not expected to erupt - it was given a 2/5 risk rating AFTER it started getting a bit more uppity. That’s a nothingburger rating.

Also in the news: people take risks of sailing on the ocean, hiking in the woods around scary wild animals, and climbing and skiing where *gasp* avalanches may occur.

[Sneederbunk]

12. Touri$t$ are always welcome.