I'd have gone to see it.
Its got me thinking and worrying about a lot of things.
firstly my condolences to all the family and friends,It looks to me like those survivors are going through hell.
I am going to NZ in January and have booked 3 days in Whakatane as visiting the volcano was top of my list.
Before the eruption I think I would have gone if I had been told the risk was low,but now seeing the suffering and the risk to the rescuers I definitely wouldn't go.
It could have erupted anytime, for some reason when I saw there was so many tours I thought the risk was extremely low and they had been sanctioned by the tourist board or the government.
I have done many risky things in my life, perhaps as we get older we just worry about the consequences more?
I'd have gone to see it.
I don't think so, necessarily. I think people (generally) just get carried away by peer actions. I.e. "If lots of people are going there then why shouldn't I?".
People forget to carry out their own independent common sense 'risk assessment'. This particular volcano was famously active. Going there was always a gamble, a form of Russian roulette. This was well known before this recent eruption, at least to anyone who made the effort to do the research.
Tens of thousand ski on an active volcano in the middle of the North Island every year.
Frankly, I'd be way more worried about the driving over here.
Anyway, you won't have the option of going to White Island in the foreseeable future (if ever again). Jacinda will see to that.
Rob.
I've stood on the top of Vesuvius with whisps of steam rising out of it.
It didn't seem dangerous at the time and I'm sure (OK, to slightly lesser extent) that most people felt the same about White Island, although I understand it's been quite active.
Obviously it's a tragedy for those involved, but life's full of risks.
I saw the brother of the tour guide whining on (I've never noticed how annoying many New Zealanders sound before...) about them not having recovered his brother's body quicker, but I don't see any sense in risking other lives to recover the bodies of people (especially in his case) who consciously chose to take a risk.
I agree with the earlier comment that maybe this is a good time to assess risk a bit more seriously, but more people die at home than in Volcano eruptions!
It seems like you just need to chalk this one up to bad luck, from what I've read.
M
From wikipedia:
"The volcano had been showing signs of unrest for several weeks before the eruption. In October, volcanic tremors and sulphur dioxide gas were at their highest levels since 2016, indicating that an eruption was more likely to occur, and on 18 November, the volcano was rated at Volcanic Alert Level 2, indicating moderate to heightened volcanic unrest, due to increased activity.
"On 24 November, two weeks prior to the eruption, a moment magnitude 5.9 earthquake lasting approximately one minute with an epicentre located 10 kilometres northeast of White Island occurred, and was felt as far south as Christchurch.
"Tourists regularly visit the island, primarily through White Island Tours. The organisation posted a statement on their web page before the eruption, which stated: Whakaari/White Island is currently on Alert Level 2. This level indicates moderate to heightened volcanic unrest, there is the potential for eruption hazards to occur."
Who knew, eh?
I have been to the top of Vesuvius four times, it is an active Volcano and "they" say it will erupt again one day, it wasn't until the New Zealand thing that I have ever considered it dangerous.
We were supposed to be on that ship on that date. We'd booked and paid a deposit and then changed our holiday to go in November instead of December. We sailed past there on the 22nd November. We didn't do that tour as we did the Hobbit one for our daughter. I'm in the cruise critic group for that one. People have been posting updates on it. Very sad for all that lost their lives and the injured people.
Yup, but the thing is: What does this prove? The fact that many people do it does not, in and of itself, tell us anything about how dangerous it is. Indeed, this is the effect I referred to in #3. People tend to do stuff that is dangerous simply because other people are doing it.
Of course, one should also note that one active volcano is not another active volcano. Some are much less dangerous than others, other are more dangerous and more active. The White Island volcano was famously active!
And this will be sad, to my mind. I believe that people should be free to go to dangerous places and do dangerous things, as long as they are aware of the risks.
It seems to me, as I observe above, that some volcanoes are more dangerous than others. White Island was well known as being very active; I know I would not have gone there, even if other people were doing so. Vesuvius is not (currently) quite so active and, hopefully, there will be warning before it can get to a state where it can erupt again (although it undoubtedly will, as will Campi Flegrei next door).
No argument with that.
M
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
So why did White Island Tours continue to take people there?
OK, obvious answer: for the money.
Don't expect non-expert tourists to be sensible enough to make their own risk assessment if the tour organiser says 'Let's go'. I have seen it frequently with balloon flights in dubious weather. Sometimes with broken bones or worse as a result.
It's too easy to say 'we warned you, so it's not our fault if you get hurt or die'. Luckily for the operator they are not in France. They would at least have been under investigation for involuntary manslaughter here. Automatic reaction of the authorities if you are the professional 'guide' (or his employer) and people you were responsible for died on an outing you organized.
As observed above, I see that as a perfectly reasonable and proper expectation. We are all ultimately responsible for our own safety, as far as we are able.
Of course, any possible negligence on the part of the tour operators would depend a great deal on what they said and how they said it. E.g. "Let's go, it's completely safe" would be clearly untrue and negligent (since it was well known that the White Island volcano was very active). Whereas "let's go, it's a risk and you've read and signed the risk assessment we provided you with" would be accurate, would be reasonable, and wouldn't be negligent.
That's not "easy": As long as a substantive warning appropriate to the circumstances is given then it is what actually counts.
Remember that assessing risk, both for all of us as individuals and for those organising events on our behalf, isn't about somehow childishly magicing it away; it is about accepting that things might go wrong and being aware of that.
A counter-productive French over-reaction is hardly a beacon of common sense or rationality, is it. Better by far to examine what actual negligence did or did not take place.
VOLCANIC ALERT BULLETINWI – 2019/11
Tue Dec 3 2019 1:00 PM; White Island Volcano
Volcanic Alert Level remains at 2
Aviation Colour Code remains at Yellow
The OP posted "Before the eruption I think I would have gone if I had been told the risk was low". GeoNet give Volcanic Alert Level 2 as "Moderate to heightened volcanic unrest - Volcanic unrest hazards, potential for eruption hazards". Does anyone know what the tourists had been told about the risks, please?
See all the bulletins for White Island...here. It's not the first time it was a Level 2.