No hearsay or false information from me.
You’re speaking like a gap year student that gets a one year visa and suddenly knows everything about a country. The PM of New Zealand has came out and said that there needs to be some sort of investigation, whether it is criminal or otherwise.
I've read that the alert level was raised a few days prior, but that ultimately the decision as to whether to allow tourists to visit lies with the operators, which seems odd to me. You'd have thought there'd be some Federal Level responsibility (though perhaps there is, this is just what I've read on BBC News so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
I think they have changed their mind on that for now.
Lived there for 7 years
There is nothing wrong with questioning the responsibilities of tour operators in the wake of a tragedy like this, whether you've ever been to New Zealand or not. The fact that a volcano "billows smoke all the time" and that a waiver gets signed doesn't change the fact that certain safety measures should be taken into account.
The Guardian said:
I didn’t do any of that. I just have a massive point of objection to people that have no idea about anything, jumping to talk about criminal matters. It’s irresponsible and wrong.
The last time it significantly erupted, the Threat level was at 1. Its unpredictable.
I've seen you say this a lot and of course people would've been aware that they took a risk by going to an active volcano, but they still should've been able to make an informed decision about whether they wanted to join or not. If any tour operator withholds critical information to its participants, especially about safety concerns, it needs to be looked at regardless of whether it was an accident or not.
People on holiday take an organised tour as part of said holiday and end up dead or injured - and you've no sympathy?
She's great.
Dude most of the people who managed to be far enough away from the blast to get rescued have suffered horrific burns - some over 35% of their body and most likely not survivable - anybody closer to the eruption than those people are dead unfortunately.
Eh? How can you possibly say that? What the heck is wrong with you?
You’re jumping to conclusions.
Aye. At the time of asking I thought you might have seen other footage that I’d missed.
facepalm.gif
I agree - lets be real here - if a tour guide honestly felt there was a risk of a volcano erupting while they and a bunch of tourists were on it they would not have gone ahead with it. Nobody in their right mind would go onto an active volcano that they thought was about to blow.
No I havent but watching a video doesnt show the stuff that actually kills you - the gas, the heat and the shock blast. All you see is a massive amount of smoke and ash.
You listed a bunch of shit that clearly isn’t on the table. So yes, you were.
You say that, but there are various accidents which could have been avoided in consideration to natural disasters. I went to a place called Antelope Canyon a few years ago and there have been cases in the past at this site where tour guides ignored flash flood warnings and took tours down and a bunch of tourists were killed while they (the tour guide) survived.
I said that's what you sound like in your responses so far as you come across extremely defensive despite other people just discussing an issue and not going mental asking for criminal investigations.
I mean the warning is quite evident; you take your life into your hands when you go into the crater of an active volanco, regardless of the period of inactivity. Eruptions can be predicted based upon the seismic activity, and whether there has been any deformation (ie Mt St Helens had a huge bulge before it blew) but in terms of a precise science, it's currently impossible to do. You can just guage the activity.
It’s not defensive. It’s common sense.
Apparently, because this volcano has steam based eruptions they are much more difficult to predict.
Could that be a bit harsh? Not like he knew the thing was gonna blow right then and there. Even with the warnings
I agree, its not like it was a dormant volcano.
I mean there’s always an element of risk involved when going to a live volcano surely?
Its a live volcano, I feel terrible for the tourists and the guides alike but its not like the risks aren't basic general knowledge, live volcanos are volatile.
I don't know anything about Volcanos and the risk associated. All I'm saying is an investigation is warranted and not "it's just an accident".
There's a big difference between "the volcano isn't dormant but what are the chances" and "there are signs that an eruption might be coming" though. I'm guessing/hoping that increased activity was mentioned (since it went from danger level 1 to 2), but that it was probably still almost impossible to (correctly) predict the moment of an eruption. Activity could decrease again or it could take weeks/months/even years before it erupted, volcanoes are unpredictable like that.
I know very little about geology, and apparently you're studying it, but is it really the right way to put it? My island is literally composed of three active volcanos. One of the craters is so active that we have plenty of hotsprings and cook food by burying it underground. On another island an eruption added a huge chunk of land to the island in the fifties, but no one died.
