What do you think?
Rate this book
No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz
In 1985 in Columbia, more than 23,000 people died due to the government's failure to take seriously scientists' warnings about an imminent volcanic eruption at Nevado del Ruiz. In 1993, at Volcán Galeras, the death toll was smaller but no less despite seismic data that foretold possible disaster, an expedition of international scientists proceeded into the volcano. Two hours later, nine people were dead. Expertly detailing the turbulent history of Colombia, Victoria Bruce links together the stories of the heroes, villains, survivors, and victims of these two events. No Apparent Danger is a spellbinding account of clashing cultures and the life-and-death consequences of scientific arrogance.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
December 4, 2019
Very good book! Not for the faint-hearted. It details two volcanic eruptions in Colombia, Nevado Del Ruiz in 1985, and Galeras in 1993. The author relates the scientific info in an easy to understand manner. I have always been fascinated by volcanos, and this book was right up my alley.
By the end of the book, I had a very intense dislike for Stanley Williams, the leader of the expedition on Galeras. Unfortunately, he was the one who got all the media attention (primarily in the USA) after the eruption, and his viewpoint was definitely skewed to whitewash his asinine decisions, his lies, his disregard for safety, and on and on. Thankfully, this book sets the record straight.
4 Stars = Outstanding. It definitely held my interest.
By the end of the book, I had a very intense dislike for Stanley Williams, the leader of the expedition on Galeras. Unfortunately, he was the one who got all the media attention (primarily in the USA) after the eruption, and his viewpoint was definitely skewed to whitewash his asinine decisions, his lies, his disregard for safety, and on and on. Thankfully, this book sets the record straight.
4 Stars = Outstanding. It definitely held my interest.
March 18, 2019
Bruce recounts the history, both geologic and historic, of the active volcanic range in Colombia. It's quite a story.
The Nevado del Ruiz eruption, when it came was horrifying. It wasn't one of those blow-the-tops off like Mt. St. Helens, rather an insidious flow of lava that melted several glaciers which then overran rivers and created a mudslide close to one-hundred feet high and traveled at about fifty miles per hour. It literally obliterated the town of Armero and killed more than 23,000 people. Ironically, there was warning. Ham radio operators living high in the mountains who saw what was happening sent warnings, but the local priest had broadcast calm reassurances saying it was just an ash rain so people even refused the frantic warnings of local firemen who had pounded on their doors insisting they evacuate. Only 5% of the icecap had melted. 85% of Armero vanished under the mud.
Following that eruption there was an increased interest in the volcanoes of the Andes and the next on the list was Galeras. Bruce does a great job of illuminating the social and political pressures on the scientists who by now had become quite interested in those wisps of steam coming from the top of the mountain. Everyone wanted accurate predictions of when the volcano would pop off and what form it would take.
(By the way, here is a nasty description of the dangers of pyroclastic flows: "an absolute death sentence that kills not from the heat but from inhalation of scalding hot ash. On the first breath, a person’s lungs react with instant pneumonia and fill with fluid. With the second breath, the fluid and ash mix and create wet cement. By the time the person takes a third breath, thick, hot cement fills the lungs and windpipe, causing the victim to suffocate. There were autopsy pictures of a surgeon opening a victim’s trachea with a chisel.")
As it turns out, a scientist by the name of Chouet had studied the seismic waves before eruptions of numerous volcanoes and he noticed some screw-like motions. "Chouet believed he knew what the signals were saying. Inside the volcano, in fractures in the rocks, boiling water turned to steam. And the steam, under great pressure and unable to escape, resonated brutally in the fractures, creating a high- frequency song like a boiling teakettle whistling an imperceptible pitch." Turns out he was prescient and accurate. Those little squiggles were predictive of explosive events.
On the fateful day, the scientists hiked up to the top and then roped down into the caldera to take measurements. The dome of lava, ever expanding, concerned several of them, but contrary to the pattern and habit of the U.S. Geological Survey scientists, hard hats and safety equipment was not present. No one was positioned on the top to relay radio signals nor did they have emergency medical supplies. Even some untrained journalists were invited to go along into the active volcano.
Nine people (five scientists) died when the volcano popped. Afterwards, one of the gas scientists claimed to have been the only survivor, an untruth, but then he had sustained severe brain injury and needed brain surgery so I suppose a little mendacity could be excused. Not so forgiveable was the appropriation by one of his students of the work of Chouet nor his insistence there was no warning. There was.
Riveting.
The Nevado del Ruiz eruption, when it came was horrifying. It wasn't one of those blow-the-tops off like Mt. St. Helens, rather an insidious flow of lava that melted several glaciers which then overran rivers and created a mudslide close to one-hundred feet high and traveled at about fifty miles per hour. It literally obliterated the town of Armero and killed more than 23,000 people. Ironically, there was warning. Ham radio operators living high in the mountains who saw what was happening sent warnings, but the local priest had broadcast calm reassurances saying it was just an ash rain so people even refused the frantic warnings of local firemen who had pounded on their doors insisting they evacuate. Only 5% of the icecap had melted. 85% of Armero vanished under the mud.
Following that eruption there was an increased interest in the volcanoes of the Andes and the next on the list was Galeras. Bruce does a great job of illuminating the social and political pressures on the scientists who by now had become quite interested in those wisps of steam coming from the top of the mountain. Everyone wanted accurate predictions of when the volcano would pop off and what form it would take.
(By the way, here is a nasty description of the dangers of pyroclastic flows: "an absolute death sentence that kills not from the heat but from inhalation of scalding hot ash. On the first breath, a person’s lungs react with instant pneumonia and fill with fluid. With the second breath, the fluid and ash mix and create wet cement. By the time the person takes a third breath, thick, hot cement fills the lungs and windpipe, causing the victim to suffocate. There were autopsy pictures of a surgeon opening a victim’s trachea with a chisel.")
As it turns out, a scientist by the name of Chouet had studied the seismic waves before eruptions of numerous volcanoes and he noticed some screw-like motions. "Chouet believed he knew what the signals were saying. Inside the volcano, in fractures in the rocks, boiling water turned to steam. And the steam, under great pressure and unable to escape, resonated brutally in the fractures, creating a high- frequency song like a boiling teakettle whistling an imperceptible pitch." Turns out he was prescient and accurate. Those little squiggles were predictive of explosive events.
On the fateful day, the scientists hiked up to the top and then roped down into the caldera to take measurements. The dome of lava, ever expanding, concerned several of them, but contrary to the pattern and habit of the U.S. Geological Survey scientists, hard hats and safety equipment was not present. No one was positioned on the top to relay radio signals nor did they have emergency medical supplies. Even some untrained journalists were invited to go along into the active volcano.
Nine people (five scientists) died when the volcano popped. Afterwards, one of the gas scientists claimed to have been the only survivor, an untruth, but then he had sustained severe brain injury and needed brain surgery so I suppose a little mendacity could be excused. Not so forgiveable was the appropriation by one of his students of the work of Chouet nor his insistence there was no warning. There was.
Riveting.
September 12, 2022
This is a fascinating (and tragic) account of the 1985 eruption of the Nevado del Ruiz and the 1993 eruption of Galeras, both located in Colombia. This is also the very human story of the scientists trying to understand the volcanoes and the type of fiscal, political and social pressure they were under. Of how spectacularly some of them mishandled a field trip to the crater of an active volcano and the aftermath. Of how communication is important.
More than 23000 people died in when government officials ignored scientists' warnings about an imminent eruption of Nevado del Ruiz. On November 13, 1985, pyroclastic flows erupting from the crater melted the glaciers covering the summit, which resulted in enormous mudflows, landslides and debris travelling down the volcano at approximately 50km/h (30mi/h). This river of mud and debris engulfed villages and towns (including Armero) in its path. Ham radio operators living in the mountains also sent warnings, but these were in conflict with the reassurances of the town mayor and the local priest that nothing would happen. The citizens of Amero did not even evacuate when local firemen started pounding on their doors.
Several years later, a volcano conference held in the city of Pasto, ended in disaster when several scientists hiked to the crater of the local volcano to take measurements. Hard hats, gas masks, and other safety/emergency equipment was not available, radio relay signals were not organised, and warnings from the seismologist were ignored. Several journalists were also invited to tag along. Later on, the group was joined by 3 local tourists. At around 1:45pm on January 14, 1993 Galeras erupted unexpectedly while they were at the summit, resulting in the deaths of six scientists and the three tourists. Victoria Bruce also takes a look at the controversy surrounding the actions and account of expedition leader (and 1 of 5 survivors), geologist Stanley Williams.
This is a intelligently written book, with a linear narrative, that does not overwhelm the reader with scientific information. Rather Bruce manages to weave relevant science into the narrative in an easily understood manner. She does not discuss the science of volcanoes in general, but focuses on these two incidences. Bruce writes compassionately about the tragedies, without sensationalism, sometimes including the survivors' own account of events. No Apparent Danger is a compelling book that examines what happens when Mother Nature strikes.
More than 23000 people died in when government officials ignored scientists' warnings about an imminent eruption of Nevado del Ruiz. On November 13, 1985, pyroclastic flows erupting from the crater melted the glaciers covering the summit, which resulted in enormous mudflows, landslides and debris travelling down the volcano at approximately 50km/h (30mi/h). This river of mud and debris engulfed villages and towns (including Armero) in its path. Ham radio operators living in the mountains also sent warnings, but these were in conflict with the reassurances of the town mayor and the local priest that nothing would happen. The citizens of Amero did not even evacuate when local firemen started pounding on their doors.
Several years later, a volcano conference held in the city of Pasto, ended in disaster when several scientists hiked to the crater of the local volcano to take measurements. Hard hats, gas masks, and other safety/emergency equipment was not available, radio relay signals were not organised, and warnings from the seismologist were ignored. Several journalists were also invited to tag along. Later on, the group was joined by 3 local tourists. At around 1:45pm on January 14, 1993 Galeras erupted unexpectedly while they were at the summit, resulting in the deaths of six scientists and the three tourists. Victoria Bruce also takes a look at the controversy surrounding the actions and account of expedition leader (and 1 of 5 survivors), geologist Stanley Williams.
This is a intelligently written book, with a linear narrative, that does not overwhelm the reader with scientific information. Rather Bruce manages to weave relevant science into the narrative in an easily understood manner. She does not discuss the science of volcanoes in general, but focuses on these two incidences. Bruce writes compassionately about the tragedies, without sensationalism, sometimes including the survivors' own account of events. No Apparent Danger is a compelling book that examines what happens when Mother Nature strikes.
January 24, 2014
This was quite a read. Despite the length -- just over 200 pages -- this chronicle of the disastrous eruptions of two volcanoes in Colombia in the 1980's and 1990's is very well written and understandable for the lay person. Yes, there is some science in this one, but it is presented smoothly enough that it doesn't bog down the story. What is heartrending are the attitudes among scientists and politicians and sadly, the ordinary people who would pay the price for their arrogance. Geology nerds will have the best time with this one. I give it four stars and a recommendation.
For the longer review, please go here:
http://www.epinions.com/review/no_app...
For the longer review, please go here:
http://www.epinions.com/review/no_app...
April 24, 2023
This book is an account of the November 1985 Nevado Del Ruiz eruption that killed more than 23,000 people and destroyed the city of Armero, as well as an account of the January 1993 Galeras eruption that killed six scientists and three tourists.
While the accounts were interesting (and horrifying), this was initially looking like a 3-star read for me due to what I saw as organizational issues and a lack of focus. Yes, the eruptions both took place in Colombia, and some of the same people, such as Colombian geologist Marta Calvache, came up in conjunction with both of them, but I had trouble keeping track of why they were related enough to base a book on both of them. The Nevado Del Ruiz eruption was horrific and resulted in an enormous loss of life. The eruption in Galeras was much smaller and only killed people because they happened to be in the crater (and, for the most part, not wearing proper safety equipment). I should add that I don't read a lot of nonfiction and tend to have attention span issues with it, so that could definitely have been a factor in my overall feelings.
The last couple chapters in particular were a light bulb moment for me - either Bruce didn't lay things out that clearly earlier on in the book (quite possible, in order to let readers judge for themselves), or I didn't pay enough attention and missed it. This book was an account of the two tragedies and what was learned from them, true, but it was also a carefully constructed case against Stanley Williams and his version of the Galeras eruption. This might have been more obvious to those with a better background in geology and volcanology, but I came into this knowing nothing.
Stanley Williams was one of the scientists who survived the Galeras eruption. When he had recovered enough to speak to the media, he either presented himself as the only survivor of the eruption or chose not to correct the media's misrepresentation of him as the only survivor. Considering how severely injured he'd been, I was initially somewhat inclined to think that he'd gotten things confused due to brain damage, but as Bruce described the degree to which Williams used the Galeras eruption to build up his career and reputation, I began to feel much less charitable.
This was an excellent account of two tragic disasters, the events that led up to them, and some of the things learned from them. Bruce also did a great job of getting me emotionally invested in a controversy I hadn't previously known about.
(Original review posted on A Library Girl's Familiar Diversions.)
While the accounts were interesting (and horrifying), this was initially looking like a 3-star read for me due to what I saw as organizational issues and a lack of focus. Yes, the eruptions both took place in Colombia, and some of the same people, such as Colombian geologist Marta Calvache, came up in conjunction with both of them, but I had trouble keeping track of why they were related enough to base a book on both of them. The Nevado Del Ruiz eruption was horrific and resulted in an enormous loss of life. The eruption in Galeras was much smaller and only killed people because they happened to be in the crater (and, for the most part, not wearing proper safety equipment). I should add that I don't read a lot of nonfiction and tend to have attention span issues with it, so that could definitely have been a factor in my overall feelings.
The last couple chapters in particular were a light bulb moment for me - either Bruce didn't lay things out that clearly earlier on in the book (quite possible, in order to let readers judge for themselves), or I didn't pay enough attention and missed it. This book was an account of the two tragedies and what was learned from them, true, but it was also a carefully constructed case against Stanley Williams and his version of the Galeras eruption. This might have been more obvious to those with a better background in geology and volcanology, but I came into this knowing nothing.
Stanley Williams was one of the scientists who survived the Galeras eruption. When he had recovered enough to speak to the media, he either presented himself as the only survivor of the eruption or chose not to correct the media's misrepresentation of him as the only survivor. Considering how severely injured he'd been, I was initially somewhat inclined to think that he'd gotten things confused due to brain damage, but as Bruce described the degree to which Williams used the Galeras eruption to build up his career and reputation, I began to feel much less charitable.
This was an excellent account of two tragic disasters, the events that led up to them, and some of the things learned from them. Bruce also did a great job of getting me emotionally invested in a controversy I hadn't previously known about.
(Original review posted on A Library Girl's Familiar Diversions.)
December 15, 2019
"No Apparent Danger" by Victoria Bruce is a double edged sword: it's excellent and questionable for the exact same reasons. On one hand, it's a compelling story of a volcano expedition gone wrong. On the other, it's a simplistic account of a complex event - one that creates a hero/villain binary that tells a much more superficial story than reality.
In No Apparent Danger, Bruce tells the story of the 1993 explosion on Galeras in Columbia. On a fateful January day, nine people - including both volcanologists and tourists - would lose their lives on the volcano during a small but powerful eruption. In Bruce's telling, this is a story with heroes (e.g., Marta Calvache, a graduate student who rescues many of the injured) and villains (e.g., Stanley Williams, the professor who led a group of professional volcanologists on a conference field trip into the crater).
For Bruce, Williams is guilty of at least three crimes. First, he knew all along that 'tornillos' (a particular, long-duration earthquake pattern that appears on seismographic records) predicted eruptions... and yet decided to run the field trip into Galeras regardless. Second, he aggressively portrayed himself as the 'sole survivor' of the event after the fact, seeking to minimize others in the story. Finally, he sought to undercut his rival scientist Bernard Chouet, on the very topic of tornillos, publishing an article in Nature evidencing this correlation based on Chouet's discovery before Chouet himself was able to publish.
Of course, this is a very different account than Williams offers in his book "Surviving Galeras" (see my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). In Williams' account, his account of the first issue is largely that tornillos as an indicator of eruptions weren't well understood until three eruptions later, when the pattern was noticed by Colombian researchers and a graduate student. On the second issue, he apologizes in his book for 'not correcting those who called him the sole survivor,' though doesn't really account for times that Bruce alleges he used the term himself. On the final issue, things seem a little more complex: Williams' publication is about the interaction between seismic and airborne gas activity, rather than seismic activity alone (Chouet's thesis). This is particularly ironic, because Bruce accuses him of both being wrong in this hypothesis (versus Chouet being right), but then accuses Williams of stealing Chouet's idea (despite earlier differentiating them).
What really becomes evident in reading Surviving Galeras and No Apparent Danger side-by-side is that we'll never really know what happened in the event. There are factual inconsistencies between the accounts. Williams, for instance, claims that no one informed the team at the crater of the tornillo the morning of the eruption. By contrast, Bruce claims that the team was indeed informed of this 9:47am tornillo, and choose to ignore it. Bruce blames Williams for not taking sufficient safety measures (e.g., forcing those attending to wear hardhats and flame proof suits), while Williams asserts that they wouldn't have prevented any of the injuries actually sustained and wouldn't have been accepted/normal practice in Columbia at the time (this changed, of course, after the event).
We're also caught in a world where hindsight is 20:20. In "No Apparent Danger," there's a tendency to fall victim to hindsight bias: Bruce largely evaluates the tragedy from the viewpoint of the present, where the failures (e.g., not wearing safety gear, not paying heed to the tornillos) are obvious in retrospect. She suggests that it was common knowledge that tornillos predicted earthquakes, for instance, and that Williams was at best ill-informed and at worst maliciously reckless. But, this strikes me as remarkably implausible: the scientific community isn't one homogenous entity, and it seems legitimate to me that early-stage science was disputed. It's perfectly likely that some scientists were convinced, by 1992, that tornillos were indeed eruption predictors, while other scientists would have thought that Coulet simply got lucky in making a singular prediction (and would legitimately make a case by pointing to examples where eruptions were /not/ proceeded by tornillos, or where a set of tornillos didn't produce a subsequent eruption).
Of course, this isn't to say that Williams is entirely believable here either. In particular, his quick apology for claiming to be the sole survivor seems suspect: Bruce lays out a case of this happening regularly and repeatedly, and much more explicitly than Williams admits. This doesn't help Williams' credibility. He also clearly has the motivation for telling a one-sided story; one that minimizes blame for himself and reinforces a narrative that he couldn't possibly have known better given the science of the time.
But, Williams does two things that Bruce doesn't in his account. First, it's clear /whose/ views Williams is reporting at any given point. Where Bruce tells the story as one objective narrative, Williams switches from perspective to perspective, identifying whose recollection he's drawing on at any given moment. And, second, where Bruce presents this monolithic and singular narrative, Williams regularly calls out moments where he remembers one thing, but others remember something different and conflicting. He gives explicit airtime to alternate memories, and seems to tell many (not all, but many) of these in a charitable and equal way.
There's also a challenge in Bruce's account. In seeking to blame Williams for the tragic outcome, she dodges an important question: If the signs of volatility were so obvious, why is it that others didn't speak up or question the trip at the time. The examples of this she offers are weak (e.g., people stating that post hoc they thought it was a bad idea all along), as is the explanation that Williams was so arrogant that others were afraid to raise their concerns. It seems much more plausible that reality was much more uncertain than Bruce portrays: that there wasn't a clear "eruption today!" sign on the volcano that Williams attempted to cover up.
At the end of the day, then, the reader is left with a difficult situation. Williams is clearly motivated to tell a story where he is not to blame for the nine fatalities that day. It makes good sense that the warning signs weren't nearly as obvious at the time, although his credibility is weakened for not fully explaining why he claimed to be the sole survivor (writing it off as 'failing to correct others for calling him that'). But, Bruce is also quite motivated in her telling: the final chapter and acknowledgements reveal a writer heavily shaped by the views of her informants, who had early on decided that this was a case of evil, arrogant scientist to blame.
None of this is to take away from how good the book is. Bruce is an excellent writer, and the decision to tell two volcano stories in sequence is highly effective. But, where Williams grapples with deeper questions about whether risk is worth scientific gains, Bruce falls short in relying on simplistic "hero" versus "villain" tropes. It could have been a really rich account of what actually happened, serving as a more dependable analysis than Williams' personal sketch. But, because Bruce seems so convinced that Williams is the bad guy - and because she fails to identify which perspectives she's drawing on throughout, instead presenting a singular, objective narrative - it ends up being just another source requiring a hearty dose of skepticism.
As such, I'd recommend that neither of these are books to be read on their own. If you're going to read "Surviving Galeras," you must also read "No Apparent Danger" - and vice versa. It leaves us with a deeply uncomfortable, unclear event that's not as simple as either telling... but where the discrepancies in the stories make for a remarkable contrast.
In No Apparent Danger, Bruce tells the story of the 1993 explosion on Galeras in Columbia. On a fateful January day, nine people - including both volcanologists and tourists - would lose their lives on the volcano during a small but powerful eruption. In Bruce's telling, this is a story with heroes (e.g., Marta Calvache, a graduate student who rescues many of the injured) and villains (e.g., Stanley Williams, the professor who led a group of professional volcanologists on a conference field trip into the crater).
For Bruce, Williams is guilty of at least three crimes. First, he knew all along that 'tornillos' (a particular, long-duration earthquake pattern that appears on seismographic records) predicted eruptions... and yet decided to run the field trip into Galeras regardless. Second, he aggressively portrayed himself as the 'sole survivor' of the event after the fact, seeking to minimize others in the story. Finally, he sought to undercut his rival scientist Bernard Chouet, on the very topic of tornillos, publishing an article in Nature evidencing this correlation based on Chouet's discovery before Chouet himself was able to publish.
Of course, this is a very different account than Williams offers in his book "Surviving Galeras" (see my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). In Williams' account, his account of the first issue is largely that tornillos as an indicator of eruptions weren't well understood until three eruptions later, when the pattern was noticed by Colombian researchers and a graduate student. On the second issue, he apologizes in his book for 'not correcting those who called him the sole survivor,' though doesn't really account for times that Bruce alleges he used the term himself. On the final issue, things seem a little more complex: Williams' publication is about the interaction between seismic and airborne gas activity, rather than seismic activity alone (Chouet's thesis). This is particularly ironic, because Bruce accuses him of both being wrong in this hypothesis (versus Chouet being right), but then accuses Williams of stealing Chouet's idea (despite earlier differentiating them).
What really becomes evident in reading Surviving Galeras and No Apparent Danger side-by-side is that we'll never really know what happened in the event. There are factual inconsistencies between the accounts. Williams, for instance, claims that no one informed the team at the crater of the tornillo the morning of the eruption. By contrast, Bruce claims that the team was indeed informed of this 9:47am tornillo, and choose to ignore it. Bruce blames Williams for not taking sufficient safety measures (e.g., forcing those attending to wear hardhats and flame proof suits), while Williams asserts that they wouldn't have prevented any of the injuries actually sustained and wouldn't have been accepted/normal practice in Columbia at the time (this changed, of course, after the event).
We're also caught in a world where hindsight is 20:20. In "No Apparent Danger," there's a tendency to fall victim to hindsight bias: Bruce largely evaluates the tragedy from the viewpoint of the present, where the failures (e.g., not wearing safety gear, not paying heed to the tornillos) are obvious in retrospect. She suggests that it was common knowledge that tornillos predicted earthquakes, for instance, and that Williams was at best ill-informed and at worst maliciously reckless. But, this strikes me as remarkably implausible: the scientific community isn't one homogenous entity, and it seems legitimate to me that early-stage science was disputed. It's perfectly likely that some scientists were convinced, by 1992, that tornillos were indeed eruption predictors, while other scientists would have thought that Coulet simply got lucky in making a singular prediction (and would legitimately make a case by pointing to examples where eruptions were /not/ proceeded by tornillos, or where a set of tornillos didn't produce a subsequent eruption).
Of course, this isn't to say that Williams is entirely believable here either. In particular, his quick apology for claiming to be the sole survivor seems suspect: Bruce lays out a case of this happening regularly and repeatedly, and much more explicitly than Williams admits. This doesn't help Williams' credibility. He also clearly has the motivation for telling a one-sided story; one that minimizes blame for himself and reinforces a narrative that he couldn't possibly have known better given the science of the time.
But, Williams does two things that Bruce doesn't in his account. First, it's clear /whose/ views Williams is reporting at any given point. Where Bruce tells the story as one objective narrative, Williams switches from perspective to perspective, identifying whose recollection he's drawing on at any given moment. And, second, where Bruce presents this monolithic and singular narrative, Williams regularly calls out moments where he remembers one thing, but others remember something different and conflicting. He gives explicit airtime to alternate memories, and seems to tell many (not all, but many) of these in a charitable and equal way.
There's also a challenge in Bruce's account. In seeking to blame Williams for the tragic outcome, she dodges an important question: If the signs of volatility were so obvious, why is it that others didn't speak up or question the trip at the time. The examples of this she offers are weak (e.g., people stating that post hoc they thought it was a bad idea all along), as is the explanation that Williams was so arrogant that others were afraid to raise their concerns. It seems much more plausible that reality was much more uncertain than Bruce portrays: that there wasn't a clear "eruption today!" sign on the volcano that Williams attempted to cover up.
At the end of the day, then, the reader is left with a difficult situation. Williams is clearly motivated to tell a story where he is not to blame for the nine fatalities that day. It makes good sense that the warning signs weren't nearly as obvious at the time, although his credibility is weakened for not fully explaining why he claimed to be the sole survivor (writing it off as 'failing to correct others for calling him that'). But, Bruce is also quite motivated in her telling: the final chapter and acknowledgements reveal a writer heavily shaped by the views of her informants, who had early on decided that this was a case of evil, arrogant scientist to blame.
None of this is to take away from how good the book is. Bruce is an excellent writer, and the decision to tell two volcano stories in sequence is highly effective. But, where Williams grapples with deeper questions about whether risk is worth scientific gains, Bruce falls short in relying on simplistic "hero" versus "villain" tropes. It could have been a really rich account of what actually happened, serving as a more dependable analysis than Williams' personal sketch. But, because Bruce seems so convinced that Williams is the bad guy - and because she fails to identify which perspectives she's drawing on throughout, instead presenting a singular, objective narrative - it ends up being just another source requiring a hearty dose of skepticism.
As such, I'd recommend that neither of these are books to be read on their own. If you're going to read "Surviving Galeras," you must also read "No Apparent Danger" - and vice versa. It leaves us with a deeply uncomfortable, unclear event that's not as simple as either telling... but where the discrepancies in the stories make for a remarkable contrast.
July 31, 2015
Oh, my word. This book is not for the faint of heart. The author does not mince words when it comes to describing the injuries volcanic hazards can cause. Nor does she softball the anger of the people who survived the (minor!) eruption of Galeras in 1993 while nine of their friends and colleagues died.
The story centers on the Columbian geologists, especially Dr. Marta Calvache. It traces her involvement with various departments and companies in Columbia and then the tragedy of Nevada Del Ruiz and Armero in 1985. I've never read such a sad, gripping account of that terrible night and the events that led to it. Honestly, by the time I was done reading I wanted to run upstairs and hug my family for a few hours.
But it gets worse, because the next major player in this is Dr Stanley Williams - Dr. Calvache's advisor as she was getting her doctorate. He decided to run a conference on the Columbian volcano Galeras. But some of the decisions he made would result in the deaths of many, and he himself would be critically injured.
I won't spoil the book with exactly what happened. It's well, well worth the time. At the end of the day, you may also find yourself angered by the pointlessness of the losses on that 1993 day. I know I was.
The story centers on the Columbian geologists, especially Dr. Marta Calvache. It traces her involvement with various departments and companies in Columbia and then the tragedy of Nevada Del Ruiz and Armero in 1985. I've never read such a sad, gripping account of that terrible night and the events that led to it. Honestly, by the time I was done reading I wanted to run upstairs and hug my family for a few hours.
But it gets worse, because the next major player in this is Dr Stanley Williams - Dr. Calvache's advisor as she was getting her doctorate. He decided to run a conference on the Columbian volcano Galeras. But some of the decisions he made would result in the deaths of many, and he himself would be critically injured.
I won't spoil the book with exactly what happened. It's well, well worth the time. At the end of the day, you may also find yourself angered by the pointlessness of the losses on that 1993 day. I know I was.
November 26, 2020
Wow, an incredible book that combines history, earth science, and the human narratives of local people, scientists, politicians, survivors. This was a gripping read from beginning to end, and it was both fascinating and horrifying to watch new discoveries in volcanology unfold through these two eruptions. Also by the end of this book, you will hate a man named Stanley Williams.
February 13, 2017
A gripping read. Kept me right on the edge of my seat. Tells a different story from that offered by the documentary!
June 20, 2020
This was an amazing account of two volcanic eruptions in Colombia - separated by time, distance, severity - and yet linked by the scientists and their attempts to make sense of the information the volcanoes were giving.
Nevado del Ruiz, located in the northern Andean mountains of Colombia between Bogota and Medellin, is a 17,ooo foot giant with glaciers. When this volcano erupted in 1985, it was not the eruption that was so devastating, but the melting of the glaciers and the resultant mudflows. Nearly 23,000 people died in the ensuing disaster as the town of Armero was wiped out of existence. It was a horrible tragedy. In the aftermath, the government turned to scientists for answers - but predictions are difficult and not precise. There were some signals - tornillos - that did seem to precede the eruptions.
Galeras - a smaller (haha - only 14,000 foot) Andean mountain in southern Colombia near Pasto - had a long history of eruptions but none that were as devastating as Nevado. In 1993, a conference of scientists studying volcanos convened in Pasto and the high point of the week was a day of field trips to Galeras. This field trip would prove to be more than they bargained for as the volcano erupted. It then became a fight for survival.
The author presents a case that so much of the tragedy of Galeras - 9 deaths, including 6 of the scientists - was unnecessary and perhaps foreseeable. This is a tale of professional hubris and political wrangling. It is also a tale of unbelievable heroic and selfless acts. Truly a riveting read.
Nevado del Ruiz, located in the northern Andean mountains of Colombia between Bogota and Medellin, is a 17,ooo foot giant with glaciers. When this volcano erupted in 1985, it was not the eruption that was so devastating, but the melting of the glaciers and the resultant mudflows. Nearly 23,000 people died in the ensuing disaster as the town of Armero was wiped out of existence. It was a horrible tragedy. In the aftermath, the government turned to scientists for answers - but predictions are difficult and not precise. There were some signals - tornillos - that did seem to precede the eruptions.
Galeras - a smaller (haha - only 14,000 foot) Andean mountain in southern Colombia near Pasto - had a long history of eruptions but none that were as devastating as Nevado. In 1993, a conference of scientists studying volcanos convened in Pasto and the high point of the week was a day of field trips to Galeras. This field trip would prove to be more than they bargained for as the volcano erupted. It then became a fight for survival.
The author presents a case that so much of the tragedy of Galeras - 9 deaths, including 6 of the scientists - was unnecessary and perhaps foreseeable. This is a tale of professional hubris and political wrangling. It is also a tale of unbelievable heroic and selfless acts. Truly a riveting read.
March 16, 2018
In 1993 a horrible disaster struck the geology community. On January 14 of that year, 13 volcanologists were on a workshop fieldtrip inside the caldera of Galeras, a volcano in southern Columbia, when it erupted killing 6 of the scientists and 3 local tourists. This tragic event shocked and stunned the geological community. But it was preceded by an ever more disastrous eruption that occurred 8 years earlier at Nevado Del Ruiz. Victory Bruce's book takes a critical look at these two volcanic tragedies that struck Columbia.
Victoria writes in a wonderfully easy to read narrative that grabs your attention from the beginning. She lays out the events of the two volcanic eruptions in the form of a crime scene, where you know the final outcome, but not the events and facts leading up to the crime. She leads the reader through the multitude of facts and eyewitness accounts of these two eruptions to give a clear understanding of what happened, and the mistakes that were made.
The book was inspired by the tragedy at Galeras, but to understand the tragedy there, she takes us back 8 years to the eruption at Nevado del Ruiz that caused a lahar to bury the town of Armero, killing 23,000 people. Here we meet Marta Calvache, a Columbian geologist who plays important roles in both events. Marta and her colleagues are a group of bright, young Columbian scientists who are given the responsibility to interpret the activity at Nevado del Ruiz, a task that they admit is over their heads. The Columbian scientists seek out the best international help they can get to help them interpret the volcano, and do their best to warn the government of the danger the volcano poses. In the end, their dire warnings are ignored, and the most tragic volcanic eruption of the twentieth century occurs.
After Nevado del Ruiz, we jump forward 8 years to follow Marta Calvache and other Columbian scientists to the newly active volcano at Galeras. This time, the Columbians have more knowledge and equipment at their disposal, but tragedy again occurs. Victoria Bruce leads us as a detective would, setting the background of the volcano, its history and the facts about its activity leading up to the mild, but fatal eruption in 1993. She intersperses her narrative with quotes from the scientists who worked on the volcano, as well as those scientists who were in the caldera on the day of the eruption and survived. Her narrative leads the reader through a series of events, piecing together the decisions that led to the tragedy, and how it could have been prevented.
The book holds you captive as you walk with the scientists into the heart of the danger. Victoria gives us access to the scientists to listen to their personal thoughts, misgivings and concerns about the tragedy and the safety of their companions. Her descriptions are so vivid, that at times I felt like ducking as I read about the explosion and the volcanic bombs that flew out of the crater. The book is not only a critical look at the two eruptions, but a detailed study of crisis management and the importance of knowing all the facts.
I highly recommend this book for anybody interested in geology, volcanoes, or a good account of tragic events.
Victoria writes in a wonderfully easy to read narrative that grabs your attention from the beginning. She lays out the events of the two volcanic eruptions in the form of a crime scene, where you know the final outcome, but not the events and facts leading up to the crime. She leads the reader through the multitude of facts and eyewitness accounts of these two eruptions to give a clear understanding of what happened, and the mistakes that were made.
The book was inspired by the tragedy at Galeras, but to understand the tragedy there, she takes us back 8 years to the eruption at Nevado del Ruiz that caused a lahar to bury the town of Armero, killing 23,000 people. Here we meet Marta Calvache, a Columbian geologist who plays important roles in both events. Marta and her colleagues are a group of bright, young Columbian scientists who are given the responsibility to interpret the activity at Nevado del Ruiz, a task that they admit is over their heads. The Columbian scientists seek out the best international help they can get to help them interpret the volcano, and do their best to warn the government of the danger the volcano poses. In the end, their dire warnings are ignored, and the most tragic volcanic eruption of the twentieth century occurs.
After Nevado del Ruiz, we jump forward 8 years to follow Marta Calvache and other Columbian scientists to the newly active volcano at Galeras. This time, the Columbians have more knowledge and equipment at their disposal, but tragedy again occurs. Victoria Bruce leads us as a detective would, setting the background of the volcano, its history and the facts about its activity leading up to the mild, but fatal eruption in 1993. She intersperses her narrative with quotes from the scientists who worked on the volcano, as well as those scientists who were in the caldera on the day of the eruption and survived. Her narrative leads the reader through a series of events, piecing together the decisions that led to the tragedy, and how it could have been prevented.
The book holds you captive as you walk with the scientists into the heart of the danger. Victoria gives us access to the scientists to listen to their personal thoughts, misgivings and concerns about the tragedy and the safety of their companions. Her descriptions are so vivid, that at times I felt like ducking as I read about the explosion and the volcanic bombs that flew out of the crater. The book is not only a critical look at the two eruptions, but a detailed study of crisis management and the importance of knowing all the facts.
I highly recommend this book for anybody interested in geology, volcanoes, or a good account of tragic events.
May 1, 2012
Victoria Bruce pieces together eye-witness accounts of two tragic volcano disasters in Colombia. First are the accounts of the eruption of Nevado del Ruiz in 1985 in which mudflows killed over 23,000 people in the surrounding area. The second part of this book details the 1993 eruption of Volcán Galeras which took the lives of nine people (including six scientists) who were in the crater at the time.
Whether or not you’re a geologist (I'm a geologist though, so maybe I'm biased), I think you’ll find this is an interesting and thrilling read. Even though this is a historic event where you know the end result, Victoria Bruce did a great job of recounting the events and filling the pages with suspense. Bruce knows enough about geology to accurately describe the science involved (she has an M.S. in Geology), but she also explains the terms for any readers who are not scientists.
I think one of the take-home messages of this book is that science (and funding for research/technology/etc…) is extremely important. And even when the scientists have the technology, it’s imperative that they know what to do with that knowledge and being able to bridge the gap between pure science and public policy.
I enjoyed reading this book, and I would definitely recommend it. It’s probably not one I would read again (I rarely re-read non-fiction books), but it’s worth a read.
Whether or not you’re a geologist (I'm a geologist though, so maybe I'm biased), I think you’ll find this is an interesting and thrilling read. Even though this is a historic event where you know the end result, Victoria Bruce did a great job of recounting the events and filling the pages with suspense. Bruce knows enough about geology to accurately describe the science involved (she has an M.S. in Geology), but she also explains the terms for any readers who are not scientists.
I think one of the take-home messages of this book is that science (and funding for research/technology/etc…) is extremely important. And even when the scientists have the technology, it’s imperative that they know what to do with that knowledge and being able to bridge the gap between pure science and public policy.
I enjoyed reading this book, and I would definitely recommend it. It’s probably not one I would read again (I rarely re-read non-fiction books), but it’s worth a read.
May 4, 2016
Not Just Another Disaster Story
The knowledge imparted by this book is widespread, covering information on subjects from South American geology to the current political woes in Columbia. It introduces you to leading scientists in volcanology, geology, and other related fields of study. However, this book is not a dry textbook. The knowledge is interspersed with the lives and concerns of the scientists in the forefront of the story.
Told in a steady, forthright manner, the book presents the events surrounding Nevado del Ruiz and Galeras, two "quiet" volcanos in Columbia. Something happened on top of Galeras to temporarily turn that insignificant volcano into a focal point for arguments and discoveries that rattled the scientific community. It may seem to some that the Galeras disaster is the story here but in fact it is much broader than that. It is a book about people responding to extraordinary circumstances and about governments learning to provide for the safety of their people.
The knowledge imparted by this book is widespread, covering information on subjects from South American geology to the current political woes in Columbia. It introduces you to leading scientists in volcanology, geology, and other related fields of study. However, this book is not a dry textbook. The knowledge is interspersed with the lives and concerns of the scientists in the forefront of the story.
Told in a steady, forthright manner, the book presents the events surrounding Nevado del Ruiz and Galeras, two "quiet" volcanos in Columbia. Something happened on top of Galeras to temporarily turn that insignificant volcano into a focal point for arguments and discoveries that rattled the scientific community. It may seem to some that the Galeras disaster is the story here but in fact it is much broader than that. It is a book about people responding to extraordinary circumstances and about governments learning to provide for the safety of their people.
October 1, 2016
I had vague memories of hearing about the scientists killed in a volcanic eruption but didn't remember any of the details. This book tells the stories of the Nevado del Ruiz eruption which caused a mudslide that buried a small town in Colombia and the Galeras eruption in 1993 in which 6 scientists lost their lives.
Victoria Bruce, the author, is a geologist and does an excellent job of giving the reader a grounding in vulcanology. She explains the different sorts of volcanoes and how plate tectonics is related to vulcanism. In addition to writing an informative book, she has written a tale that really held my interest. She introduces us to a few of the key players in the drama and makes them people we care about, in addition to being able to create tension even though the reader knows how things come out. The details Bruce includes make the people and events real.
It was a great read. If I see any other books by Victoria Bruce I'll probably snap them up.
Victoria Bruce, the author, is a geologist and does an excellent job of giving the reader a grounding in vulcanology. She explains the different sorts of volcanoes and how plate tectonics is related to vulcanism. In addition to writing an informative book, she has written a tale that really held my interest. She introduces us to a few of the key players in the drama and makes them people we care about, in addition to being able to create tension even though the reader knows how things come out. The details Bruce includes make the people and events real.
It was a great read. If I see any other books by Victoria Bruce I'll probably snap them up.
April 29, 2017
Setting the record straight
This book provides a behind-the-scenes account of two Columbian volcanic eruptions. It is a stark reminder about the dangers in complacency. Unfortunately, much of the information communicated in the US news media about Galeras was based on one person's slanted perspective. The author has done a service in setting the record straight. The author manages the scientific material well, portraying it in easy-to-understand language. I learned a lot about the science of predicting eruptions. I recommend this book to anyone interested in volcanoes or natural disasters.
This book provides a behind-the-scenes account of two Columbian volcanic eruptions. It is a stark reminder about the dangers in complacency. Unfortunately, much of the information communicated in the US news media about Galeras was based on one person's slanted perspective. The author has done a service in setting the record straight. The author manages the scientific material well, portraying it in easy-to-understand language. I learned a lot about the science of predicting eruptions. I recommend this book to anyone interested in volcanoes or natural disasters.
May 13, 2018
Great book
I loved reading this book and couldn,t put it down.I have always had an interest in the subject of volcanology and geology and I felt I was in the crater of Galerus with the scientists so gripping was the tale.
As for Stanley Williams,what a shame he tried to take all the long period event study that belonged to Bernard Chouet.A tale of hubris resulting in the deaths of many people
A wonderful book by Victoria Bruce.if you are interested in the subject,or not,you will find this a fascinating story.
I loved reading this book and couldn,t put it down.I have always had an interest in the subject of volcanology and geology and I felt I was in the crater of Galerus with the scientists so gripping was the tale.
As for Stanley Williams,what a shame he tried to take all the long period event study that belonged to Bernard Chouet.A tale of hubris resulting in the deaths of many people
A wonderful book by Victoria Bruce.if you are interested in the subject,or not,you will find this a fascinating story.
May 29, 2018
An excellent book about human's interactions with volcanoes. The stories are well researched and I appreciated Bruce's background as a geologist and journalist. This book is well written and tells two compelling stories of the 1985 eruption of Nevado de Ruiz and the 1993 eruption of Galeras, both in Colombia. Recommended to anyone who like good narrative nonfiction, stories of natural distastes, or is curious about how a scientific community fits in to our greater world.
Read
October 26, 2009I've always heard about the disaster at Armero, when the Nevado del Ruiz volcano buried a town of 20,000 people. I was surprised to find such an excellent book about the disaster and the ensuing explosion at Galeras in Pastro. Bruce has written a great book about volcanoes, but it's also a great book about Colombia.
September 12, 2016
Truth wins!!
A great story of adventure, scientific expedition, and tragedy in the study of of Colombia's Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz volcanos. Victoria Bruce has done the science academy, history, and human honor and integrity a great service in writing this book!
A great story of adventure, scientific expedition, and tragedy in the study of of Colombia's Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz volcanos. Victoria Bruce has done the science academy, history, and human honor and integrity a great service in writing this book!
Read
September 20, 2016In-depth about a couple of volcanoes. Very interesting. Amazingly detailed about the damage a volcano can do. Covers the state of eruption science at the time, and how the community and government can respond.
June 28, 2019
An unflinching, often gruesome account of the tragedies at Nevado del Ruiz in 1985 and Galeras in 1993. Both volcanic disaster stories will have you clenching your fists in fury at the negligence and arrogance that led to so much loss of life, but there are plenty of heroes to be found here too.
October 22, 2020
Volcanic Eruptions and Egotistical "Scientists" Don't Mix
The author brought to light the true story of a horrible tragedy that one scientist tried to use as his stepping stone into notoriety within the scientific community of volcanology. The disgust I feel for the conference leader, Stanley Williams, is overwhelming. How could a so called " expert" ignore all of the signs that a volcano is active and in eminent danger of erupting take a group of scientists on a field trip to the caldera and crater of said volcano with no safety plan, safety equipment or evacuation plan. He completely ignored all of the evidence staring him in the face and outright lied to these scientists about the safety of the trip. Then afterwards to claim he was the sole survivor, take credit for another scientist's work that proved the danger involved and made other scientists out to be liars is beyond my comprehension.
No Apparent Danger tells the story of two expeditions in which a volcano erupted while workers were within the caldera/crater and the tragic aftermath of the events. It is an extremely interesting and well written book about both events, and the audacity of an "expert" scientist wannabe that caused one of the worst disasters to the volcanic scientific community ever. It was an eye opening book, and I learned a lot from it. I highly recommend it to anyone who has interest in natural events and, in particular volcanos.
The author brought to light the true story of a horrible tragedy that one scientist tried to use as his stepping stone into notoriety within the scientific community of volcanology. The disgust I feel for the conference leader, Stanley Williams, is overwhelming. How could a so called " expert" ignore all of the signs that a volcano is active and in eminent danger of erupting take a group of scientists on a field trip to the caldera and crater of said volcano with no safety plan, safety equipment or evacuation plan. He completely ignored all of the evidence staring him in the face and outright lied to these scientists about the safety of the trip. Then afterwards to claim he was the sole survivor, take credit for another scientist's work that proved the danger involved and made other scientists out to be liars is beyond my comprehension.
No Apparent Danger tells the story of two expeditions in which a volcano erupted while workers were within the caldera/crater and the tragic aftermath of the events. It is an extremely interesting and well written book about both events, and the audacity of an "expert" scientist wannabe that caused one of the worst disasters to the volcanic scientific community ever. It was an eye opening book, and I learned a lot from it. I highly recommend it to anyone who has interest in natural events and, in particular volcanos.
November 13, 2020
An excellent book detailing the horrors of Nevado del Ruiz and Galeras eruptions! The full horrors weren't just the natural disasters but also the failures in organisational behaviour that led to so many lives being needlessly lost. In the case of Nevado del Ruiz, scientists were ignored in favour of religion and historical bias, and in Galeras, improper HSE practises and ego contributed to disaster.
Of particular interest to me were the events leading up to the Galeras eruption. I've been a geoscientist for 12 years and have worked in O&G exploration, seismology and economic geology in that time. I'd heard the rumours about Williams, specifically the alleged role he played in Galeras and the exaggerated stories / lies he told afterwards, as well as his 'theft' of Chouet's intellectual work. Victoria has written a compelling and highly readable page-turning account of the events and her significant research and interviewing has paid off. It's easy to see who to believe when there clearly were other survivors, Chouet was already known for his work on long-period seismicity for predicting eruptions, and those at Galeras present a different account to Williams.
Ultimately, lives were lost as a result of organisational failures and the lessons learned shouldn't be forgotten.
Of particular interest to me were the events leading up to the Galeras eruption. I've been a geoscientist for 12 years and have worked in O&G exploration, seismology and economic geology in that time. I'd heard the rumours about Williams, specifically the alleged role he played in Galeras and the exaggerated stories / lies he told afterwards, as well as his 'theft' of Chouet's intellectual work. Victoria has written a compelling and highly readable page-turning account of the events and her significant research and interviewing has paid off. It's easy to see who to believe when there clearly were other survivors, Chouet was already known for his work on long-period seismicity for predicting eruptions, and those at Galeras present a different account to Williams.
Ultimately, lives were lost as a result of organisational failures and the lessons learned shouldn't be forgotten.
December 30, 2019
An interesting look at the world of volcanology involving two late 20th century eruptions in Columbia, Nevado del Ruiz and Legeras.
I was surprised to learn that the 1985 Nevado eruption was the second highest death toll for a volcanic eruption in the 20th century after Mt Pelee on Martinique in 1902. One of the faults of the book is it does not say what the prior eruption was or give much background on volcanoes in general. A passing reference was made to the two French volcanologists who perished in an eruption but the author didn't mention their names, the year or the specific eruption. I had to look it up.
The book was a look at two volcano experts and their competing theories on on the best methodology for predicting of eruptions. One of the author's points is that the leader of the expedition, Stanley Williams, clung to his pet theory for predicting eruptions while ignoring a more compelling theory with a good predictive record which ultimately led to the 6 scientists and 3 civilians that perished in the eruption.
The second method of prediction that was ignored was the appearance of long period (i.e., low frequency) waves on seismographs prior to eruptions. The author described the general appearance of these wave forms but did not include photos of the seismographs in the book.
A lesser factor was the cavalier attitude Williams took toward safety measures for this expedition. Safety equipment like hard hats, fire proof clothing and gas masks were not used and they lingered in the volcano rather than making the visit as brief as possible.
I was surprised to learn that the 1985 Nevado eruption was the second highest death toll for a volcanic eruption in the 20th century after Mt Pelee on Martinique in 1902. One of the faults of the book is it does not say what the prior eruption was or give much background on volcanoes in general. A passing reference was made to the two French volcanologists who perished in an eruption but the author didn't mention their names, the year or the specific eruption. I had to look it up.
The book was a look at two volcano experts and their competing theories on on the best methodology for predicting of eruptions. One of the author's points is that the leader of the expedition, Stanley Williams, clung to his pet theory for predicting eruptions while ignoring a more compelling theory with a good predictive record which ultimately led to the 6 scientists and 3 civilians that perished in the eruption.
The second method of prediction that was ignored was the appearance of long period (i.e., low frequency) waves on seismographs prior to eruptions. The author described the general appearance of these wave forms but did not include photos of the seismographs in the book.
A lesser factor was the cavalier attitude Williams took toward safety measures for this expedition. Safety equipment like hard hats, fire proof clothing and gas masks were not used and they lingered in the volcano rather than making the visit as brief as possible.
February 10, 2019
An extremely fast-paced read that had greater depth than I expected. I assumed it would be your sort of standard popular science disaster book, and it does that very well, but by the end you've uncovered a story with a darker root in scientific malpractice and intellectual dishonesty. Frankly, an all-too familiar story of a mediocre white man getting people killed and trying to cover up his own failings.
Bruce writes with compassion and assurance, and deftly handles a specific case study with universal implications and warnings.
Bruce writes with compassion and assurance, and deftly handles a specific case study with universal implications and warnings.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 3, 2018
The think I remember most about the book is you can't trust TV interviews. One of the scientists went on TV and told big time lies. Because it made "good" TV and network was so eager to be first to cover his story it was never checked out. When the network was informed of the truth, no correction was every made. Once again Fake News. You can't trust anything that you see on TV or hear on the radio.
February 15, 2019
In 1985 in Columbia, more than 23,000 people died due to the government's failure to take seriously scientists' warnings about an imminent volcanic eruption at Nevado del Ruiz. In 1993, at Volcán Galeras, the death toll was smaller but no less tragic: despite seismic data that foretold possible disaster, an expedition of international scientists proceeded into the volcano. Two hours later, nine people were dead. Interesting but not compelling.
June 17, 2017
Stunning book.
I don't know a lot about volcanoes but this book is a real eye opener.
It is also a story about lives lost because one person convinced his team it was safe to go into the volcano. Then to make matters worse he began to tell the story of the eruption as though there were no warnings and he alone came out a live.
A sad story of human life lost.
I don't know a lot about volcanoes but this book is a real eye opener.
It is also a story about lives lost because one person convinced his team it was safe to go into the volcano. Then to make matters worse he began to tell the story of the eruption as though there were no warnings and he alone came out a live.
A sad story of human life lost.
January 18, 2022
. I did find that I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. No I was left wondering what really is the truth between the scientists and what happened at the second volcano. I found it interesting that even the scientists do not agree on what is happening with the volcanoes.
September 17, 2022
This was intense, but the ending really threw me for a loop! I wasn't expecting the politics to come into it, and it makes me wish a bit of it had been stated up front, rather than randomly in an epilogue. A terrible tragedy, and seemingly preventable.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews