The Decade Volcanoes

They might not truly be the "World's Most Deadly Volcanoes", but IAVCEI's "Decade Volcanoes" are a list that shows just intertwined human society and volcanoes really are.

Ulawun Volcano, Papau New Guinea, one of the "Decade Volcanoes"

There was some discussion earlier about the so-called "Decade Volcanoes", so I thought I'd elaborate a bit on them (doubly so in light of certain other lists.) These volcanoes are defined by IAVCEI - the International Association of Volcanology and the Chemistry of the Earth's Interior - and are part of a program whose aim is

"to direct attention to a small number of selected, active volcanoes world-wide and to encourage the establishment of a range of research and public-awareness activities aimed at enhancing an understanding of the volcanoes and the hazards posed by them."

More or less, it is a list of what could be considered the most hazardous volcanoes on the planet - at least in terms of hazards to people and property. The programs brings together geologists and government officials to research the volcanoes and better prepare for the next eruption. The USGS has a map showing were these volcanoes are located but I thought I'd list them here as well. Many are familiar names here on Eruptions, other are a little less prominent, at least in terms of recent activity. I've tried to link to any information I have on the volcanoes on the blog, but all of these are both fascinating and dangerous volcanoes.

  1. Avachinsky-Koryaksky, Kamchatka
  2. Colima, Mexico
  3. Etna, Italy
  4. Galeras, Colombia
  5. Mauna Loa, USA
  6. Merapi, Indonesia
  7. Nyiragongo, Dem. Rep. of the Congo
  8. Rainier, USA
  9. Sakurajima, Japan
  10. Santa Maria/Santiaguito, Guatemala
  11. Santorini, Greece
  12. Taal, Philippines
  13. Teide, Spain (Canary Islands)
  14. Ulawun, Papau New Guinea
  15. Unzen, Japan
  16. Vesuvius, Italy
  17. (And if you're curious what "decade" this refers to, its 1990-2000, the decade of "International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction". Maybe you missed between all the Nirvana, Macarena and Gen X, eh?)

In 1999, David Bowie knew the internet would change the world

Musican. Actor. Fashion Icon. Internet Visionary?

Technology & Innovation
  • David Bowie was well known as a rock star, but somehow his other interests and accomplishments remain obscure.
  • In this 1999 interview, he explains why he knows the internet is more than just a tool and why it was destined to change the world.
  • He launched his own internet service provider in 1998, BowieNet. It ceased operations in 2006.
Keep reading Show less

People who constantly complain are harmful to your health

Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.

Photo credit: Getty Images / Stringer

Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.

Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.

Keep reading Show less

​Is science synonymous with 'truth'? Game theory says, 'not always.'

Good science is sometimes trumped by the craving for a "big splash."

  • Scientists strive to earn credit from their peers, for grants from federal agencies, and so a lot of the decisions that they make are strategic in nature. They're encouraged to publish exciting new findings that demonstrate some new phenomenon that we have never seen before.
  • This professional pressure can affect their decision-making — to get acclaim they may actually make science worse. That is, a scientist might commit fraud if he thinks he can get away with it or a scientist might rush a result out of the door even though it hasn't been completely verified in order to beat the competition.
  • On top of the acclaim of their peers, scientists — with the increasing popularity of science journalism — are starting to be rewarded for doing things that the public is interested in. The good side of this is that the research is more likely to have a public impact, rather than be esoteric. The bad side? To make a "big splash" a scientist may push a study or article that doesn't exemplify good science.