3 ms·
Given that CO2 levels in the lake have now built up again to be even higher than they were in 1986, according to this article, I wonder if they shouldn't evacua
by ScottBurson 10y ago
Given that CO2 levels in the lake have now built up again to be even higher than they were in 1986, according to this article, I wonder if they shouldn't evacuate the area and see if they can set the thing off intentionally. Seems like explosives might do it -- like shaking a soda can.
- eCa 10y agoThat reminded me of an old Alistair McNeil novel set in another geographic area where a natural catastrophy can be expected at some point in time[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye_California
- tikhonj 10y agoPretty similar to the plot of A View to a Kill[1] too (an okay Jame Bond movie set in Silicon Valley back when it was aptly named). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_View_to_a_Kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_View_to_a_Kill
- fastball 10y agoI dunno, last time scientists tried to jumpstart a natural process to alleviate danger, they ended up with a flaming pit that hasn't stopped burning for more than 40 years... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell
- dpark 10y agoAn interesting question is whether this is better than the alternative: methane leaking into the atmosphere for 40 years. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so unless there was a viable plan to cap the crater, this might have been the lesser of evils. But maybe not. I don't know what the other options were. Maybe it would have self-extinguished the methane leak if it weren't literally on fire.