3 ms·

> The eruption didn't kill that person, gung-ho working practices and the lack of strictly adhering to something like OSHA killed that person. The eruption kil

> The eruption didn't kill that person, gung-ho working practices and the lack of strictly adhering to something like OSHA killed that person. The eruption killed them, however it's phrased. I'm aware of the semantic arguments, but it's a mistake to apply them to reality and I'm not going to engage with them with a person dead and more threatened, including the person who posted above! > the immediate cause is needless and dangerous expediency Why should we believe that and not the government?

avar 3y ago
> The eruption killed them There wasn't any eruption at the time. There was ongoing seismic shifting and land uplift, that's why the fissures were forming. It happened to erupt shortly afterwards, but the way these things go that's just happenstance. The geology service did not suspect an imminent eruption at the time of the evacuation. In retrospect it was good that the town was evacuated at the time, and probably the previous evacuation shouldn't have been lifted. I'm just noting the chronology and what was stated and known at the time. > I'm not going to engage with them with a person dead. Well, you'd feel right at home in Iceland, but personally I wish it had more of the US's attitude of mandatory and critical root cause investigations when workplace deaths occur. > Why should we believe that and not the government? I think the facts speak for themselves. Up-thread I linked to an article by a local professor of volcanology basically agreeing with what I'm saying here. It's in Icelandic, but Google Translate does a decent job of it if you're interested.