3 ms·

So, let me get this straight. People are standing on this land mass that, prior to this earthquake, was underwater. Wouldn't it be funny if another quake hit

So, let me get this straight. People are standing on this land mass that, prior to this earthquake, was underwater. Wouldn't it be funny if another quake hit and made it go back under water? I'm a decent swimmer and probably swim somewhere around five to seven miles per week (open water and pool). I would wait a while before getting on that land mass. Maybe I'm too paranoid.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
Actually if you read the BBC article it is the mud shell of a giant bubble of flammable gas. So what would be "funny" would be to have the think pop under them and engulf them in a huge fireball explosion. Ok, so not funny, but they mention also in the BBC article to 'igniting' one of the gas leaks and then having a heck of a time putting it out again. If it is methane, they would be better off leaving it lit and burning as the CO2 would be less of a greenhouse gas than the methane, and it would prevent buildup of unburnt gas which increases the fire hazard. Of course they could build a magical city on it with its own source of power that could develop advanced technologies and then sink into the ocean never to be heard from again :-)
- dllthomas 13y ago
  My vague recollection is that CH4 is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but CO2 is much longer lived. Of course, if the methane just breaks down into CO2 anyway (which strikes me as likely), burning it is still a win...
- NovemberWest 13y ago
  Of course they could build a magical city on it with its own source of power that could develop advanced technologies and then sink into the ocean never to be heard from again :-) I propose we dub it Atlantis. Edit: Signed, Captain Obvious
  - UIZealot 13y ago
    > I propose we dub it Atlantis. Indiantis?
    - NovemberWest 13y ago
      Indianis. Sure. (Indiantis sounds like indianitis, an inflammatory condition, apparently. ;) )

ChuckMcM 13y ago

Actually if you read the BBC article it is the mud shell of a giant bubble of flammable gas. So what would be "funny" would be to have the think pop under them and engulf them in a huge fireball explosion. Ok, so not funny, but they mention also in the BBC article to 'igniting' one of the gas leaks and then having a heck of a time putting it out again. If it is methane, they would be better off leaving it lit and burning as the CO2 would be less of a greenhouse gas than the methane, and it would prevent buildup of unburnt gas which increases the fire hazard. Of course they could build a magical city on it with its own source of power that could develop advanced technologies and then sink into the ocean never to be heard from again :-)

dllthomas 13y ago
My vague recollection is that CH4 is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but CO2 is much longer lived. Of course, if the methane just breaks down into CO2 anyway (which strikes me as likely), burning it is still a win...
NovemberWest 13y ago
Of course they could build a magical city on it with its own source of power that could develop advanced technologies and then sink into the ocean never to be heard from again :-) I propose we dub it Atlantis. Edit: Signed, Captain Obvious
- UIZealot 13y ago
  > I propose we dub it Atlantis. Indiantis?
  - NovemberWest 13y ago
    Indianis. Sure. (Indiantis sounds like indianitis, an inflammatory condition, apparently. ;) )