Gov. Jindal Follow-up: What Is 'Volcano Monitoring'? (we cannot possibly survive without it dude)

Live Science ^ | Wed Feb 25, 2009 | Andrea Thompson

[presidio9]

After President Obama's speech on the economy last night, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal criticized government spending in the stimulus bill, citing examples including "$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.'"

The $140 million to which Jindal referred is actually for a number of projects conducted by the United States Geological Survey, including volcano monitoring. This monitoring is aimed at helping geologists understand the inner workings of volcanoes as well as providing warnings of impending eruptions, in the United States and in active areas around the world where U.S. military bases are located.

Most of the money from the stimulus bill earmarked for monitoring (only about a tenth of the total going to the USGS) will go to modernizing existing monitoring equipment, including switching from analog to digital and installing GPS networks that can measure ground movements, said John Eichelberger, program coordinator for the USGS's Volcano Hazards Program. Much of the expense of this technology comes from the manpower required to make and install it, he added.

"Ultimately most of this creates jobs or saves jobs that would have been lost" to recent budget shortfalls Eichelberger told LiveScience.

When he heard Jindal's remarks, Eichelberger said he "was frankly astonished" that the governor would use this particular example, given his own state's recent brush with a catastrophic natural disaster.

Among the scenarios in which the USGS's monitoring can assist - the catastrophic eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, which killed 57 people (including a geologist monitoring the mountain) and was the deadliest and costliest volcanic eruption in U.S. history ($2.74 billion in 2007 dollars). This event was preceded by thousands of

[conservative cat]

I actually studied lahar maps before we went home shopping. Now, if I could find an earthquake proof place to live that didn’t have hurricanes or tornadoes, I’d be really happy!

[presidio9]

Personally, I'd move Orting to higher ground.

Also, the entire west coast is in danger of falling into the Pacific Ocean when The Big One hits. We should move the entire state of California into Nevada, without forcing anyone to convert to Mormon. And since NYC is particularly subject to camoflage attack, we should also move this city, but not tell anyone.

If Mt. Rainier erupts, now or 1000 years from now, every victim would be sympathetic. But if you're living there now, and it makes you feel uneasy, the answer is: move. There's not the slightest thing the combined resources of humanity could do to prevent or ameliorate an eruption powerful enough to take out the port, wich is the only strategic interest that location has to the nation as a whole. Again, if you don't like living there, don't live there.