Scary, yes. But it's funny really in some regards, when you think about our tolerance to risk - I live practically on top of the Alpine Fault yet barely give it a second thought. And we're up in Auckland for the weekend - I was surprised to discover that Rangitoto Island is only 600 years old - 2M+ people living 'on' a barely dormant volcano is kinda terrifying.
I'm sure there's a name for the formal Fallacy that applies here - Acceptable Risk maybe?
Well, I guess when you size up the risk it may not actually be that high compared to everyday activities. What's the risk of being killed in a car crash vs a volcanic eruption happening on Rangitoto over the course of a lifetime?
I volunteer with LandSAR and one of the things they drill into us is risk vs consequence. Yes, the risk of something may be low, but if the consequences are high then you should seriously consider another option... At least in theory 😂
You make a good point. An eruption big enough to kill a lot of people (say, 500k) might only happen once in 10 million years. But if it does happen, the country is pretty fucked.
Lucky for us (or them), we can mitigate against the threat. GeoNet does monitor the Auckland volcanic field for activity, and in theory, we would get advanced notice of an eruption and be able to evacuate people. Hopefully you guys have plenty of space down south because if an eruption big enough to kill 500k people ever happens, it will probably make most of the North Island unlivable for some time.
Hubris
Alright, well I’ll cross that place off my rental search list.
Oh thank god, I seriously misinterpreted that headline.
Wow, title is from the article but now you mention it, it could easily be interpreted as reporting there was a tsunami and everyone is presumed dead... I have edited it to make it sound less like reporting on a disaster.
Serves me right for not reading the news more regularly ha ha.
Haha I think we can blame the poorly worded title.