Editorial Review:
In 1985 in Columbia, more than 23,000 people died due to the government's failure to take seriously scientists' warnings about an imminent volcanic eruption at Nevado del Ruiz. In 1993, at Volcán Galeras, the death toll was smaller but no less tragic: despite seismic data that foretold possible disaster, an expedition of international scientists proceeded into the volcano. Two hours later, nine people were dead.Expertly detailing the turbulent history of Colombia, Victoria Bruce links together the stories of the heroes, villains, survivors, and victims of these two events. No Apparent Danger is a spellbinding account of clashing cultures and the life-and-death consequences of scientific arrogance.
Cached date: AWS Called=true
You may also be interested in these products:
These categories may also be of interest to you:
Customer Reviews
Average Customer Rating: 
Well-written, so one can focus on the controversy!  2004-06-25
Bruce's book is well-written and describes the geological processes involved in a clear and simple fashion.At first I wasn't really sure why she had chosen to write about both the Nevado Del Ruiz and Galeras eruptions, but it became clear that she was following the professional development of the Columbian volcanologists and the Columbian governmental response to volcanic disasters. The information provided about the politics and civil unrest concurrent with the volcanic eruptions and the effects on ability of the scientists to recieve funding, equipment and international help is VERY interesting. It's obvious that the most contraversial part of this account is the role played by Stan Williams as the field trip leader on the fateful excursion into the Galeras caldera. While volcanologists are aware of the potential risks associated with visiting a volcano, I would have wanted to be aware of the occurrence of the tell-tale tornillos. It didn't seem like there was a complete overview of the current state of Galeras prior to the field trips such that each participant could determine their own level of risk-taking. It was also not clear to me that Zapata in fact relayed the information about the tornillo during the morning of the trip to Williams. Did Williams know about the recent tornillo? After all, Zapata was the only one with a radio. As with any tragedy, the events raise more questions than answers. It seems to me that the tragedy was the result of many different small events that primarily become clear in hinesight. While safety measures used in previous trips likely should have been used during the fated excursion, _none_ of the scientists that went on the trip were completely unaware of the danger involved. Williams is not to _blame_ for the tragedy, but he is certainly _responsible_ for the people on HIS field trip, simply because he was the leader. It can be argued that he should have taken better precautions and that is where Williams's regrets should lie. It's obvious that some of the participants knew Williams's level of concern was not as high as their own and they intelligently chose to wear their own safety gear. (Did the other participants have access to safety gear if they had wanted it?) Regardless of the controversy surrounding the field trip, Bruce also does a good job of describing (and perhaps becoming somewhat involved in) the politics of science in general. When I started graduate school, I was completely naive about the politics of money, research and publishing - grant writing, intellectual property, etc. Bruce provides a brief but revealing look at how politics also drive science. Science isn't a clear cut, straightforward pursuit. Bruce certainly portrays this fact quite clearly in her book. I certainly recommend reading this book along with Stan Williams's book as counterpoint.
One-sided and questionable research methods 2003-09-12
I was on Galeras volcano 10 years ago when it erupted. Like most of the other volcanologists at the Pasto, Colombia meeting to study Galeras I did not go into the crater, but was looking at deposits on the outer flanks when the eruption occurred. Stanley Williams had stressed the danger of going inside, and only those making data collections went with him into the crater. Victoria Bruce's book is largely an attack on Williams. She is correct in some assertions- Williams is (or was - he is only a shadow of his former self now) a maverick who argued with parts of the volcanological establishment. He also formed many productive working arrangements with scientists from a variety disciplines, especially with students and young volcanologists from Colombia and the other countries he worked in. I object to Bruce's research methods - she called me twice to ask about the Colombian meeting and the events of the eruption. She never gave any hint that her book would be an attack on Williams and she never asked me critical questions about his leadership. After I read her book I felt that her approach to me as a participant had not been honest. By necessity Bruce talked to volcanologists only after the eruption, and by that time volcanologists as a profession had realized that their previous somewhat cavelier methods of researching active volcanoes needed to change. But Williams' expedition into Galeras was typical of most of the visits I have made to erupting volcanoes with various trip leaders. Perhaps volcanologists were taking dumb risks, but only a handful of volcanologists had died in eruptions before, and the risks seemed worth taking in light of the heightened learning opportunities. My concern with Bruce's book is that her criticism of Williams is too harsh; he was blamed for the sins of the profession, and perhaps volcanologists he had disagreed with in the past could see only his weaknesses and not also his strengths. In some ways this was tearing down a scrappy, non-conformist who was a sometimes too successful competitor for grants and scientific acclaim. Galeras was ten years ago; Bruce's book, and Williams' are a few years old. Everyone moves on, but I'd like the reader of these reviews to consider that Williams might not have been the self-centered egotist depicted in Bruce's book, but a flawed human unfairly treated in a book about a tragedy that surprised all of us on the volcano. Chuck Wood
The volcano eruptions at Nevado del Ruiz and Galeras. 2002-08-01
There are two stories in this book. The first is about the eruption of the Nevado del Ruiz volcano that resulted in the deaths of 23,000 people. The second is the death of six scientists and three Columbians in the Galeras eruption. The scientists killed were led by Stan Williams, who also substained very serious injuries. The three Columbians were local hikers in the area.
If the focus was on numbers, Bruce should have concentrated her studies on the Nevado del Ruiz eruption that killed so many Columbians because of the mud slides. This was not done, but the focus was on diminishing the egotistical Stan Williams who led six of his companions to death. Both stories are worth a book of their own.
Great investigative reporting 2002-07-16
Victoria Bruce is a fearless academic detective. She also happens to be a pretty good writer. "The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz" is a gripping tale of human error and vanity. Bruce reports how Colombians relied heavily on American and European volcanologists for guidance and funding. The book is two parts. The destruction of Armero and its 23,000 residents by Nevado del Ruiz is one of the world's worst disasters. However, the tale of what took place at Galeras is far more interesting. It uncovers fraud. It shows that Stanley Williams promoted his career at the expense of others and proves that his scientific arrogance led to the unnecessary loss of life at Galeras. In addition, Victoria Bruce masterfully conquers two major obstacles in this book. First, she explains the complexities of geology in a simplistic fashion and secondly she properly describes the violence inside Colombia with intellectual honesty.
WHEN SCIENTISTS GO TOO FAR 2002-03-07
I was impressed by the overall tenor of the book, but found it murky in terms of continuity at times. The last few chapers clear up much of the confusion. The book is to be lauded for its capable detective work and straightforward nature of revealing what is not only a human tragedy, but a scientific scandal.
Dr. Williams has been a master of self-aggrandizement ever since the Galeras incident. He seems oblivious to the role of his own neglect in causing the tragedy. I have observed this on several television interviews involving him.
This carefully-researched book brings this unfortunate series of attributes forth without malice or rancor being shown: a prodigious task in light of the plain facts.
As with other human endeavors, science is prone to human frailties such as pride, unduly tenacious stubbornness, and simple inattention. This book is valuable in presenting a prototypical instance of that deficiency. One can only hope that, with the passage of time, the unfortunate Professor Williams will reflect more on what was truly an avoidable mishap, and strive less to attempt to vindicate the unvindicatable
|
|
