Netflix The Volcano: Rescue from Whakaari

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think those visitors signed up for it knowing it was an active volcano?

I don't know. "Active" isn't very well-defined. If something is open for tourism, wouldn't you assume that it's safe? It didn't seem to be advertised as a risky excursion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think those visitors signed up for it knowing it was an active volcano?

This is a really sad story but also a cautionary tale to heed warnings. Thrw agency in New Zealand had an increased risk warning for tourists as did the tour company. I am sorry for the people who lost their lives but it’s kind of like when people go to North Korea for a tour.

Does anyone know what "increased risk" means? This is like having a minor surgery and being told there is a risk of death, choking, etc. We are constantly told about risk and asked to sign waivers. If there was actual substantial risk, that's totally different. The documentary makes clear that the volcano had previously erupted in 2013 and 2016 and it was 2019. It really should have been closed off.

I read an article that had the language of the warning. I think it was pretty clear. And the warning was issued about a month before the eruption based on increased gas emissions and a recent earthquake. So it was not a Generic warning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think those visitors signed up for it knowing it was an active volcano?

This is a really sad story but also a cautionary tale to heed warnings. Thrw agency in New Zealand had an increased risk warning for tourists as did the tour company. I am sorry for the people who lost their lives but it’s kind of like when people go to North Korea for a tour.

Agreed. Some of the tourists in the documentary talked about how much they loved doing 'adventurous' things. But adventure, especially in nature, comes with a risk. Perhaps the tour company could have made the risk clearer (along with the fact that the volcano had been at a higher alert level for several weeks, to the point where government scientists were not allowed to go to it for fieldwork), but I wonder if even then some tourists would have still chosen to go 'for the adventure'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think those visitors signed up for it knowing it was an active volcano?

This is a really sad story but also a cautionary tale to heed warnings. Thrw agency in New Zealand had an increased risk warning for tourists as did the tour company. I am sorry for the people who lost their lives but it’s kind of like when people go to North Korea for a tour.

Agreed. Some of the tourists in the documentary talked about how much they loved doing 'adventurous' things. But adventure, especially in nature, comes with a risk. Perhaps the tour company could have made the risk clearer (along with the fact that the volcano had been at a higher alert level for several weeks, to the point where government scientists were not allowed to go to it for fieldwork), but I wonder if even then some tourists would have still chosen to go 'for the adventure'.

This is not true. Government scientists were allowed to go. They just happened to not have any trips scheduled in the week or so right before the eruption, but they had been going before that. There was never a time when the scientists determined it was too dangerous for them to go. They knew the volcano was at increased risk of erupting but had no idea an eruption was imminent. You can Google for lots of articles about how and why scientists didn’t predict the eruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it was long enough. Too much time spent on lead up to the island. 7 people didn’t get burned. I would have loved to know exactly where they were on the island and were exactly the people who died were on the island.

Then more time spent on the recovery. So many people were in the hospital for months. Then there are liability laws in new Zealand which are so different.

I read there were 3 people who did not get injured, and I agree. I’d like to know how that possibly happened. Maybe they all made it to the water and were under water?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think those visitors signed up for it knowing it was an active volcano?

This is a really sad story but also a cautionary tale to heed warnings. Thrw agency in New Zealand had an increased risk warning for tourists as did the tour company. I am sorry for the people who lost their lives but it’s kind of like when people go to North Korea for a tour.

Agreed. Some of the tourists in the documentary talked about how much they loved doing 'adventurous' things. But adventure, especially in nature, comes with a risk. Perhaps the tour company could have made the risk clearer (along with the fact that the volcano had been at a higher alert level for several weeks, to the point where government scientists were not allowed to go to it for fieldwork), but I wonder if even then some tourists would have still chosen to go 'for the adventure'.

This is not true. Government scientists were allowed to go. They just happened to not have any trips scheduled in the week or so right before the eruption, but they had been going before that. There was never a time when the scientists determined it was too dangerous for them to go. They knew the volcano was at increased risk of erupting but had no idea an eruption was imminent. You can Google for lots of articles about how and why scientists didn’t predict the eruption.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122190537/gns-banned-scientists-from-going-near-vents-a-week-before-white-island-eruption-claimed-21-lives

[Anonymous]

I think they said the volcano was a level two but the guests didn't know what that meant. Apparently there are only 3 levels. so yeah, pretty serious but tourists probably thought it was out of 5 or 10 and again, assumed they wouldn't go there if it was really dangerous. I mean the guides didn't have any trepidation. That's an excursion I totally would have chosen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they said the volcano was a level two but the guests didn't know what that meant. Apparently there are only 3 levels. so yeah, pretty serious but tourists probably thought it was out of 5 or 10 and again, assumed they wouldn't go there if it was really dangerous. I mean the guides didn't have any trepidation. That's an excursion I totally would have chosen.

It’s not hard to google what does level 2 mean. It goes 0,1,2,3 with 3 meaning currently erupting. So level 2 means eruption imminent. Yes the tourism should stop at level 2 but money talks. Anyone that visits a volcano should educate themselves on levels and unless they are a volcanologist or the volcano is labeled extinct or dormant they should stay far away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't make myself watch. The rescue agencies just left those people there to die.

That’s not exactly true. The doc explains this.

I just watched it and it seems like that’s exactly what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it was long enough. Too much time spent on lead up to the island. 7 people didn’t get burned. I would have loved to know exactly where they were on the island and were exactly the people who died were on the island.

Then more time spent on the recovery. So many people were in the hospital for months. Then there are liability laws in new Zealand which are so different.

I read there were 3 people who did not get injured, and I agree. I’d like to know how that possibly happened. Maybe they all made it to the water and were under water?

There were people on the dock about to depart. I’ll bet they were among the uninjured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they said the volcano was a level two but the guests didn't know what that meant. Apparently there are only 3 levels. so yeah, pretty serious but tourists probably thought it was out of 5 or 10 and again, assumed they wouldn't go there if it was really dangerous. I mean the guides didn't have any trepidation. That's an excursion I totally would have chosen.

It was a fantastic experience. I wouldn’t choose to go on it now but before then, no one had been injured by an eruption.

[Anonymous]

Watch the documentary. One uninjured person jumped into the water and stayed under. The rest of the uninjured they interviewed were on a tour boat that had left the island and was headed back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think those visitors signed up for it knowing it was an active volcano?

This is a really sad story but also a cautionary tale to heed warnings. Thrw agency in New Zealand had an increased risk warning for tourists as did the tour company. I am sorry for the people who lost their lives but it’s kind of like when people go to North Korea for a tour.

Agreed. Some of the tourists in the documentary talked about how much they loved doing 'adventurous' things. But adventure, especially in nature, comes with a risk. Perhaps the tour company could have made the risk clearer (along with the fact that the volcano had been at a higher alert level for several weeks, to the point where government scientists were not allowed to go to it for fieldwork), but I wonder if even then some tourists would have still chosen to go 'for the adventure'.

This is not true. Government scientists were allowed to go. They just happened to not have any trips scheduled in the week or so right before the eruption, but they had been going before that. There was never a time when the scientists determined it was too dangerous for them to go. They knew the volcano was at increased risk of erupting but had no idea an eruption was imminent. You can Google for lots of articles about how and why scientists didn’t predict the eruption.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122190537/gns-banned-scientists-from-going-near-vents-a-week-before-white-island-eruption-claimed-21-lives

Did you read the article? The govt scientists were not banned from going to the island until Dec 10.

Really why post if you haven't even read it beyond the title?!?

[Anonymous]

I understand the brothers who own the island are going to trial in Summer 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand the brothers who own the island are going to trial in Summer 2023.

How can anyone own that island? It’s not habitable so seems like the government should own it. New Zealand liability laws are the polar opposite of US liability laws so j find it hard to believe anyone will go on trial. It’s just an unlucky act of God.