Russian volcano erupts for first time in more than 500 years

Both events may be connected to a massive 8.8 magnitude earthquake which hit a similar area last week, which caused tsunami warnings as far away as French Polynesia and Chile.

Russian experts had warned strong aftershocks were possible for several weeks after Wednesday's earthquake - which was one of the strongest ever recorded and saw millions of people evacuate.

Sunday's 7.0 magnitude quake hit the Kuril Islands and could lead to waves of up to 18cm (7in), Russia's emergency ministry reported.

It said people in three areas of Kamchatka "must still move away from the shore", despite the low wave heights.

The last recorded eruption of Krasheninnikov was in the 15th century, according to the head of the Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Team.

Olga Girina also said it may be linked to the earlier 8.8 magnitude earthquake, according to Russian state news agency RIA.

The Kamchatka Peninsula is remote but lies in the "Pacific Ring of Fire" - so called because of the high number of earthquakes and volcanoes that occur here.

Kamchatka - girl, you're in danger.

(Good things it's never been on my bucket list)

Wonder how this will affect climate change.

Putti probably did it on purpose by dropping a bomb or digging a deep hole. Does anyone remember something about Russians digging some hole to the earths core in the Siberian region??...it's a faint memory but I remember something like this..I guess I'll Google

Not possible to dig to the Earth's core. We can barely go to the bottom of the oceans.

There's a much larger volcano about 70 miles north of Krasheninnikov. It began bubbling to life again back in April.

[quote] Another volcano in the same arc, Klyuchevskoy, is also currently erupting. Scientists watched lava fill the crater beginning in April and confirmed large amounts of fresh lava there on July 19, before the massive earthquake. This volcano has historically been much more active than Krasheninnikov, with more than 111 Holocene eruptions identified by scientists, including more than a dozen in the past two decades.

mother russher is getting the middle finguh from mother natechuh

R4, There was a Cold War era movement to drill the deepest hole, and the Soviet Union had a hole that was deeper down than Mount Everest is high-called the Kola Borehole-which was sealed up in 2005. It was about 7.6 miles deep, but nowhere near the earthquake or volcano. From what I’ve read, scientists don’t think there’s any connection between boreholes and earthquakes- they’ve even made boreholes for the purpose of studying earthquakes. But drilling near an active volcano is controversial.

It's all about the subduction zones.

R4 You’re thinking of this I believe.

“The Door to Hell”

In all, seven volcanoes have erupted in Kamchatcka since the earthquake, the only time that seven have erupted at the same time since Russian explorers began observing them in the 17th century

[quote]In all, seven volcanoes have erupted in Kamchatcka since the earthquake, the only time that seven have erupted at the same time since Russian explorers began observing them in the 17th century

I hope everyone in coastal Oregon, Washington & British Columbia is paying attention to this.

I live in the Pacific Northwest, so I'm paying attention. However, there are 140+ volcanoes in Kamchatka, vs. about 10 in the Pacific Northwest, so our odds are considerably lower.

Terrifying.

[quote]When the next very big earthquake hits, the northwest edge of the continent, from California to Canada and the continental shelf to the Cascades, will drop by as much as six feet and rebound thirty to a hundred feet to the west—losing, within minutes, all the elevation and compression it has gained over centuries. Some of that shift will take place beneath the ocean, displacing a colossal quantity of seawater. (Watch what your fingertips do when you flatten your hand.) The water will surge upward into a huge hill, then promptly collapse. One side will rush west, toward Japan. The other side will rush east, in a seven-hundred-mile liquid wall that will reach the Northwest coast, on average, fifteen minutes after the earthquake begins. By the time the shaking has ceased and the tsunami has receded, the region will be unrecognizable. Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA’s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”

These disasters would happen even with no human involvement, and have happened many times in the past. However, super volcano avoidance aside, drilling companies internationally don’t actually avoid drilling near regular, average size active volcanoes, even in the ring of fire. Regions near volcanoes are rich in precious metals. No one is drilling right now off the coast of Oregon - it was banned in 2019 - but Canada’s Juno Corp is actively drilling on Canada’s part of the Ring of Fire. Far East Russia is also in the ring of fire, with over 160 volcanoes in the region. One of them is among the world’s largest. There is oil and gas drilling in the area, but I can’t find any equivalent of Juno Corp there. An AI search will tell you it’s unlikely drilling near the surface would cause a volcanic eruption but there are a few sources that say otherwise in certain circumstances (like pulling a drill out of a damaged hole supposedly causing the Lusi mud volcano, which started erupting in 2006 and is still erupting today).

The scientific consensus seems to be that drilling is like putting a pinhole in a cork - that it’s too small to cause damage. I’m no scientist, but I wonder why these studies cover what would happen with one borehole, as opposed to thousands of boreholes in the same region. In actual drilling it really is thousands of holes, in Ontario’s case. So couldn’t that affect the stability of the area, combined with other factors, like hydrothermal pockets? If a damaged hole could cause a mud volcano, why would it be impossible in the case of a true volcano? Also, when part of earthquake science involves uncertainty- like earthquakes happening in the middle of a plate 10 percent of the time and the reason not being clear- why do studies that cover drilling risk use absolute terms- e.g., there is not much risk of this, period - instead of saying it’s unknown? If you know earthquakes can trigger volcanoes and you’re not sure whether boring (and wastewater disposal) contributes to earthquakes, how could you conclude boring has no impact on volcanoes?