Rating: 
Summary: "Into Thin Air" meets "The Johnstown Flood"
Review: "No Apparent Danger" tells the story of two volcanic disasters that took place in Colombia in 1985 and 1993. The first was an epic disaster that killed over 23,000 people and obliterated a small city. The other was the result of sheer human stupidity, yet another example of man thinking he's smarter than nature. Six scientists and three tourists were killed and several others horribly maimed because they were standing pratically on top of an active volcano crater when it had a minor eruption. All of the victims probably would have survived had they taken some basic precautions.The leader of the group, self-serving, aggrandizing geologist Steve Williams was largely responsible for the laxes that led to the tragedy. And yet after barely surviving his own mule-headiness, he manages to convince the press that he's a hero through his own vulgar audacity. Cheers to author Victoria Bruce for publishing the truth and defalting Williams' own self serving book about these events. The book's only flaw is that the first tragedy doesn't get quite the coverage it deserves, as if she were in a hurry to skewer the villian of the story and rushed it. Nevertheless, this is still a well written, informative and ultimately depressing account.
Rating: 
Summary: agree with agnostictrickster
Review: "Agnostictrickster" said it better than I can. Read his review too. Ms. Bruce is trying to cash in on this tragedy by writing a romance/science novel where the characters are good and evil. Her entire premise about Galeras is based on an absolute faith that Chouet has found the ultimate, only and correct answer to predicting eruptions. Do we think this is true? Literature and studies please. She has slandered the dead and the heroic of Galeras by portraying them as amateurs and useless pawns in the hands of Stanley Williams. These people all had MUCH more experience with volcanoes than Ms. Bruce.She has nothing but "book-learnin". People have swallowed this book whole because they have not questioned the basic premise. Sorry, we do not know when volcanoes will erupt. If we do, as Ms. Bruce wants us to think, all the scientists around the world can just quit now and consult Chouet and Ms. Bruce. Perhaps Ms. Bruce should be the new director of the USGS? Read Surviving Galeras. Williams admits that neither he nor anyone else has all the answers. Bruce portrays Williams as an egomaniac but he certainly does not come through that way in his book.
Rating:
Summary: "Into Thin Air" meets "The Johnstown Flood"
Review: "No Apparent Danger" tells the story of two volcanic disasters that took place in Colombia in 1985 and 1993. The first was an epic disaster that killed over 23,000 people and obliterated a small city. The other was the result of sheer human stupidity, yet another example of man thinking he's smarter than nature. Six scientists and three tourists were killed and several others horribly maimed because they were standing pratically on top of an active volcano crater when it had a minor eruption. All of the victims probably would have survived had they taken some basic precautions. The leader of the group, self-serving, aggrandizing geologist Steve Williams was largely responsible for the laxes that led to the tragedy. And yet after barely surviving his own mule-headiness, he manages to convince the press that he's a hero through his own vulgar audacity. Cheers to author Victoria Bruce for publishing the truth and defalting Williams' own self serving book about these events. The book's only flaw is that the first tragedy doesn't get quite the coverage it deserves, as if she were in a hurry to skewer the villian of the story and rushed it. Nevertheless, this is still a well written, informative and ultimately depressing account.
Rating: 
Summary: The truth hurts those who can't deal with it- well done!
Review: ...No Apparent Danger is a breath of fresh air-describing the bad science that goes on... Thank god someone with a science background... has written a true account of what can happen when egos get out of control and small-minded men vie for glory under the guise ofaltruism... No ApparentDanger does not come down on the scientific community, just those who abuse power, lie to the media, and steal real scientists' ideas. The book gives ultimate respect to people who actually do real science and workdiligently--those who are driven by the love of science and not by huge egos... Thanks to the author of No Apparent Danger for exposing this important story of scientific pomposity and real heroism.
Rating:
Summary: Danger, Tragedy and Heros... great read!
Review: A great read. Full of interesting real characters that bring the story to life. The telling of the devistating tragedy at Nevado del Ruiz brought tears to my eyes. The story of Galeras left me seething. An amazing mix of excellent writing, a great story, and a big lesson in what happens when people don't communicate. beautifully done.
Rating:
Summary: Good for the casual fan!
Review: A very good introductory book that can be read by anyone regardless of scientific background. Simply written, it gives a good explaination of how hard the scientists job is, and how easy it was for mistakes to be made without getting bogged down in scientific jargon. The book tells a very good story, and is hard to put down. The only thing that I found a bit distracting was wondering how she came to write this book, which wasn't explained till the very end. But you know who wouldn't like this book? Stanley Williams, the book seems to be pretty unbiased in describing how Dr Williams laughed at safety precautions, and did not play well with others in general. She based her account of what happened by doing interviews with jsut about everyone involved, so the information is pretty accurate.
Rating:
Summary: Good for the casual fan!
Review: A very good introductory book that can be read by anyone regardless of scientific background. Simply written, it gives a good explaination of how hard the scientists job is, and how easy it was for mistakes to be made without getting bogged down in scientific jargon. The book tells a very good story, and is hard to put down. The only thing that I found a bit distracting was wondering how she came to write this book, which wasn't explained till the very end. But you know who wouldn't like this book? Stanley Williams, the book seems to be pretty unbiased in describing how Dr Williams laughed at safety precautions, and did not play well with others in general. She based her account of what happened by doing interviews with jsut about everyone involved, so the information is pretty accurate.
Rating:
Summary: Rocks
Review: All I can say about Ms. Bruce is that she's the first person who ever managed to keep me up late thinking about volcanos. What a great read! I'd recommend this to anyone, unless your spouse complains you don't spend enough time together. Go out and buy two. Read 'em both. This really is a fantastic book.
Rating:
Summary: apparently all knowing
Review: As an amateur geologist and full time scientist I was very disappointed in this book. The science of volcanology is very imprecise and there are many unknowns. The author seems to feel that the scientists on Galeras should have known the eruption was imminent. The very nature of our knowledge of volcanology is that we don't know when eruptions will happen. Has the author ever been to an active volcano? To people with only superficial knowledge this book may seem to be very authoratative but I found the omniscient attitude very unscientific.
Rating:
Summary: Well-written, so one can focus on the controversy!
Review: 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.
| 
