Rating: 
Summary: She tells the truth!!!
Review: I recently read the book, and thought that it was well written and not overly technical. The only part that I had trouble with was the description of the deceased. Unfortunately, many of the injuries were to the heads. Most of the people in the volcano were not wearing any safety gear, and this was stupid! Stanley Williams was seeking the limelight when it came to him being the "only survivor." I know Bruce's telling to be the truth because I know one of the survivors.
Rating:
Summary: This book MOVES!
Review: I want to recommend No Apparent Danger by Victoria Bruce as a great, edge-of-your-seat read that also delivers a fascinating look into the workings of volcanology and a tragic human story. This book is one of the best I've read on any subject (especially popular science) in years. A true "non-fiction thriller" with a gritty setting, flawless timing and an amazing - and all-too-human - cast of real-life characters. Read it!
Rating: 
Summary: The View of Two Fatal Volcanic Eruptions from Colombia
Review: I was attracted to this book by having read Volcano Cowboys, which portrays the story of how volcanologists are learning how to predict eruptions and avoid loss of life. As fascinating as that book was, No Apparent Danger really riveted me. Rather than treating the subject as being about science and public policy, No Apparent Danger looks at the 1985 eruption of Nevado del Ruiz and the 1993 eruption of Galeras in Colombia from the perspective of Colombians and others who were present. This magnification of the individual human element turned the story into a gripping, page-turning tour de force of scientific learning for the reader. Whether or not you want to learn some geology about volcanoes, you will be glad you read this book. I graded the book down one star for overstating the clarity with which Dr. Chouet's theory of long-period events being helpful for predicting eruptions was understood and accepted in 1993. As a result, I think Ms. Bruce searches just a little too hard for villains in her role as journalistic prosecutor of the scientific community. The book contains some very clear background about the two volcanoes, both as geological phenomena and for the cultural and historical aspects of the places where they are found. These are killer volcanoes, and need careful watching. "The two volcanoes are inextricably linked -- by geology, by legend, and by scientific failing." But the book's best parts focus around those moments when the eruptions are imminent, are taking place, escape is occuring, and life saving efforts begin. Ms. Bruce writes with a sure hand, building from fascinating, ironical recollections by eyewitnesses, both ordinary people and scientists. For example, just as Galeras was erupting, a journalist on the volcano was doing a video tape asking one of the scientists when the volcano would next erupt. He replied that he did not know. It could be any time. Both eruptions appear to have contained missed opportunities to save lives. With Nevado del Ruiz, the potential danger was that the glacier on top of the volcano would melt from an eruption, creating a mud slide. In two earlier eruptions (1595 and 1845), the place where 30,000 people lived, the town of Amero, had been totally covered with mud from such a melt. One scientist warned that this could happen again. Another said not to worry. No evacuation plans were made, although there was a potential to have two hours of warning. 23,000 people died. You will long remember the stories of what it was like to be overtaken by a tidal wave of mud from survivors. The fatal eruption at Galeras in 1993 was, by comparison, a mere cough. Those killed or injured were people on top of the volcano who were hit by flying rocks. The amount of material ejected was small compared to Mount St. Helens. If the top of the volcano had been closed that day, no one would have been hurt. Drawing on a large number of eyewitness accounts, Ms. Bruce makes a persuasive case for negligent leadership by Professor Stanley Williams, who was the most senior academic on hand at the time. For example, most people did not have hard hats on. The death and injury toll would have been smaller if they had been in use. It was standard practice by the U.S. Geological Survey to wear hard hats at the time. The aftermath of the Galeras eruption contains one of those juicy stories about academic disputes that delight many nonacademicians. Having apparently been uninterested in the long-period event method of predicting eruptions first developed by Dr. Chouet, Professor Williams soon supported an article by one of his graduate students in Nature claiming to have developed the field based on the Galeras eruption. In a fine irony, Nature had asked Dr. Chouet to be a reviewer of this article. Dr. Chouet was preparing to publish in Nature as well. The Arizona State article caused his proposed paper to be watered down. Clearly, predicting volcanic eruptions is very difficult to do. It is important that we learn how, as both of these eruptions show. The bigger problem seems to be agreeing on an accurate prediction, even when one is available. I suspect the latter problem will be with us for a long time. I particularly enjoyed learning about Ms. Marta Calvache, Colombia's diminutive resident authority on volcanoes at the tender age of 26. Her heroism during the Galeras eruption is very commendable, as was that of the other brave people who helped her save some lives with their quick charge into the crater during the eruption. As to Professor Williams, his severe injuries during the eruption may have affected his memory and his mental perceptions in ways that the rest of us cannot appreciate. If he were a witness in a murder trial, no one would take the account of someone who was so badly hurt very seriously. If he got many of the facts wrong, I think that's understandable. If he felt like a hero, his suffering probably encouraged that rationalization for the meaning behind the event. We can all make all of the mistakes for ourselves as the way we learn, or we can learn from others' mistakes. I suggest the latter approach. This book shows why I feel that way. What do you think? I came away doubtful that when the next volcano is ready to blow in Colombia that the results will be any better. What will have to change to allow that waste of life to be avoided? That's the unresolved question of this book. I don't think the problem lies totally with the scientists.
Rating:
Summary: No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at G
Review: I was captivated from the moment I opened the book. Simply could not put it down. The account of the eruption was so real, my eyes were glued to the pages.... It's a definite MUST read!!!
Rating:
Summary: WHEN SCIENTISTS GO TOO FAR
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: One-sided and questionable research methods
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: Exactly as we experienced the Galeras eruption
Review: I'm writing to supplement my husband's review (chris sanders). He was Stan Williams' colleague and friend, was on the side of Galeras when it blew, and was Arizona State University's spokesman for Stan and the eruption -- and Chris backs Victoria Bruce's account unreservedly as the accurate version of the event. My addition is the perspective of a person near, but not central, to the story. I think Victoria Bruce has shown extremely clear insight into what's important about the story, and about the character of the players. From my perspective, Victoria has done science a tremendous service in shining a spotlight on Stan Williams' behavior. She's brought to light a personality type that, unfortunately, has all too safe a harbor in the scientific community. For reasons that are far too complex to discuss here, huge egos and forceful personalities have too easy a time dominating the scientific community. No Apparent Danger shows just one of the consequences of the actions of just one ego-driven scientist. I personally would be very glad if this book helps clear the paths for the many brilliant, innovative, hard-working, honest scientists who choose to spend their time expanding knowledge rather than promoting themselves and stealing others' ideas. Like Chris, I was also very grateful to read Victoria's descriptions of the Colombian scientists. Fernando Munoz is one of our dearest friends. I had always known and admired his passion for saving lives in Colombia; Victoria's book provided details of his story that help me understand that passion better. Victoria has recognized rightly that he, Marta Calvache, and the other Colombian scientists truly are larger than life. I've always seen it -- now I know better how they came to be that way.
Rating:
Summary: WHEN SCIENTISTS GO TOO FAR
Review: In 1993 a horrible disaster struck the geology community. On January 14 of that year, 13 volcanologists were on a workshop fieldtrip inside the caldera of Galeras, a volcano in southern Columbia, when it erupted killing 6 of the scientists and 3 local tourists. This tragic event shocked and stunned the geological community. No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz written by Victory Bruce has taken a critical look these two volcanic tragedies that struck Columbia. Victoria writes in a wonderfully easy to read narrative, that grabs your attention from the beginning. She lays out the events of the two volcanic eruptions in the form of a crime scene, where you know the final outcome, but not the events and facts leading up to the crime. She leads the reader through the multitude of facts and eyewitness accounts of these two eruptions to give a clear understanding of what happened, and the mistakes that were made. The book was inspired by the tragedy at Galeras, but to understand the tragedy there, she takes us back 8 years to the eruption at Nevado del Ruiz that caused a lahar to burry the town of Armero, killing 23,000 people. Here we meet Marta Calvache, a Columbian geologist who plays important roles in both events. Marta and her colleagues are a group of bright, young Columbian scientists who are given the responsibility to interpret the activity at Nevado del Ruiz, a task that they admit is over their heads. The Columbian scientists seek out the best international help they can get to help them interpret the volcano, and do their best to warn the government of the danger the volcano poses. In the end, their dire warnings are ignored, and the most tragic volcanic eruption of the twentieth century occurs. After Nevado del Ruiz, we jump forward 8 years to follow Marta Calvache and other Columbian scientists to the newly active volcano at Galeras. This time, the Columbians have more knowledge and equipment at their disposal, but tragedy again occurs. Victoria Bruce leads us as a detective would, setting the background of the volcano, its history and the facts about its activity leading up to the mild, but fatal eruption in 1993. She intersperses her narrative with quotes from the scientists who worked on the volcano, as well as those scientists who were in the caldera on the day of the eruption and survived. Her narrative leads the reader through a series of events, piecing together the decisions that led to the tragedy, and how it could have been prevented. The book holds you captive as you walk with the scientists into the heart of the danger. Victoria gives us access to the scientists to listen to their personal thoughts, misgivings and concerns about the tragedy and the safety of their companions. Her descriptions are so vivid, that at times I felt like ducking as I read about the explosion and the volcanic bombs that flew out of the crater. The book is not only a critical look at the two eruptions, but a detailed study of crisis management and the importance of knowing all the facts.
Rating:
Summary: Review of No Apparent Danger
Review: In 1993 a horrible disaster struck the geology community. On January 14 of that year, 13 volcanologists were on a workshop fieldtrip inside the caldera of Galeras, a volcano in southern Columbia, when it erupted killing 6 of the scientists and 3 local tourists. This tragic event shocked and stunned the geological community. No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz written by Victory Bruce has taken a critical look these two volcanic tragedies that struck Columbia. Victoria writes in a wonderfully easy to read narrative, that grabs your attention from the beginning. She lays out the events of the two volcanic eruptions in the form of a crime scene, where you know the final outcome, but not the events and facts leading up to the crime. She leads the reader through the multitude of facts and eyewitness accounts of these two eruptions to give a clear understanding of what happened, and the mistakes that were made. The book was inspired by the tragedy at Galeras, but to understand the tragedy there, she takes us back 8 years to the eruption at Nevado del Ruiz that caused a lahar to burry the town of Armero, killing 23,000 people. Here we meet Marta Calvache, a Columbian geologist who plays important roles in both events. Marta and her colleagues are a group of bright, young Columbian scientists who are given the responsibility to interpret the activity at Nevado del Ruiz, a task that they admit is over their heads. The Columbian scientists seek out the best international help they can get to help them interpret the volcano, and do their best to warn the government of the danger the volcano poses. In the end, their dire warnings are ignored, and the most tragic volcanic eruption of the twentieth century occurs. After Nevado del Ruiz, we jump forward 8 years to follow Marta Calvache and other Columbian scientists to the newly active volcano at Galeras. This time, the Columbians have more knowledge and equipment at their disposal, but tragedy again occurs. Victoria Bruce leads us as a detective would, setting the background of the volcano, its history and the facts about its activity leading up to the mild, but fatal eruption in 1993. She intersperses her narrative with quotes from the scientists who worked on the volcano, as well as those scientists who were in the caldera on the day of the eruption and survived. Her narrative leads the reader through a series of events, piecing together the decisions that led to the tragedy, and how it could have been prevented. The book holds you captive as you walk with the scientists into the heart of the danger. Victoria gives us access to the scientists to listen to their personal thoughts, misgivings and concerns about the tragedy and the safety of their companions. Her descriptions are so vivid, that at times I felt like ducking as I read about the explosion and the volcanic bombs that flew out of the crater. The book is not only a critical look at the two eruptions, but a detailed study of crisis management and the importance of knowing all the facts.
Rating:
Summary: Heros and Villains
Review: It's easy for characters in books to be all black or all white - to be wholly heroic or without any redeeming character whatsoever. And that's what's wrong with this book. I enjoyed the read enormously, but Ms. Bruce's "either/or" tendency towards human nature left me emphathetic towards her purported villian, Stanley Williams. I've just started reading his own account of the trajedy, and so far I see no reason to change my opinion. If he's such a bad person, why is Marta Calvache - Ms. Bruce's heroine - still work with him, and and how can she, to all appearances, continue to respect him? As to the hard hat controversy, Ms. Bruce seems to feel Williams is personally responsible for the failure of other vulcanologists to wear one. While there were, sadly, a few novice scientists among the fatalities (I leave the "tourists" out of this particular controversy), the trip also included seasoned professionals from around the globe. These experienced scientists were not in the habit of wearing hard hats or they would have worn them, regardless of what anyone else did or didn't recommend. Good policy or bad, the obvious truth is that it does not occur to even the most experienced volcanolists to wear hard hats; it has nothing whatsoever to do with one person's judgment. Is Williams responsible for the behavior of senior scientists like Igor Menyailov and Geoff Brown? Ms. Bruce herself supports this view by stating that it was only the Los Alamos scientists who wore them, and that they wore them because hard hats are US government policy for their employees. Ms. Bruce makes the Galeras trajedy sound unique; in his first few pages, Williams mentions several other vulcanologist friends who died in other volcanic eruptions, one of whom - Dave Johnston, who died on Mount St. Helens - worked for the US Geological Survey and, as a government employee, presumably wore a hard hat whenever he descended into a volcano. I should reiterate here that I very much enjoyed this book. I only think that I could have enjoyed it more if it read a little less like a vendetta. The worst part of failing to bring to light any redeeming quality whatsoever in Williams is that his actual shortcomings - oversights, errors, ego, whatever - lack the true impact they could have had. A book about black and white heroes and villians may be a good read, but a book about human failings would have been great.
| 
