Rating: 
Summary: great science
Review: No Apparent Danger was my introduction to volcanoes. Not particularly strong in science, I started chapter 2 with little enthusiasm and ended it with at least a working knowledge of how the plates all fit together and a sense of wonder at it all. Ms. Bruce makes it all come alive so beautifully.This is a terrific book - a gripping story that didn't let me go from start to finish. vvv
Rating: 
Summary: Comments: The Galeras Eruption and it's Aftermath
Review: On January 14, 1993 the Colombian volcano Galeras had a minor eruption in the early afternoon so small that many residents of Pasto, only five miles from the explosion, were unaware it happened. But because some of the world's most experienced volcanologists were too near the crater at the time and were killed or injured as a result, this eruption and it's aftermath received worldwide press attention, and are now the subject of two competing books. One, "Surviving Galeras", is by Stanley Williams and Fen Montaigne. Williams is a co-convener of the volcanological conference then being held in Pasto. The other, "No Apparent Danger" by Victoria Bruce, is the subject of this review. The first part of "No Apparent Danger" describes the eruption of another Colombian volcano, Nevado del Ruiz in 1985, resulting in the near total destruction of the town of Armero and the loss of twenty-three thousand lives. The second and more extensive part deals with Galeras. On the positive side, the book is easy to read, the numerous characters are clearly drawn, and the reader has no trouble distinguishing the good guys from the bad. The author has interviewed many people, quoted others secondhand, and spins a gripping tale of heroism and hubris, clashing egos and inexcusable foul-ups. But the protagonists are so easily pigeonholed and the biases of the author so apparent, that even a reader with no previous knowledge of these events soon asks, "Is this portrayal of events accurate? In places yes, but as one who attended the Pasto meeting and has a personal regard for many of those portrayed here, I believe this book misrepresents the events at Galeras in several significant ways. For example: 1. The blackest hat is clearly worn by Stanley Williams, who is accused of everything from having a monotonous lecture style to complicity in the deaths of nine people. No attempt is made to present a balanced assessment of what he did and why. Also, many of his purported transgressions would have taken place after he was injured and clearly not himself. Where Williams is concerned, this book is little more than a hatchet job. 2. As some reviewers have already noted, there are several misrepresentations, quotes out of context and similar errors in the text (see among others, Monastersky, R., Under the Volcano, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/30/01). Some of these lapses are more important than others, but most or all tend to demonize Williams. 3. A few participants who should have been interviewed were not, including a geophysicist whose views differed from those given prominence in this book. 4. Very little information is given on why the meeting was held, its importance, and what was accomplished. The purpose was humanitarian; first to assess the threat posed by Galeras to the 300,000 inhabitants of Pasto, and then to identify the best ways to deal with that threat. A final report was prepared at the end of the conference, despite the grief and shock of those involved. The participants and the organizers were sincere scientists with a great deal of combined experience on volcanoes, not a bunch of volcano junkies as one might assume from reading this. Those among them who went in harm's way did so in the belief it was a necessary step that could ultimately save thousands of lives. . So although "No Apparent Danger" is interesting, the author seems to believes that for every mishap, someone is to blame. In attempting to convince us of this, she has produced a work that I found highly biased, often misleading, and sometimes wrong. I would urge potential readers to withhold any judgment of individuals who are described until they have had a chance to study "Surviving Galeras", a much more professional and balanced account.
Rating:
Summary: is it just possible...
Review: that reviewer williams is related to the author of surviving galeras? could this explain the single star rating she awards this, the better book, and the five awarded the former? they are both crummy, this one slightly less so.
Rating: 
Summary: no apparent understanding
Review: The author looks back with 20/20 hindsight at the Galeras tragedy and second guesses the leading volcanologists in the world. Her credentials are suspect. She seems to be cashing in on the much more authoratative Surviving Galeras by presenting the author Stanley Williams as a vain maverick. Williams addresses the controversy visible now after the eruption but Bruce presents all the volcanologists as either good or evil. She does not seem to grasp the nuances of science,particularly a young and very imprecise science like volcanology. She also discredits the other scientists who went to the crater. They were experienced researchers, capable of deciding the risk to themselves. Bruce portrays them as pawns in Williams ego games. An insult to the memory of the dead by a person with no obvious firsthand knowlege.
Rating: 
Summary: The volcano eruptions at Nevado del Ruiz and Galeras.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The volcano eruptions at Nevado del Ruiz and Galeras.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Appalling and Cynical New Trend in Science Books
Review: This book has some interesting points, and, when read in the context of Stanley Williams' better written Surviving Galeras, does give the reader additional information on volcanology and volcanologists. However, it also represents a blatant attempt to sensationalize the field it covers for a very clear reason -- to sell books. This is an alarming trend in science writing (see, for example, Darkness in El Dorado by Patrick Tierney) that really represents the old idea of scientists being "mad" transformed into the new incarnation of the scientist as egotistical, irresponsible and arrogant (Frankenstein has become Jurassic Park). The basic charge that Bruce makes in this book, that Williams was criminally irresponsible and caused the death of his colleagues (which professional reviewers have pointed out amounts to a charge of murder) ignores the basic fact that volcanology is a young and still unpredictable science, where scientists regularly lose their lives while conducting research, and the people who died in this misadventure were all professional scientists who knew all this going in -- they knew the risks. Bruce also makes a big deal here about Williams as a self promoter, but, given the context, that rings hollow. If the reader wants to look for arrogance and irresponsibility, perhaps they could find a better example in this kind of journalism instead, where a writer is perfectly willing to distort reality and destroy lives and careers in the process in order to sell a few books -- and to make a buck.
Rating:
Summary: nothing apparent
Review: This book seemed to be intellectually dishonest because it takes events that happenend and second guesses the scientist who were there at the time. Volcanology is a very young science with a lot of uncertainty. A truly scientific mind is able to see all the shades of gray in scientific study. The author here sees only black and white. She makes some of the scientists into devils and some saints. I liked Surviving Galeras by a genuine survivor much better.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic Read - Thanks for exposing how science operates
Review: This book was impossible to put down. I was so disgusted in the end by the dismal failure and lies that resulted in nine deaths. How could the leader of an expedetion that got people killed try to make a hero out of himself in the media. Bruce brought me right into the story. Her characters were alive, the story was riveting. I'm so impressed by Marta Calveche and Bernard Chouet. These people personify what true science is all about. While Williams makes us realize that scientists are incredible fallible and can be distrustful.
Rating:
Summary: science or fiction?
Review: This book which purports to be a scientific study lacks the critical thinking about data and literature which is really vital to scientific inquiry. Many reviewers have praised this book in comparison to SURVIVING GALERAS but they are really books with very different purposes. While this book pretends to be science, SURVIVING GALERAS is a better book. It is a true life adventure with science and history to supplement the story. I was distressed by what I felt was the lack of critical thinking and the acceptance by the author of one theory over another without the kind of thoughtful critical thinking needed.It is still not known exactly or even inexactly how to predict eruptions. This is science for the simple minded. Someone will write a better book about the science of volacanoes one day. In the meantime for a good read and good science try SURVIVNG GALERAS.
| 
