Talk:Cumbre Vieja

message: The Santorini eruption occurred approx 3516 BP and IS NOT RECORDED in history. The evidence for the eruption and tsunamai is geological, archaeological etc.,The Geologist (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Santorini eruption

message: Historical eruptions on the Cumbre Vieja occurred in 1470, 1585, 1646, 1677, 1712, 1949 and 1971.as mentioned, the next active island - Tenerife had eruptions recorded in 1492 at the Boca Cangrejo )Mouth of the Crab) vent, 1704 - 1705 Fasnia, 1706 Montana Negras which destroyed the ancient town and port of Garcachico, 1798 Narice del Teide which is the last eruption within the Caldera de las Canadas and 1909 at Montana Chinyero. Total eruptions on Tenerife within recorded history is 5 because the 1704 - 1705 eruption started with seismic activity on 31st December 1704 the vents didn't open until 1705, whilst those on the Cumbre Vieja total 7. Various sources are available with the dates. El Hierro erupted in 1793 and again 2011-2012, Lanzarote in 1730-1736 and 1824, whilst the other islands - La Gomera, Gran Canaria and Fuerteventura have not had any recorded volcanic activity since the Holocene or longer.The Geologist (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Volcanic history

message: Pending further analysis of the threat, a few risk minimization solutions seem possible:
* Manually (and safely) take out a.k.a. destroy the entire risky section of the island, such that it doesn't cause a mega-tsunami.
* Continually drain the water collected inside the island, so it doesn't cause the pertinent part of the island to fall off.
* Develop scientific models and means to counter mega-tsunamis using controlled nuclear or other mega-explosions.
It would help to see information on such techniques in a formal and neutral fashion. --Amit 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Averting risk

message: Copy and paste the following: 
--One Salient Oversight 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox available

message: The information available at La Palma considering the likelihood of a mega tsunami event is better sourced and more complete.  Might want to link there, or otherwise utilize that info.  128.227.68.119 16:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future Threat

message: Cumbre Vieja ()
The word "Cumbre" has two meanings in Spanish: 'Summit' and 'Top of a mountain'. So the closest translation for "Cumbre Vieja" would be "Old top" or something like that. My mother tongue is Spanish and I'm not sure if a translation like "Old top mountain" sounds good in English.
I'm not changing the page, please someone with proper English do correct it.
Cumbre Vieja actually means "Old Ridge" as a "Cumbre" is a "Ridge" and "Vieja" is a derivative of "Viejo" meaning "Old". SUmmit in Spanish is "Pico" meaning "Summit" or "Peak". The Geologist (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the translation of "Cumbre Vieja" (added 20100427) 

message: The original article was written in British English, and has since been butchered by someone who has changed it to the version of English spoken in the USA. I added remarks by Bonelli Rubio taken direct from his field notes of which I have a copy.In his field notes he quite clearly states that the fissure "...Was not issuing fumes, VAPOUR, steam, ashes, lava or other materials..." he uses the European spelling NOT the USA spelling for VAPOUR. As this was a direct quote from source, then I would have thought that it would have been left in its original state. As this is an article about a location where British as against USA English is used when it is used, it should be left in British English.The Geologist (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPELLING 

message: This seems to be same volcano. Does it need two articles? At least they should link to each other. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 14:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Teneguía]] article

message: I have deleted the following reference - Reason IT IS NOT A REFERENCE IT is a referal to a link that is DEAD. It is supposedly a link to a media presentation and is not peer reviewed.
 ({cite web|last=Berlo|first=Janneke|title=New research puts 'killer La Palma tsunami' at distant future|url=http://phys.org/news77977989.html%7Caccessdate=23 October 2014})
Please refrain from adding links that do not work.
Thank you.The Geologist (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of reference 

message: The section on the Lituya Bay earthquake is uncited and contradicts the actual wiki article covering that tsunami.  That article refers to a wave with height up to 300 feet, not 1000.  Please provide citation for the supposed initial height of 1000 ft or it needs to be corrected to align with the Lituya Bay article (which has citations.)Dperry4930 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lituya Bay is referenced but without citation (except where it contradicts another wiki article) 

message: During my editing and re-writing of the page, I realised that the following dead link was still present. As the link is useless I have deleted it in its entirety. 
*Benfield Hazard Research Center: Why the only certainty about the La Palma tsunami is that it will happen
The Geologist (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of dead link 

message: Reports in the media - newspapers, TV documentaries, docu-dramas etc; are not reliable references. The reason why is simple they are not peer reviewed, present one persons information as fact and carefully edit out anything that does not either agree with the person being quoted or the reporters and editors personal view point. They present pseudo-scientific information as proven facts  and often ignore the true scientific information. Whilst interesting to the non-scientist they are rarely accurate and should be treated with a high degree of caution. 
Anything issued by the Benfield Hazard Research Center should likewise be treated with a high degree of skepticsim. The reason is that the Benfield Hazard Center is actually a outlet for an insurance company which seeks to take money from people on a "Yes but what if this happened tomorrow" basis. It could be claimed with some justification that where insurance companies and scientific research meet is where the scientists enter into a Faustian pact and thereafter may only tell their insurance patrons what they want to hear - how to get even more people so scared that they willingly part with their money - be it dollars, cowrie shells or peanuts! I live on the east coast of the USA and have been approached several times regarding making sure I am insured against the La Palma tsunami and each time I tell them to take a walk in the Nevada desert there they may get a revelation about how they are conning people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.108.129 (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media reports 

message: To the persons who played around with the page well done. I really enjoyed putting right your messing about where you messed about with the references in this page. Please note the reference to Moss et al 1999 refers to a survey that the author reported on. The mention that in 2008 the crack is still visible and has the same dimensions AS REPORTED ON IN 1949 is a direct reference to Bonelli-Rubio's work. The work by Moss et al 1999, makes NO REFERENCE to the dimensions of the crack, however, IF you wish to see the crack, put you boots on and go for a walk. It really is still there and still retains the dimension reported on in 1949. Also I have corrected your messing about of Bonelli-Rubio's references and reverted them as they were initially inserted. So please don't mess about with the page. BTW I am still working on it - and will be updating it as I can, but I monitor it regularly. Thanks.The Geologist (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  That was a great time! 

message: The Storegga Slide (or rather, three slides within a few centuries) in the North Sea region around 6.200 BC, could count as one of the best parallel events to the threat of a future megatsunami. It probably wasn't triggered directly by volcanism, but it did evolve out of structural failure of rocks and sediments on the seafloor, associated with strong post-glacial rebound. And it's one of very few landslide/volcanism -> megatsunami events in the same order of magnitude that we know of in the last 100k years. The ones that are already cited in the article here were much smaller. 83.251.164.50 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel with Storegga Slide