I am considering a move to New Zealand's North Island, and would like to choose my future hometown wisely. Apart from the usual considerations, one thing I want to be careful about is the volcanoes. Of course, they haven't erupted much in the past, but who knows what they are up to in the long run.
I wouldn't want to have to get up from the couch because of it then, let alone find myself shoveling lava from my veggie patch, even though it may be a great fertilizer.
How much "Safety Distance" from a volcano is advisable as a minimum, what do you think?
10km?
50km?
100?
2007-12-25 15:58:24 · 9 answers · asked by Tahini Classic 7 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
The only active volcanoes in New Zealand are in the , and while Mt Ruapehu does erupt regularly it has not caused widespread harm since 1945, and is unlikely to do so again as New Zealand now has far more advanced systems in place to protect those living nearby. The worst damage it has caused since 1945 was in the eruption this year when when a rock falling on someone's leg who happened to be at the base of the crater. Needless to say, probably best not to live near Ruapehu.
If you're really that worried, don't live in the central North Island. New Zealand's active volcanoes are in the Taupo Volcanic Zone (around Taupo, which is smack bang in the middle of the North Island). Stay in or north of the Auckland Region, on the Coromandel Peninsula or in the Wellington Region. If you're in any of those places, you'll be at next to no risk from existing volcanoes. Subtract Wellington from that list, and you'll be at next to no risk from earthquakes either.
Really though, you probably shouldn't let volcanoes factor into where in New Zealand you decide to live. It's not worth it. The New Zealand Department of Conservation would tell you the same thing. The worst eruptions are likely to come from an entirely new spot, and we can't really predict where those would be, so there isn't any point in worrying about it really. Every place in the world is potentially at risk of a natural disaster, but the risk from a volcanic disaster in New Zealand is not worth worrying your head over. I live in Australia and our homes are always at risk of being wiped out by massive bushfires in summer, but you don't see us packing up and moving because of it.
2007-12-26 01:30:17 · answer #1 · answered by ardanienalmondite 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one can just give you a set distance. As pointed out, it depends on the type of volcano (not just extinct or active, but is it one that erupts regularly in less violent displays because it relieves the stresses more often like Mauna Loa in Hawaii, or one that only erupts once every few hundred years and blows half the mountain away like Mt. St. Helens in the US).
Also, will you be upwind or downwind for the prevailing winds? The gasses and ash of a pyroclastic flow are more dangerous than the lava, because it moves at a greater speed (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/PF/pcflows.html ).
"As far as possible" might sound good, but even at a distance, volcanoes can generate tsunamis affecting the coasts if enough power is generated and the distance is sufficient to amplify a wave.
2007-12-25 17:56:32 · answer #2 · answered by Dean M. 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would imagine that the government has compiled risk assessment maps based on past eruptive behavior. I would use these as a first order estimate. I bet you can get these through the internet, or at least find who in the governement to talk to about it.
Some volcanoes aren't typically violent in their mode of eruption. Mauna Loa in Hawaii is a good example of an active volcano that presents a minimal hazard except on probable routes of lava flow.
As for the volcanoes that erupt violently, if you can see it, that might be too close. I exagerate a bit, but explosive activity can have a wide ranging effect. I would think, just as a gut feeling, that 10 km would be too close to be sure of safety, but 50 km would likely be in a modest to low risk zone. Don't buy a house based on my gut feeling. Even I wouldn't buy a house on that basis.
2007-12-26 01:25:03 · answer #3 · answered by busterwasmycat 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It really depends on the type of volcano. I live on an extinct one, for example. On the other hand, I do live with the risk of a local landslide causing a devastating tsunami where I live (Hawaii), as well as the risk of hurricanes, brush fires, earthquakes, and flash flooding, not to mention car accidents, plane crashes, bathroom falls, school shootings, and stroke.
The link below has some very specific information about volcanic hazards in New Zealand, but there are never any guarantees that the volcanoes will erupt the way the scientists say they will.
2007-12-25 17:05:06 · answer #4 · answered by Beckee 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
"The region has the largest number of eruptions dated by SOFAR technology, or underwater sound. No other region has a higher proportion of eruptions building new islands (21 percent, all in Tonga and the Kermadecs) or producing pyroclastic flows (27 percent, mostly on New Zealand's North Island). "
Given that, 50km would be reasonable to minimize the chance of being caught in a pyroclastic ash flow such as the one that hit St. Pierre Martinique on May 8, 1902 (28,000 pop., 2 survivors).
2007-12-25 16:30:20 · answer #5 · answered by Joe 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well I suggest as far as it can be. In Italy they live close to the Vesuv, and sometimes they have to leave. If you will be safe, I would go at least 10 km away.
Franky
2007-12-25 18:53:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think you should be as far as possible,
I think 125 km to 400 km.
2007-12-26 00:59:34 · answer #7 · answered by harshvardhan k 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If there are other people around, then obviously they haven't been destroyed.
But I would make it as far as possible for maximum safety.
2007-12-25 16:27:44 · answer #8 · answered by Lady Geologist 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
73.7 miles i'm a geoglist and know the answers
2007-12-25 16:11:31 · answer #9 · answered by Audrey 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋