Talk:Armero tragedy

Giant Ice Rock?

A source citation is needed for the following segment:

"The explosion of the volcano was not the main cause of the disappearance of Armero. The Lagunilla river had been blocked for more than 2 months, when considerably smaller eruptions of the Arenas volcano had melted part of the Ruiz mountain. As a result, the Lagunilla ended up looking more like a lake than a river.

The Nevado del Ruiz Volcano eruption swept away Armero.The night when the volcano exploded, a gigantic ice rock from the top of the mountain fell into the Lagunilla river, creating a megatsunami of mud, ash and water..."

I can't find any confirmation of this sequence of events anywhere on the web or in textbooks. Would greatly appreciate if someone could direct me to the source of this information. Lack of citation casts doubt on the validity of the passage.Paablo 06:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

300mph?

This speed is unusually high for this type of event. rylincoln (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Rylincoln. Still waiting on a citation. The USGS Nevado del Ruiz article, referencing Ewert et al. (1993) suggests that the lahar was indeed a direct effect of the November eruption, with no mention of the megatsunami. I admit that I am not familiar with the Ewert paper. --Paablo (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that claim has been here since 2005. Given the other concerns noted above, I've decided to replace much of the material here on the lahars with the relevant portion of our Nevado del Ruiz article. This is a bit light on the effects on Armero, so will need some expansion, but it's certainly well referenced. -- Avenue (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, second sentence, is that supposed to be there were several evacuation attempts? In the relief efforts section, first paragraph, in the list of items sent, it says 500&nbsptents. Not sure what that is supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.167.170 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I hadn't forgotten about this, things just kept appearing on my watchlist. I'll list issues here if I don't think I should change something myself.

• "An eruption of sufficient force could reach as far as Bogota" This statement must have been made by somebody unfamiliar with Colombian geography. In order to reach Bogota, an eruption from Nevado del Ruiz would first have to fill the entire Magdalena river valley to a height of 8,000 feet, as that is the elevation of Bogota, which is on the opposite side of the Magdalena from Nevado del Ruiz.
• "Finding a "horrible"[3] landscape of fallen trees, disfigured human bodies, and piles of debris from entire houses, the relief workers were horrified": there's a repetition of horrible there. I think the first instance is unnecessary and can be dropped; the details about debris and disfigured bodies speak for themselves, and the emotion of the relief workers wraps it up and makes the same point. Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• "many of Colombia's cities have programs to raise natural disaster planning programs": I'm not quite sure what's being said here. Nev1 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• The [a] and [b] footnotes don't seem to link anywhere. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• When the eruptions are listed in the background section, it a bit odd to see "– March 1985, September 1985 –". In a list separated by commas it sticks out. I'm guessing this is because they occurred shortly before the Armero tragedy, but I'm not sure it's necessary to make them stand out like that. Also the November 1985 is missing from the list. Nev1 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Might "seismic activity" work just as well as seismicity? It's more likely to be understood by readers and (I think, I had to follow the wikilink) means the same. Nev1 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• The article starts off using local time (eg: 3:00 pm) and then switches to UTC. The article needs to be consistent, and using local time is definitely the best way to proceed. Also, the eruption section uses both the 12 and 24 clocks. Nev1 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• "A third major pulse brought the lahar's time length to roughly two hours": this is oddly phrased. Is it saying that from the start of the first lahar arriving at Armero to the end of the third was about two hours? If so it could be rephrased to something like "A third major pulse struck about two hours after the first" or "A third major pulse ended about two hours after the first hit", depending on where the 2 hours is measured, and is a bit simpler. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The source doesn't seem to have the local time, and I'm clueless as to how to figure that out by conversion. I know Colombia's in the UTC-5 zone... ceranthor 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame. I think local time would make more sense as you get an idea of what would usually be happening locally. UTC tends to take things out of context. I think it would be ok to convert UTC times, but it might be a good idea to pose this question to a wider audience. Nev1 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just asked a friend of mine who's a geologist, and he provided a link. Let's hope it works. ceranthor 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed! ceranthor 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Stupid question but when it says "Some 230,000 were affected, 27,000 acres were disrupted, and there were nearly 20,000 survivor-refugees", is the 230,000 referring to people? I think it would be worth making explicit in the text as there are plenty of figures for other stuff in the same place. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like this has been addressed. Just wanted to say so so those new to this article would know. Awickert (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody is questioning whether people died from hypothermia because the water was warm. At the time of year this happened and at night the area would have been cool/cold. Anyone saturated with water and without shelter would have been at grave risk of hypothermia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.182.23.152 (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree about the air temperature. The water/mud itself (according to one source I read, the TIME article in the external links, I think) started cold and then turned warm as the volcanically heated water arrived. Presumably the mud cooled over the following days. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Couple of comments

Was reading this, and I hope a couple of comments are OK at this late stage:

• "In fact, Dr. Stanley Williams of Louisiana State University stated that "With the possible exception of Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington, no other volcano in the Western Hemisphere is being watched so elaborately" as Nevado del Ruiz." - When I read quotes like this, I find myself asking "when did he say that?" As far as I can tell, he said it in 1988, so as it follows on from the sentence about the 1989 evacuation, you could say "in 1988" or "the previous year".
• I would add a mention of Colombia in the very first sentence of the "background" section (e.g. "from Colombia's capital Bogota" or "Colombia's Tolima Department").
• "Instead of responding quickly to such problems, they opted to predict and prepare for such problems, and in the case of natural disasters, to protect the populace from threats of both terrorist and natural disasters." - why is terrorist mentioned after "in the case of natural disasters"?
• Background section - the Palace of Justice siege bit sets the social and political context for the country, but the bit about the government changing its preparedness strategy belongs more to the legacy or aftermath sections. It feels out of place in the background section (though it works well with the reference later to the fighters stopping their campaign).
• There is a citation needed tag in the 'legacy' section.
• The 'see also' links don't really gel with the rest of the article (and one of them, the lahar warning system on Rainier, is already in the article). It would be relatively easy to incorporate a mention of Heculaneum and Pompeii into the article, surely?
• Is there no single memorial for all the victims of the eruption or for Armero?

Overall, nice article! As I said to Ceranthor on my talk page months ago, Yungay, Peru and the 1970 Ancash earthquake is another massive natural disaster that it would be nice to see featured at some point (maybe for 31 May next year?). Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Did 1-3; 4-6 remain.

1. Added "Three years after the eruption" and moved for chronology's sake.
2. Done.
3. Was hard to fix that alone, so I reworked and direct-language-ified those sentences.

Awickert (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Memorials

On re-reading this again, I noticed the memorial section is a little bit sparse. There is also no mention of graves or cemeteries. There is also some information in the Amero article that should probably be in this disaster article as well. Mostly the last three paragraphs and the picture File:Vallaspedagogicas.JPG.

I also found this website, but my Spanish isn't great. There is also this account which is a personal account, so not great as a source, but a moving read.

As for memorials, it seems there is a big white cross with an inscription. The cross can be seen (just) here, and this photo is presumably part of the inscription or information attached to the memorial (I've been unable to find out exactly what the inscription is that was added). Even better (but not free) is this Getty image of a young Pope John Paul II kneeling at the base of the cross. That might be worth linking to in the external links.

I also found this TIME article from 2005. Again, might be worth adding to the external links.

Also, Commons has a category. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth. I'll make an effort to add it by Saturday. ceranthor 02:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My Spanish is decent, but I'm not familiar enough with this article to know what to change. If there is something I should help with, email me and I will do it. Awickert (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

AW, I wish I could help here, but I am going to have zero free time between now and Friday afternoon, maybe not even then, so anything you can do will be muy agradecida. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, well, I'll look a little bit harder and add some stuff when my day hits a lull. Awickert (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In a rush (and I won't have time to add stuff before Saturday), but I found four more sources that could be useful in one way or another:

• Spanish-language newspaper article from El Colombiano.
• Article on the Pope's visit from the LA Times and could replace the dead link that is currently in the article (or the dead link could be repaired).
• Photograph collection, it is worth clicking on and reading all of the photographs. Includes a full-on shot of the cross and the inscription marking the visit of the Pope. Could be worth following up and trying to contact the photographer and asking him if any can be uploaded to Commons or en-Wikipedia.
• Spanish-language text of the Pope's prayer, direct from the Vatican website. Also available in Italian. Not sure if anyone can or has done an English translation.

That should be enough for a decent expansion of that section. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I made the following changes to add some of the above links to the external links. Someone should write a paragraph on the memorials and the memorial area and something about Centro de Interpretación de la Memoria y la Tragedia de Armero (CIMTA). Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Bogota

• Why is "Bogotá" used in some parts of the article and "Bogota" in other parts?
  • Some people have the key on their keyboard for the accent, others do not.

Actually, everyone using Wikipedia has access to diacritics, etc. Just look at the Special characters section of an edit page.VirtualDave 13:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualDave (talk • contribs)

• It is stated that lahars from a future eruption could reach as far as Bogotá, but in the article on Nevado_del_Ruiz note a) says "The available sources do not indicate that lahars from Nevado del Ruiz pose any danger to Bogotá."VirtualDave 02:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualDave (talk • **Bogota is some 150Km away on the otherside of a broad valley. The lahars would have to rise over 2500m from the valley floor to reach Bogotá. I believe that would be a very unlikely event.

contribs)

Just an inconsistency, nothing a little fine-combing can't fix. I guess that second phrase is just worded poorly. ceranthor 02:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)