Talk:Cumbre Vieja

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Volcanoes (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Santorini eruption[edit]

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)

Volcanic history[edit]

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)

Averting risk[edit]

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)


Hmmm interesting and very far fetched.

1. Destroy the "risky section" would not work as no-one knows precisely how much is at risk of failing - it could be the 2.5 km that failed in 1949 or it could be the full 25 km of the Cumbre Vieja. Regardless of which the other unknown is would it cause a mega-tsunami or not? There is no way of telling.

2. Drain the water - which would involve creating a serious drought on the island. Meteoric waters - rain and snow is the ONLY source of providing readily available fresh potable water. A desalination plant could be built but at what cost financially and environmentally they increase salinity of sea water.

3. Develop scientific models etc to counter mega-tsunamis. I doubt that we could prevent a mega-tsunami from inundating a sea shore. Places where tsunamis are common - e.g., Japan have built high walls to prevent tsunamis inundating the land and in 2011 it over-topped a 3m high wall.

Histrionics aside, I note that the usual cry of use a nuclear device usually comes from the one nation that even in 2012 remains the ONLY nation that has ever used a nuclear device in anger. There was a proposal to use them to excavate a road cutting, selling seats etc., to observers but the plan was called off because of the radiation. So nuclear devices would be unsuitable as the fall out would probably pollute a greater area than a tsunami would damage.The Geologist (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Userbox available[edit]

Copy and paste the following: {{User:UBX/Cumbre Vieja}}

--One Salient Oversight 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


You will long since have turned to dust - you have more chance of walking to Alpha Centuri before the CV collapses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.108.129 (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Future Threat[edit]

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)

Wrong picture[edit]

The picture in the first section actually just shows the Caldera de Taburiente and the Cumbre Nueva and not the Cumbre Vieja. The Cumbre Vieja is just off picture to the south of the Cumbre Nueva.

About the translation of "Cumbre Vieja" (added 20100427)[edit]

Cumbre Vieja (Spanish: Old Summit)

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)


About tsunami impact[edit]

Considering that all of the future threats listed relate to a potential megatsunami, why is it inappropriate to refer to the inertial effects of water in motion? I tried to update the article, and I suppose I put the thing in the wrong place, but ... shouldn't the threat be put SLIGHTLY into context? ... you know, so people understand WHY it's a threat?

I said water was very heavy, and that water in motion conveyed an incredible amount of inertia ... it got deleted ... so I assume I did something wrong ... but I still think it's applicable to the topic... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironywrit (talkcontribs) 05:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


It was out of place and awkward for starters. " Water is heavy (8.3 lbs/gallon); when you speak in terms of billions of gallons of water in motion (which conveys great inertia), it can and will sweep away even the most secure of structures." I passed this same edit twice before I acted on it. While this may be a physics matter, you are NOT an expert and you have no sources to confirm anything about it. The article is already sub-par, but saying 'water is heavy and has great inertia' is adding nothing to the topic and it gives undue weight to the topic of 'future disasters'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


Whoa man, there is no need to add hyperbole to this correction. Granted, I'm not an expert, but the facts spoke for themselves... I figured the density of water would be common enough physical knowledge. You seem inordinately irritated. ironywrit (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2012 (EST)
In all fairness, the article is a mess. I do not have time to fix it and I have no intention of doing so. Your add on seemed to fall under coatrack, and I don't mean to offend. The wording and way of describing it irks me because it is out of the 'Ancient Aliens' or 'Apocalypse' shows from History Channel in which they heap lots of pseudo-science and theory onto something and then say some arbtriary 'fact' to make it sound authoritative without it being so. I forget the exact term, but its a type of elliptical argument or one that has a hidden assumption based on X. In this case it is taking an absolute worst-case scenario imaginable, compounding it and then adding numbers to justify that argument to make it more disturbing. Its like saying that 'a meteor will strike earth sometime in the future. If it is the size of a small bus or home, it could destroy an entire city.' then pointing out the forces involved as 'E = mc^2 states that its mass and speed will translate into enough energy to be equivolent to a nuclear bomb!' The article is already dominated by this 'future threat' versus reality, its structure, its history and so on. See Yellowstone Caldera for a more dangerous threat that is not forecasting doom in such a way. And yes, the supervolcano has had dozens of doomsayers and shows about what COULD happen if it blew entirely up. Doesn't mean that dominating an article on such grounds is warranted. Due weight and all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


Water - (fresh) has a density of 1000 kg per cubic metre, sea water has a density of about 1100 kg per cubic metre. Water itself does not move it is the transfer of energy that creates a tsunami which radiates out.The Geologist (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

SPELLING[edit]

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)

Looking into adding info from this page, specifically the Delft study and Tsunami Society statement: http://www.lapalma-tsunami.com/ Jago25 98 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) jago25_98

Hi Jago25, you might like to liaise with me as I am in the process of re-writing it. As for the Delft study - it is controversial and has not been peer reviewed. The Tsunami Society papers will be made available as PDF documents. There is a lot of information available some of which has been discarded several times from this page because it evidently did not suit some people.The Geologist (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Delft Study is available at: http://home.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/UD/MenC/Support/Internet/TU_Website/TU_Delft_portal/Actueel/Magazines/Delft_Integraal/archief/2006_DI/2006-3/achtergrond/doc/LaPalma.pdf The Geologist (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The above link appears to be broken - can someone please fix it as it does exist.

For more information: Prof. Dr. Jan Nieuwenhuis, j.d.nieuwenhuis@tudelft.nl; Ir. Janneke van Berlo, jvanberlo@gmail.com; Ir. Robert Jan Labeur, rjlabeur@tudelft.nl. They will supply a version in English or can someone fix the link please?The Geologist (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Teneguía article[edit]

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)

It is a vent on the Cumbre Vieja - not a volcano in its own right.The Geologist (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of reference[edit]

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)

Lituya Bay is referenced but without citation (except where it contradicts another wiki article)[edit]

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)

Please READ the items below:

"...On 9 July 1958 a 7.9 magnitude earthquake and landslide released ~3.1 x 107 m3 of rock and debris in Crillon Inlet at the head of Lituya Bay, Alaska. The mass impacted the water with a force of ~8.8 x 1010 N m2 and this generated a massive surge (which has since become known as the Lituya Bay 'mega-tsunami'), with an initial amplitude (height) of ~300 metres (980 ft). The wave surged to a height of ~520 metres (1,710 ft), and stripped trees and soil from the opposite headland and inundated the entire bay, destroying three fishing boats anchored there and killing two people. Once the wave reached the open sea, however, it rapidly dissipated..."" reproduced from the Cumbre Vieja page.

1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami is located in Alaska AnchorageAnchorage 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami Date July 10, 1958 UTC Origin time 06:15:58 a.m. UTC [1] Magnitude 7.8 Mw [1][2][3] Depth 35 km (22 mi) [2] Epicenter 58.370°N 136.665°W Coordinates: 58.370°N 136.665°W [2] Type Strike-slip [4] Areas affected Lituya Bay, Alaska Max. intensity XI (Extreme) [2] Tsunami 525 m (1,722 ft) [3] Casualties 5 [5] The 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami occurred on July 9 at 10:15:58 p.m. with a moment magnitude of 7.8 and a maximum Mercalli Intensity of XI (Extreme). The event took place on the Fairweather Fault and triggered a landslide that caused 30 million cubic metres of rock and ice to fall into the narrow inlet of Lituya Bay, Alaska.[6] The sudden displacement of water resulted in a megatsunami that destroyed vegetation up to 525 m (1,722 ft) above the height of the bay and a wave that traveled across the bay with a crest reported by witnesses to be on the order of 30 m (100 ft) in height.[6] This is the most significant megatsunami and the largest known in modern times. The event forced a re-evaluation of large wave events, and recognition of impact and landslide events as a previously unknown cause of very large waves. Reproduced from "1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami."

AND:-

1958 megatsunami[edit] Main article: 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami

Spruce tree shattered by the force of the water. The same topography that leads to the heavy tidal currents also created the highest wave from a tsunami in recorded history. On July 9, 1958, an earthquake caused a landslide in the Gilbert Inlet at the head of the bay, generating a massive megatsunami measuring between 100 ft (30 m) and 300 ft (91 m). The wave possessed sufficient power to snap off all the trees up to 1,720 feet (520 m) high on the slope directly opposite the landslide. There were three fishing boats anchored near the entrance of Lituya Bay on the day the giant wave occurred. One boat sank and the two people on board were killed. The other two boats were able to ride the waves. Among the survivors were William A. Swanson and Howard G. Ulrich, who provided accounts of what they observed. Based on Swanson's description of the length of time it took the wave to reach his boat after overtopping Cenotaph Island near the bay's entrance, the wave may have been traveling 120 mph. When it reached the open sea, however, it dissipated quickly. This incident was the first direct evidence and eyewitness report of the existence of megatsunamis.[3]

You MIGHT like to consult the USGS because that is where the information comes from. Also other sources cite the initial amplitude as being 300 m (BTW what is feet? as the only feet I know of are those items at the end of mine, yours, and everyone else's legs) International scientists have used metres for almost 100 years as a measurement. I think also you will find that someone has interfered with the Lituya Bay pages. You might also like to consider how a wave 30 metres high can surge to 520 metres - it cannot! It was estimated - no-one witnessed the event so all the evidence is circumstantial and based upon reports. So please feel free to produce the evidence that contradicts what you have presented. However, I take your point and will cite the necessary references.

Also in my own defence, I did not write the section relating to Lituya Bay, and took it in good faith. However, I take your point - I should have verified information in respect of the whole page as I was re-writing the information regarding the Cumbre Vieja.

The Geologist (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lituya Bay references - I have located two references in relation to the claims made and have cited these as they ar eboth from reliable peer reviewed sources. There is not surprisingly little information published in relation to the event - most of the works are half-century anniversary papers.The Geologist (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of dead link[edit]

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.

The Geologist (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As is this one:

To the person who put this link to Benfield *Benfield HRC Q&A into the page - leave it off as the link does not work, that is it is a DEAD LINK. There is little point in adding links that do not work as they waste peoples time finding out that they don't work. Apart from which Benfield Hazard Research Centre is an insurance financed (Benfield) centre and has a very biased and vested interest. The article itself is factual based upon researched scientific evidence from peer reviewed sources. After all insurance companies the world over sell insurance on something that may never happen but they play on peoples fears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.108.129 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Media reports[edit]

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)

Historical "mega-tsunamis"[edit]

The first and last paragraphs of the "Historical "mega-tsunamis" section of this article deal with Cumbre Vieja. All the other paragraphs of this section contain good information and description of various tsunami events but I don't see that their relevance to Cumbre Vieja has been explicitly established. Can any relevance to Cumbre Vieja be added? If not, I suggest that all but the first and last paragraphs of this section would be better placed in Wikipedia by moving them to the Tsunami article. GeoWriter (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Geologist, I'm copying and pasting your reply to me at my own Talk page, to try to keep this discussion in one place, GeoWriter (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)  :
Hi, You commented upon items relating to tsunamis in the Cumbre Vieja page. I decided to rewrite the page - extensively as it contained many errors of fact, a lot of histrionics and an awful lot of pseudo-science presented as science. I actually work in the Canaries as a volcanologist and became increasingly annoyed at the misrepresentation that was being presented. Having discussed the issue with my colleagues it was agreed that whilst strictly not connected to the Cumbre Vieja, the media in particular present Lituya Bay, Vaijont Dam etc., as "proving" the so called mega-tsunami claims. Which is why after much deliberation I decided to leave them in. The trouble is that people watch TV and the documentaries which present pseudo-science as fact and they believe that it must be true as the producers broadcast the information - not helped by a certain insurance financed professor who insists that the claim that the Cumbre Vieja is in the initial stages of failure without any evidence to support his claims - but he shouts long and hard and has BIG bucks behind him. So on that basis I feel that the article is best served by presenting the information as it stands. Let me know how you feel. Thanks,The Geologist (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The media just want a story that sells and they are choosing a scare story, irrespective of its accuracy. Whether Wikipedia is accurate or inaccurate is unlikely to change their unscientific, commercial approach.
You have written several paragraphs in the Cumbre Vieja article about tsunamis that are not linked to Cumbre Vieja. If you are trying to use this text and its references to indirectly prove that researcher X's claims about Cumbre Vieja are wrong, on Wikipedia this would usually be regarded as "novel synthesis" and "original research", which are not allowed. Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. If that is not your intention, then I don't know what the paragraphs not directly related to Cumbre Vieja add to the subject of this article as opposed to tsunamis in general, so I don't think this article is the best place for this "non-Cumbre Vieja" information.
In a Wikipedia science-related article, to show that researcher X has made a claim that an editor thinks can be falsified in the scientific method sense ('disproved' in colloquial English), I believe that it's necessary to supply a reliably-sourced reference, preferably from a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that explicitly states that researcher X's claims about e.g flank collapse of Cumbre Vieja are not true because of A, B and C. The rules of Wikipedia do not allow indirect evidence to imply that someone's claim is wrong, even if the original claim is indeed wrong. Wikipedia is not intended to be a website where the world's misinformation is corrected and wrongs are righted. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the blogosphere. Wikipedia is supposed to report verifiable/verified facts and until an editor can find a reference explicitly stating that researcher X's claim is wrong, then the editor's claim that researcher X is wrong is unverifiable and likely to risk deletion by other editors. If an editor can't supply the explicitly disproving reference which falsifies a claim (in the scientific method sense), the editor can't use Wikipedia to say that researcher X is wrong. The editor will have to find or publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal that falsifies researcher X's claim. (I've heard that similar frustrations/restrictions even seem to apply when e.g. famous people are unable to correct some inaccuracy in a Wikipedia article about themselves, because they can't provide reliable independent sources that explicitly disprove the false claims).
As I doubt that you will find, at least in the near future, a reference that will prove your point about the media's and the researcher's claim about Cumbre Vieja being false or inaccurate, I recommend that you follow my suggestion of moving the paragraphs that don't directly refer to Cumbre Vieja to the Tsunami article, rather than fall foul of breaking the original research rule of Wikipedia, which would be almost impossible for you to defend against deletion and any effort you expend on trying to use other examples of tsunamis to indirectly disprove the risk of one occurring at Cumbre Vieja will be wasted effort for you.
Irrespective of what happens with the mega-tsunami section in this Cumbre Vieja article, I think the paragraphs not related to Cumbre Vieja should at least be copied to the Tsunami article because there is good information in them. GeoWriter (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please let's keep the discussion on the Cumbre Vieja talk page, so I'm copying and pasting your latest reply from my talk page again GeoWriter (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) :

Tsunami items - I am sorry but I disagree. However if you who are not involved with the Cumbre Vieja want to do what you suggest then do it but don't be surprised if they do reappear - not by me. I did as I said think long and hard about the information and discussed it with my colleagues who are based here in the Canary Islands before deciding that the informatiom should be left in. Someone is intent on messing with the page - people who have not got the facts. The Lituya Bay incident has sat on the CV pages for several years long before I decided to rewrite it, and I feel that there has been ample opportunity to remove them. I and my colleagues are sick tired and weary of people who don't like what is written about the CV and seem to deliberately want to perpetuate the myth presented by a certain Bill McGuire, Simon Day and Stephen Ward who have been financed by the insurance industry. However not wanting to contravene Wiki's ethos etc; as far as I am concerned then they can be transferred to the tsunami page, but I still feel that they should be mentioned especially the Lituya Bay incident as that is what lead McGuire, Day etc to seek funding from the insurance companies. Incidentally which items are you referring to as not being "Peer Reviewed?" as every reference I have included is published in peer reviewed journals. I do not consider the media to be peer reviewed - unlike some people. The Geologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.108.129 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning Lituya Bay and other tsunamis would be fine in this article but only if their inclusion is made relevant to Cumbre Vieja, otherwise readers are going to read it and probably think "interesting but so what? What does this have to do with Cumbre Vieja?". The relevance of the tsunamis needs to be explained, so the reader can benefit from the inclusion of the text. Otherwise, it's a waste of effort and bandwith, isn't it? Why should the readers of the article have to make that link for themselves, without an editor's background knowledge of the geological facts and the politics of the situation? I think it is unfair on readers to expect them to fill in the gaps themselves before they can understand the relevance of currently contextless descriptions of tsunamis on the other side of the world. I invite you to add more specific details as a Cumbre Vieja context to these currently contextless descriptions of the Lituya Bay, Vajont dam, Krakatau and Santorini tsunamis, please.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That isn't my rule, it's Wikipedia's rule. I think the place to put your concerns about misinformation/errors etc. about Cumbre Vieja is e.g. on your own blog and/or the IGN/IGME websites, or in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm just trying to advise you that Wikipedia is not the place for it. Have you and your colleagues in the Canary Islands, who don't like what the Benfield people claim, published a rebuttal/counter-argument yet? If not, why not?
In my previous post, my reference to articles that are not peer-reviewed was not referring to the sources you have already included in the article. I was describing, in general terms, the requirements for an editor when attempting to rebut a claim that the editor believes is false. GeoWriter (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That was a great time![edit]

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)

To the person who added (Citation needed) If you read the page properly and the references referred to you will see why the citation need was in fact NOT needed.The Geologist (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Parallel with Storegga Slide[edit]

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)

The supporting geological evidence for a large trans-oceanic tsunami is scarce. It is known that parts of the North Sea coastline were inundated but with few exceptions the inundation does not appear to have propagated far in land - exceptions as usual apply because the deposits that can be correlated to the slides has been located up to ~80 km inland and ~4m above present day sea levels at only a few known locations and have been dated at ~6.2 ka BCE. The radio carbon date for the Storrega slides places them as occurring during the neolithic - that is the "New Stone Age." As others have pointed out there is a lack of evidence for a mega-tsunami ever occurring - for one thing the physics involved will not permit water to be accelerated to the amplitudes claimed by Ward and Day (2001), etc. There is no supporting evidence that indicates that the tsunami propagated across the Atlantic, though it may also be considered rather strange if it didn't. In any event it still is not a mega-tsunami.The Geologist (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)