'Paradise tax': the price Hawaiians are prepared to pay for living near volcanoes

This week we have a guest blog by Jazmin, a PhD student in the Department of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences at Hull. She is interested in the links between social, cultural and physical mitigation construct factors to the adaptation of volcanic risks.

By Jazmin Scarlett, University of Hull

The destruction caused by the lava of Kilauea are grabbing the attention of the international media. Last week, footage showed this eruption claiming its first house in Pahoa and people began to question whether to try to halt the flow of lava and how you might go about it.
But the daughter of the family’s home that was destroyed was remarkably sanguine about losing the family home:

If you’re going to live on a volcano, it’s about her (the Hawaiian Goddess Pele), not us … if she wants her land back, then get out of the way. I like to call it ‘paradise tax’.

The volcano is part of their culture. Pele is such a dominant force in Hawaiian’s lives they tend to accept the possibility that it might erupt. For a lot of Hawaiians, their respect for the volcano god appears to override their fear of eruptions.

For instance, the now-displaced family is building another home on older, solidified lava. Hawaii is entirely volcanic due to being situated on a hot spot resulting in a continual output of volcanic material. As far as I am aware, the family did not have insurance. This shows their ability to bounce back and recover from a hazardous event.

Not everyone responds in the same way. Some people are scared, some panic or remain anxious. And yet Hawaiian people have dealt with Kilauea’s almost continuous eruption for more than 50 years now. Over the course of many generations, they are actively learning about the volcano and the risks it poses.

Hawaii hasn’t lost many lives to the lava of Kilauea – mainly because the lava flows are slow (due to a combination of its properties and the land it flows over) – slow enough, at least, for people to respond in time and adjust to the situation (for example evacuating like the Pahoa family did a month before their home was destroyed) but also because of the combined efforts of the public, the civil defence and government authorities.

To date, Kilauea has destroyed more than 200 properties, many roads and claimed the lives of four people in modern times. Historically, the largest number killed by a Mount Kilauea explosion was in 1790, ranging from 80-400 people, a number still being debated.

Photo: BRUCE OMORI/PARADISE HELICOPTERS

Someone’s got your back

The civil defence teams, with the combined efforts of volcanologists and all those involved in keeping the people safe, have experience in how to deal with and adapt to the ever-evolving situation. A recent update shows a collective calm and professionalism, presenting the information in a way that Hawaiians can comprehend.
The risk of property being destroyed is neither exaggerated nor underestimated. The authorities explain the risk by presenting as much information as available – and Hawaiians tend to trust that the authorities are being realistic. This feeds into how people learn and assess the risk to themselves and their properties.

PHOTO: US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Business as usual

At present there appears to be little chance of halting the advancing lava flow. The properties of the lava and external influences, such as the steepness of the terrain, mean that the point at which the lava flow might stop naturally is not yet apparent.

What has been shown in news bulletins are the more runny lava flows that volcanologists call “pāhoehoe” (the “hoe” meaning “to paddle” in Hawaiian) but this is not representative of the reality of the eruption which is producing more viscous, slower moving lava (or “aʻā” as it is known locally). As in Italy and Iceland there have been attempts to stop lava flows in Hawaii but with mixed results. For instance, according to a report in NPR,a US$2m engineering project successfully diverted lava flows near Mount Etna in 1983. But a similar attempt in Hawaii in 1955 and 1960, however, failed because of lack of proper understanding of the situation.

Given the effectiveness of the volcanic hazard management system in place in Hawaii, I have no doubt that such attempts will be made if they are reasonable, through the combined efforts of volcanologists, engineers, the civil defence and a guaranteed investment for the project.
But in case the Hawaiian authorities don’t succeed in halting or diverting the eruption and the flow of lava, we mustn’t underestimate the power of Hawaiian culture and belief to deal with such volcanoes. Living in such parts of the world, disaster resilience is not an urgency but a way of life.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Why Japan’s deadly Ontake eruption could not be predicted

By Rebecca Williams, (@volcanologist)

This article was originally published on The Conversation on the 30th September 2014. It is re-posted here in order for the article to be updated as further news about the ongoing activity comes in, and analysis by Japanese volcanologists and the JMA are released. 

Mount Ontake, Japan’s second-highest volcano, erupted killing at least 31 people (as of Oct 27th, the death toll is at 57 and 6 are missing) on September 27. Since then, there has been feverish speculation about why tourists were on an active volcano and why the eruption wasn’t predicted.
Mount Ontake (also known as Ontakesan) is a stratovolcano which last erupted in 1979-80 and 2007 (there was also a possible, unconfirmed eruption in 1991). Before this, there were no recorded historical eruptions at Mount Ontake.
Since the eruption in 1980, Ontake has been monitored by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). It has seismometers around the volcano to record volcanic tremors and instruments to measure any changes around the volcano. This would provide the JMA with signs that there was magma movement underneath the volcano and that perhaps an eruption was imminent. There had been a slight increase in volcanic tremors starting at the beginning of September. Why, then, was this eruption not predicted?

No warnings

Firstly, the ability to predict volcanic eruptions is an ambition that volcanologists are far from realising. Magma movement under a volcano will cause volcanic tremor, make the ground rise and fall and release gases such as sulphur dioxide. If these signs are monitored closely, then it may be possible to forecast that an eruption may be imminent.

Safe distance. EPA/Kimimasa Mayama

However, all of these things can also happen without any volcanic eruption. Knowing what these signs mean for an individual volcano relies on data collected during previous eruptive episodes, as each volcano behaves differently. Mount Ontake has only had two known historical eruptions and previous to the 1979 eruption, had not been monitored, so scientists here had no previous data to work with. Volcanic tremors are very common at active volcanoes and often occur without being associated with an eruption.
Secondly, the type of eruption that volcanologists think occurred at Ontake is one that does not cause the signals typically monitored at volcanoes. The images and videos captured by hikers on the volcano show that the ash cloud was mostly white, which can be interpreted to mean that the eruption was mostly steam.
The effects of the pyroclastic density currents, the flows of ash, and gas that flowed over the ground from the summit, suggest that they were low-temperature and low concentration. Both of these point to there being no magma directly involved in the eruption. Instead, it is likely water had seeped into the volcano and was superheated by magma within the volcano and flashed to steam causing what is known as a phreatic eruption. Phreatic eruptions occur without magma movement, hence the lack of precursor signals. The 2007 eruption was also phreatic and also occurred with little warning.

Power of nature

So, if an eruption like the one in Japan could not be predicted, should tourists have been allowed up Mount Ontake? Ontake is a place for religious pilgrimage, as well as a popular destination for hikers and climbers. This is quite common for volcanoes around the world; tourists flock to Kilauea, Hawaii to watch the lava flows, climb volcanoes in the Cascade Range, USA and even ski at volcanoes such as Ruapehu in New Zealand. A phreatic explosion such as the one seen at Ontake on Saturday is possible at all of these places.
There is something compelling about the power of nature, and the beauty of a volcano that draws people to them. Volcanoes are inherently dangerous places and there will always be risks to those who visit them. However, events like that at Ontake are thankfully rare. Laying the blame at the foot of either the hikers, or the authorities that allow tourists to visit active volcanoes would be misplaced.

The events at Ontake were tragic. It’s my opinion that it was a tragedy that could not have been predicted or prevented, given our current level of knowledge. It highlights the need to understand volcanic systems better. My thoughts are with the survivors, and the families of those who didn’t make it.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Please post links to updated information in the comments below.

Updates

Latest death toll

It seems that this eruption claimed the lives of 57 people, and 6 others are still unaccounted for. Recovery efforts are expected to recommence in the spring.

'Lessons' in disaster preparedness

The events on Mount Ontake in September have already led to calls for better disaster preparedness on Japan's volcanic mountains. Toshitsugu Fujii, the director of the Coordinating Commitee for Prediction of Volcanic Eruptions, stated in a press conference that he believes there is a gap in the understanding of the commonly used volcanic alert signals. He said "a level 1 danger alert refers to what is 'normal' for an active volcano...in other words, anything could happen inside the crater". He goes on to say that the committee is now looking into the perceptions of these alert levels from those who release them, to those who use them, such as climbers.

Others have issued a call to arms for volcanologists, asking for a national agency for volcanology, rather than research on individual volcanoes being the responsibility of individual university research groups. Shozawa Shin'ichiro states that the only volcanoes in Japan that have manned observatories are "Mount Usu, Mount Unzen, Sakurajima, Mount Aso, and Mount Kusatsu-Shirane" and that "the University of Tokyo, for instance, used to assign instructors and technical associates to its volcano observatories in Kirishima, Izu Ōshima, and elsewhere, but nowadays these facilities are largely unmanned. No researchers were stationed at Mount Ontake, nor are there any on Mount Fuji". Other countries with active volcanoes do have government agencies who are responsible for monitoring active volcanoes, such as the US Geological Survey, who have the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory and the Cascades Volcano Observatory. Currently, in Japan, this responsibility lies with the Japan Meterological Agency (JMA).

There are 35 disaster prevention councils which have been set up to cover 35 active volcanoes across Japan. A survey conducted after the Mount Ontake eruption showed that half of them have yet to set up evacuation plans, though they are considering this and are also considering asking climbers to submit plans before accessing the mountain. These groups also call out to central government for support to improve their disaster preparedness. "If the central government draws up guidelines, it would facilitate the move (to improve disaster prevention measures)," said an official with the Fukushima Prefectural Government, which serves as the secretariat for the Mount Adatara and two other volcano disaster prevention councils.

At Mount Asama, the council have developed a smart phone platform which it uses to alert climbers to weather and volcanic events, if the climber has signed up to the service. However, only a fraction of the mountain visitors have signed up to the alerts. The council are looking at ways to extend the use of its warning system and the JMA seem to be considering rolling it out at other locations. Noritake Nishide, the Director-General of the JMA said that "portable handheld devices such as smartphones should be instrumental in terms of providing information to individual mountain climbers".

Unprecedented coverage on social media
Much of the news of the eruption, and details about the event, were first to be found on Twitter. Hikers on the volcano were tweeting images and commentary during the eruption and this proved invaluable to understanding the processes that occurred. Sadly, recent pathology reports indicate that half of the victims died whilst taking photos of the eruption. Though, apparently Nikon repaired a camera found on a deceased victim, cleaned it and returned it to the family, after recovering some 200 photos. Some survivors found themselves hounded by journalists for details and photos, whilst they were still trapped on the volcano. It led to a lot of armchair volcanology and criticism of the JMA for not predicting the eruption. More thoughts on this below.

Hindsight bias

The article above was largely written in response to several inflammatory articles suggesting that there was someone to blame for this tragedy, or that 'warning signs were missed'. I will not link to those articles here. These types of articles either fall into the trap of thinking that someone must be to blame, or they have looked at the events with 'hindsight bias'. Jonathon Stone has written an excellent article about hindsight bias that I urge you to read here: http://www.nonsolidground.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/i-knew-it-all-along-avoiding-hindsight.html

Kinematic indicators in the Green Tuff Ignimbrite: can they tell us about the timing of caldera collapse?

By Dr Rebecca Williams (@volcanologist) & Jodie Dyble

In the summer of 2014 I have had a Nuffield Foundation student, Jodie, working with me towards a Gold CREST Award, which we blogged about the other week. Here, I’m going to talk a bit about the research she did.

Jodie looked at the Green Tuff Ignimbrite on the island of Pantelleria, Italy. The Green Tuff Ignimbrite is a rheomorphic ignimbrite which was emplaced during an eruption about 45 thousand years ago. An ignimbrite is the deposit from a pyroclastic density current. Rheomorphic means that the deposit was still hot when it was formed, so that the shards of ash welded together and was able to be deformed ductiley. Rheomorphic ignimbrites are common on places like Gran Canaria, in the Canary Islands (where the classic work of Schmincke & Swanson 1967 was done) and the Snake River Plain in the western US. You can get two types of rheomorphism, that which occurs during deposition of the ignimbrite (e.g. the overriding current exerts a shear on the underlying deposit) and rheomorphism which occurs after the deposit has been fully formed (e.g. the deposit starts slumping under gravity). I’m avoiding using primary vs secondary here, as actually the historical meaning of those words and their relative timings can be difficult to disentangle. For a very good, concise overview take a read of (Andrews & Branney 2005). Either way, rheomorphic structures within the deposit like lineations, folds, tension gashes and rotated crystals or clasts, can tell us about this sense of movement. Volcanologists interpret these kinematic indicators in the same way a structural geologist would interpret verging folds, or rotated porphyroclasts in a mylonite (e.g. Passchier & Simpson 1986). You can even determine the direction a pyroclastic density current flowed if you map out these kinematic indicators across the ignimbrite (e.g. Andrews & Branney, 2011).

Schematic diagram of the development of rheomorphic structures in a syndepositional shear zone during the deposition of an ignimbrite. Taken from Andrews & Branney, 2005.

The Green Tuff eruption was said to have been a caldera forming eruption, but the details of this have been debated. Two different calderas have been proposed: the Cinque Denti caldera (Mahood & Hildreth 1986) and the Monastero caldera (Cornette et al. 1983; Civetta et al. 1988). These share the same scarps to the east, west and south but while the Cinque Denti caldera has exposed scarps in the north (the Costa di Zinedi scarp, the Kattibucale scarp and the Cinque Denti scarp), the Monastero caldera has a buried northern scarp. During my PhD on the Green Tuff (Williams 2010; Williams et al. 2014) I found that the Costa di Zinedi scarps, the Kattibucale scarps and the Cinque Denti scarps were extensively draped by the Green Tuff, right down to the bottom of the exposed caldera walls.

The map shows the two different proposed calderas for the Green Tuff eruption. Panoramics and sketches show the draping Green Tuff down the three disputed scarps. Localities used in this study are highlighted. From Williams, 2010.

What Jodie set out to determine this summer was when that draping occurred. My work on the chemical stratigraphy of the Green Tuff already determined that those drapes represented the earliest part of the eruption. So, did caldera collapse happen after the deposition of the Green Tuff and did those drapes represent the rheomorphic slumping of the deposit down a newly formed caldera wall? Or, did the caldera wall exist before the emplacement of the Green Tuff, and those drapes represent a deposit formed by an overriding current? In the field, macro indicators (such as large scale folds) suggested that the deposit slumped down the caldera wall. We went in search of micro kinematic indicators to see if they would tell the same story.

 Some of the micro-kinematic indicators seen in the thin sections from the Green Tuff Ignimbrite, including verging folds and rotated clasts (δ and σ–objects). From Dyble & Williams, 2015.

What Jodie found was compelling evidence for upslope flow in the thin sections that she analysed. Thus, those deposits were formed by the Green Tuff pyroclastic density current flowing up the caldera scarps, depositing and shearing the underlying deposit as it went. Which means that those caldera scarps must have existed before the Green Tuff ignimbrite did, so we support the idea that those scarps had nothing to do with the Green Tuff eruption. We think that’s pretty neat and we’re presenting the work at the Volcanic and Magmatic Studies Group annual conference, which in January 2015 will be held in Norwich. Jodie has already made the poster we’ll be presenting as part of the assessment required to achieve a Gold CREST Award, so we’ve decided to publish that online before the conference. I’d like to thank Jodie for some stellar research this summer, despite only having done 1 year of Sixth Form (AS level) geology (she’s 17!), and answering some questions I’ve been pondering for about 6 years. Hopefully, this data will go into a couple of papers I’m working on too!

Andrews, G. & Branney, M., 2005. Folds, fabrics, and kinematic criteria in rheomorphic ignimbrites of the Snake River Plain, Idaho: Insights into emplacement and flow. In J. Pederson & C. . Dehler, eds. Interior Western United States: Field Guide 6. Bouldor, Colorado: Geological Society of America, pp. 311–327.

Andrews, G.D.M. & Branney, M.J., 2011. Emplacement and rheomorphic deformation of a large, lava-like rhyolitic ignimbrite: Grey’s Landing, southern Idaho. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 123(3-4), pp.725–743.

Civetta, L. et al., 1988. The eruptive history of Pantelleria (Sicily Channel) in the last 50 ka. Bulletin of Volcanology, 50, pp.47–57.

Cornette, Y. et al., 1983. Recent volcanic history of pantelleria: A new interpretation. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 17(1-4), pp.361–373.

Dyble, J.A., Williams, R., 2015. Micro kinematic indicators in the Green Tuff Ignimbrite: can they tell us about caldera collapse? VMSG Meeting, Norwich, 5th-7th January 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1160476

Mahood, G. & Hildreth, W., 1986. Geology of the peralkaline volcano at Pantelleria, Strait of Sicily. Bulletin of Volcanology, 48, pp.143–172.

Passchier, C. & Simpson, C., 1986. Porphyroclast systems as kinematic indicators. Journal of Structural Geology, 8(8), pp.831–843.

Schmincke, H. & Swanson, D., 1967. Laminar viscous flowage structures in ash-flow tuffs from Gran Canaria, Canary Islands. The Journal of Geology, 75(6), pp.641–644.

Williams, R., 2010. Emplacement of radial pyroclastic density currents over irregular topography: The chemically-zoned, low aspect-ratio Green Tuff ignimbrite, Pantelleria, Italy. University of Leicester. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.789054
Williams, R., Branney, M.J. & Barry, T.L., 2014. Temporal and spatial evolution of a waxing then waning catastrophic density current revealed by chemical mapping. Geology, 42(2), pp.107–110.

High school students as research partners: working with Nuffield Placement Students

 by Jane Bunting (@DrMJBunting) and Rebecca Williams (@Volcanologist)


Meanwhile, back in the lab...

This week, the blog is back indoors, where Jane and Rebecca are spending August helping some Sixth Form students get a taste of 'real science' in the summer before they apply for University.  Five students have placements with us in GEES through the Nuffield Foundation Research Placements Scheme, which will enable them to be assessed for a British Science Association CREST Gold Award.

Rebecca did a Nuffield Placement herself in the summer after her first year of A Levels.  Neither the Nuffield scheme or the CREST Awards had been done before at Rebecca’s school. An eager biology teacher, Dr Bridgeman, had heard of the scheme and so started it up that year with Rebecca and two of her school friends being the first students to go through it. They weren’t provided with placements, but rather had to find them for themselves. At the time, Rebecca knew she enjoyed Geography, Science and Maths. She was also a bit obsessed with Time Team and she has blogged before about how her journey into geology really started by wanting to be a geophysicist. The only company she could find locally which did geophysics was a consultancy company for the oil and gas company, TGS-Nopec (as they were then known). Rebecca wrote a letter (no email back then!) asking if they would take her on as a work experience student and was delighted when they did. It was a phenomenal experience. Rebecca worked on a project called ‘Hydrocarbon prospectivity along the eastern seaboard, offshore northwest Europe’. She doesn’t have a good memory, but the report is sat next to her as she types this – a testament to how important the experience was. Rebecca found that the geophysical interpretation of the seismic lines wasn’t what interested her. Rather, it was the geology – how is the oil formed, where does it come from, where is it stored, how is it trapped and where can it be found? When Rebecca then had to fill out her UCAS application a month or so later, it was geology degrees she applied to, and not the geophysics that she thought she was going to do, and the rest, as they say, is history. The Nuffield Scheme really did change Rebecca’s path in life. The results from that project were eventually presented by TGS-Nopec at the PETEX Conference – the premier oil and gas conference!

Students doing placements work with a supervisor for 4-6 weeks on a 'real' research project - one where the supervisor doesn't know what will happen or be found out.  The students are expected to read around their topics, contribute to discussions about the design of experiments or studies, plan their own time, learn to use different pieces of equipment, collect data and interpret it, and produce a report and a talk or poster at the end of the placement - of course there is lots of help available, from the supervisor, from technical staff, from other students and researchers in related fields, but it is still quite a challenge.  This year's students all seem to be making the most of it, and are filling their lab notebooks with lots of lovely data.

Tinashe weighing an ear of wheat

surface of a wheat leaf: the 'squashed donuts' are the stomata

Jordan, Leah, Charlotte and Tinashe from local sixth forms at Wyke and Sirius Academy are all working with Jane and Lindsey Atkinson (@LJA_1), who also blogs here, on a pilot study of the effects of small climate changes on spring wheat, which is linked to a bigger project being run by the Network Ecology Group called "The impacts of climate-warming on farmland food-webs and ecosystem services".  In this project, 24 plots are marked out in a field of spring wheat.  Half of these are warmed by 2 ^oC, the sort of change in summer temperature which we are likely to see in our region within the next century according to predictive models.  Since the warming will dry out the soil, half of the warmed plots and half of the non-warmed plots are also given some extra water, so some plots are warmer and drier, and some are just warmer.  We're studying wheat plants collected from the different plots in the field experiment, and also growing our own in the controlled environment rooms in the GEES building, where special lights on timers mimic day and night cycles, the room temperature is controlled, and neither rabbits nor aphids can snack on the growing leaves - the indoors experiment should therefore help us understand how the plants respond to the climate changes without the rest of the food web complicating the picture.  Jordan is studying how biomass allocation varies (essentially 'plant budgeting', looking at how plant resources are divided between light capture, water capture and reproduction).  Charlotte is looking at the effects of the climate changes on the grain yield of the wheat plants.  Leah and Tinashe are looking in more detail at whether the plants can adapt to grow in different conditions by varying the number of stomatal cells in their leaves (an introduction to studying stomata aimed at students can be found here). 

Jordan and Leah cutting up wheat plants

These data, along with other aspects of the plants being measured by Jane and Lindsey, will form the basis for an initial paper on the response of this important crop plant to anticipated climate changes (which of course will get blogged about here) and for a grant application to extend the work; we need to show that our experiments will produce interesting results before we can ask for funding, so these projects are playing an important role in helping us develop this research area.

Jodie uses a digital camera to photograph her thin sections

Jodie joins us from Hessle High School and Sixth Form College. Jodie is interested in geology and chemistry so we’re convincing her that volcanology is an excellent subject! Jodie is doing a research project on the Green Tuff Ignimbrite from Pantelleria with Rebecca. In particular she is looking at thin sections of the ignimbrite to look for features that she can use to interpret how the ignimbrite was formed. This project is a continuation of a long-running project that started with Rebecca’s PhD in 2006. It’s a small, but important part of a much bigger research jigsaw, and the results look promising! We’ll be blogging more about the project next week. If the results look good, Jodie and Rebecca will be presenting the research at the UK’s volcanology conference which this year is hosted in Norwich; Jodie is getting real experience of working on a research project at the cutting-edge of Rebecca’s science.

The Nuffield Schemes offer a wonderful opportunity for students to try out real science; it's very different from school!  For us, it's an excellent way to communicate with the next generation of scientists and consumers of scientific findings, and gives the students involved a taste of scientific work, a boost for their university or job applications and helps them make better course and career choices.  If you're a student reading this, ask your teachers about the scheme or go to this link.  If you're a scientist, we urge you to consider taking on placement students through the scheme - it might even help you get that crucial bit of data to progress your research next summer.

How do you become a volcanologist?

Researcher profile: Dr Rebecca Williams (@volcanologist)

How do you get to be a volcanologist? That’s a question I get asked a LOT. And a question that I’m happy to talk to anybody about, because I think it’s the best job in the world. It’s a question that I never had anybody to ask it to, when I was thinking about what career I might want to have. Through my GCSEs I got more and more interested in physical geography and my rock collection at home was growing (on the journey back from a Girl Guides camping trip, the coach driver asked me “what have you got in here, rocks or something?!” as he loaded my bags. He was stunned when I replied “yes, actually”). For a GCSE project we did an information pamphlet for the people of Naples about the volcano Vesuvius. Could you do this as a job?!

Pantelleria caldera lake - studying volcanoes means travel to some beautiful places.

But when I met with the ‘careers guidance’ teacher at school, they didn’t know what you could do to study volcanoes and geology. “Perhaps you could be a geophysicist?!” Well that was a word I’d heard of, being an avid Time Team watcher, so I thought that it sounded like a good idea. I chose my A levels based on that careers advice and started collecting university prospectuses based on who offered geophysics, but found myself narrowing down my UCAS choices by who emphasised volcanology on their courses.

Working at HVO as a gas geochemist.

The promise that ‘some of our undergraduates have volunteered at the Hawaii Volcano Observatory (HVO)’ made me head off to Royal Holloway to do a BSc in Geology. By that point I’d had a Nuffield Science Bursary and been awarded a Gold Crest Award for a summer’s work experience at TGS-NOPEC, where I discovered that geophysics probably wasn’t for me. But I knew that studying Geology would be ace, and I wasn’t wrong. My degree instilled a love of fieldwork, a sense of travel and adventure and a never ending curiosity about rocks: where did they come from? how they were formed? I entered my 3^rd year not really knowing what career I’d end up having, but knew I wanted it to be geology related. I applied constantly to the HVO until they finally offered me a placement. So, a week after graduation I flew to Hawaii where I worked as a gas geochemist for 6 months. This was not only an amazing experience (walking on lava flows, contributing to important science, hiking across volcanic terrain, snorkelling at the weekends) but also the moment when I realised that I could be a volcanologist as a career.

My path to volcanology wasn't always linear. For a while I worked as a PADI Divemaster.

On return from HVO I spent a year and a half working at the Hydroactive Dive Centre as a PADI Divemaster. I spent this time saving up and applying for Grad School so I could get a Master’s degree in Volcanology. I was awarded a teaching assistantship to study at the University of Buffalo in the USA. Here, my interest in hazardous volcanic flows developed, starting with my Master’s research on lahars.  Developing and driving my own research was something I’d really enjoyed so I then searched high and low for a great PhD project so I could continue doing volcanic research. I returned to the UK to do my PhD at the University of Leicester on pyroclastic density currents.

Logging volcanic deposits in the field

After my PhD I sailed as an igneous petrologist on an IODP expedition, and held a series of short-term teaching contracts at Leicester. This post-doc time of anyone’s life can be tough – when you’re never sure if that holy grail of an academic job can be found. I stuck it out, worked hard, juggled a part-time job as a teaching fellow and a part-time research job and gained some invaluable experience. Then, a year ago I made the move to Hull as a lecturer in geology, undertaking research in volcanology and now hold a permanent position. I made it. I’m a volcanologist. Now, I'm training up a new generation of budding geographers, geologists and hopefully, a volcanologist or two.