火成碎屑流保护,地球科学堆栈交换江南电子竞技平台江南体育网页版

火成碎屑流保护

2015 - 01 - 02 - t09:11:32z

有关问题< a href = " //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/3167/why-dont-scientists-use-fire-entry-suits-to-study-volcanoes " >科学家为什么不用火进入适合研究火山?< / >,火山学家岩浆飞溅防护和炸弹的问题进行了探讨。另一个主要的,有时突然火山事件是< a href = " http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/pyroclasticflow/ " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " > < / >火山碎屑流——这些事件发生的突然性和迅速在许多地方,最近的一个例子是最近的悲剧发生在太Ontake,日本,讨论的问题< a href = " //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/2545/why-would-volcano-eruption-cause-cardiac-arrest " >为什么火山喷发导致心脏骤停? < / >。 有许多火山学家死亡由于火山碎屑流的例子。 周围一些火山在日本,例如,有钢筋混凝土掩体吹捧为火山碎屑流避难所,大岛渚岛上如下所示: < img src = " https://i.stack.imgur.com/mH49m.jpg " alt = "在这里输入图像描述" > < a href = " http://sio.ucsd.edu/japan/journal/0723/ " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " >图像源< / > 从个人经验来说,这些避难所周围太Asama(有了)。 < >强效果如何这些混凝土与火山碎屑流的避难所吗?< /强> 此外,<强>有任何研究的发展对火山碎屑流保护装置? < /强>

答案为火山碎屑流user889保护

2015 - 01 - 03 - t00:32:44z

火山碎屑流经常被认为是总的来说,生还的,特别是1902年破坏圣皮埃尔在马提尼克岛,很多事故是由于缺氧和严重的热损伤(Hansell et al . 2006;巴克斯特et al . 1998年)。 根据美国地质调查局< a href = " http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/pyroclasticflow/ " rel = " noreferrer " >网页对火山碎屑流< / >,这些事件可能发生很突然,没有太多警告(例如太Ontake)和快速旅行,可以和多个几百摄氏度。火山碎屑流还含有大量的有毒气体和岩石碎片。水体的存在的路径可能导致arenas crater和泥石流。 作为火山碎屑流是变量,可突然,没有单向火山学家对其保护效果,除了让开(如果可能的话)。消防服的使用限制流动,还会可能不会流本身的保护。 在AGU的博客< a href = " http://blogs.agu.org/magmacumlaude/2013/02/24/so-you-want-to-be-a-volcanologist/ " rel = " noreferrer " >你想成为火山学家?< / >,杰西卡·贝尔,火山学家从美国地质勘探局称,更大的生存机会做好准备是至关重要的,强调“做作业”的关于火山的喷发历史 之前去看火山。防毒面具、手套、穿长袖衫和长裤也至关重要。 Critically, a volcanologist must be:

very careful to avoid areas that could be dangerous – within the path of pyroclastic flows or mudflows or lava bombs, near gas vents or lava flows, or unstable ground are just a few.

It should be noted that several media reports mention that not all volcanoes have these kinds of shelters.

But where the shelters are present, they could provide an obstacle that could affect pyroclastic flow propogation but only when the shelter is distal to the eruption and if the flow does not last too long, related to modelling performed by Todesco et al. (2006) and earlier by Baxter et al. (1998) who assert that this situation is survivable.

Baxter et al. (1998) also state that through their models, the most effective shelters can shield against the dynamic pressure and heat transfer associated with a pyroclastic flow, especially if the flow is of short duration. This effectiveness obviously diminishes when the flow lasts a considerable amount of time, is large-scale or the shelter is too close to the eruptive source.

What these shelters won't protect from is fine ash dust, and not everyone sheltering will necessarily have a gas mask (as per the volcanologist above). Another problem with this, as noted after the Mt. Unzen eruption of 1991 is that even if shelters are spaced evenly apart - time is a major factor - the time to reach the shelter against the time it takes for the pyroclastic flow to reach that location.

A lot of shelters around some volcanoes that have had a past history of pyroclastic flows have 'exclusion zones' with the shelters in the distal regions of previous eruptions, this method of exclusion zones is claimed by Hansell et al. (2006) as being one of the only effective protective measures from proximal effects of an expected pyroclastic flow - which also describes, alongside the modelling by Baxter et al. (1998), the way that these shelters can have any effectiveness by being in the distal regions.

References

Baxter et al. 1998, Physical Modelling and Human Survival in Pyroclastic Flows, Natural Hazards

Hansell et al. 2006, The health hazards of volcanoes and geothermal areas, Occupational Environmental Medicine

Takahashi, 2007, Unzen-Fugendake Eruption Executive Summary 1990－1995, Unzen Restoration Project Office, Kyushu Regional Construction Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

Todesco et al. 2006, Pyroclastic flow dynamics and hazard in a caldera setting: Application to Phlegrean Fields (Italy Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems

回答Camilo Rada火成碎屑流保护

2018 - 03 - 27 - t01:19:35z

这样的住所与火山碎屑流的有效性被user889精彩讨论。然而,我明白<强>这些避难所从来不是为了防止火山碎屑流< / >强,但从<强>火山碎屑< /强>,一个完全不同的威胁,火山碎屑称为< a href = " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tephra " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " > < / >和火山碎屑炸弹落在地上后被驱逐在一次火山喷发。这不会发生在公司的高温、高速云的火山喷出物,因为它是为< a href = " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " > < / >火山碎屑流。 应该是显而易见的事实,这些避难所开放和不提供隔离的外部(只有防止坠落的东西),一个明确的信号,它们从来没有打算从火山碎屑流保护。 事实上,培雷火山在1902年毁灭性的喷发user889提到的,有30000人死亡,只有两个幸存者。其中唯一一个在市中心的< a href = " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pel%C3%A9e " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " >幸存下来,因为他是在通风不良,dungeon-like牢房< / >,一个经验,应该作为指导火山碎屑流的住所应该,这是一点也不像照片中的一个。