Rating: 
Summary: "Into Thin Air" meets "The Johnstown Flood"
Review: "No Apparent Danger" tells the story of two volcanic disasters that took place in Colombia in 1985 and 1993. The first was an epic disaster that killed over 23,000 people and obliterated a small city. The other was the result of sheer human stupidity, yet another example of man thinking he's smarter than nature. Six scientists and three tourists were killed and several others horribly maimed because they were standing pratically on top of an active volcano crater when it had a minor eruption. All of the victims probably would have survived had they taken some basic precautions.The leader of the group, self-serving, aggrandizing geologist Steve Williams was largely responsible for the laxes that led to the tragedy. And yet after barely surviving his own mule-headiness, he manages to convince the press that he's a hero through his own vulgar audacity. Cheers to author Victoria Bruce for publishing the truth and defalting Williams' own self serving book about these events. The book's only flaw is that the first tragedy doesn't get quite the coverage it deserves, as if she were in a hurry to skewer the villian of the story and rushed it. Nevertheless, this is still a well written, informative and ultimately depressing account.
Rating:
Summary: Good for the casual fan!
Review: A very good introductory book that can be read by anyone regardless of scientific background. Simply written, it gives a good explaination of how hard the scientists job is, and how easy it was for mistakes to be made without getting bogged down in scientific jargon. The book tells a very good story, and is hard to put down. The only thing that I found a bit distracting was wondering how she came to write this book, which wasn't explained till the very end. But you know who wouldn't like this book? Stanley Williams, the book seems to be pretty unbiased in describing how Dr Williams laughed at safety precautions, and did not play well with others in general. She based her account of what happened by doing interviews with jsut about everyone involved, so the information is pretty accurate.
Rating: 
Summary: Well-written, so one can focus on the controversy!
Review: Bruce's book is well-written and describes the geological processes involved in a clear and simple fashion. At first I wasn't really sure why she had chosen to write about both the Nevado Del Ruiz and Galeras eruptions, but it became clear that she was following the professional development of the Columbian volcanologists and the Columbian governmental response to volcanic disasters. The information provided about the politics and civil unrest concurrent with the volcanic eruptions and the effects on ability of the scientists to recieve funding, equipment and international help is VERY interesting. It's obvious that the most contraversial part of this account is the role played by Stan Williams as the field trip leader on the fateful excursion into the Galeras caldera. While volcanologists are aware of the potential risks associated with visiting a volcano, I would have wanted to be aware of the occurrence of the tell-tale tornillos. It didn't seem like there was a complete overview of the current state of Galeras prior to the field trips such that each participant could determine their own level of risk-taking. It was also not clear to me that Zapata in fact relayed the information about the tornillo during the morning of the trip to Williams. Did Williams know about the recent tornillo? After all, Zapata was the only one with a radio. As with any tragedy, the events raise more questions than answers. It seems to me that the tragedy was the result of many different small events that primarily become clear in hinesight. While safety measures used in previous trips likely should have been used during the fated excursion, _none_ of the scientists that went on the trip were completely unaware of the danger involved. Williams is not to _blame_ for the tragedy, but he is certainly _responsible_ for the people on HIS field trip, simply because he was the leader. It can be argued that he should have taken better precautions and that is where Williams's regrets should lie. It's obvious that some of the participants knew Williams's level of concern was not as high as their own and they intelligently chose to wear their own safety gear. (Did the other participants have access to safety gear if they had wanted it?) Regardless of the controversy surrounding the field trip, Bruce also does a good job of describing (and perhaps becoming somewhat involved in) the politics of science in general. When I started graduate school, I was completely naive about the politics of money, research and publishing - grant writing, intellectual property, etc. Bruce provides a brief but revealing look at how politics also drive science. Science isn't a clear cut, straightforward pursuit. Bruce certainly portrays this fact quite clearly in her book. I certainly recommend reading this book along with Stan Williams's book as counterpoint.
Rating:
Summary: No Apparent Danger
Review: For anyone interested in vulcanology, this book is a definite page turner. Victoria Bruce is obviously in love with the study of volcanoes .... but here she manages to balance stratospheric volcanoes and pycroclastic flows with a sympathetic view to the human victims of such phenomena. Her chilling account of what happened in Armero, Colombia on the night of November 13, 1985 is so vivid that I couldn't put the book down until I'd read it from cover to cover.
Rating:
Summary: One-sided and questionable research methods
Review: I was on Galeras volcano 10 years ago when it erupted. Like most of the other volcanologists at the Pasto, Colombia meeting to study Galeras I did not go into the crater, but was looking at deposits on the outer flanks when the eruption occurred. Stanley Williams had stressed the danger of going inside, and only those making data collections went with him into the crater. Victoria Bruce's book is largely an attack on Williams. She is correct in some assertions- Williams is (or was - he is only a shadow of his former self now) a maverick who argued with parts of the volcanological establishment. He also formed many productive working arrangements with scientists from a variety disciplines, especially with students and young volcanologists from Colombia and the other countries he worked in. I object to Bruce's research methods - she called me twice to ask about the Colombian meeting and the events of the eruption. She never gave any hint that her book would be an attack on Williams and she never asked me critical questions about his leadership. After I read her book I felt that her approach to me as a participant had not been honest. By necessity Bruce talked to volcanologists only after the eruption, and by that time volcanologists as a profession had realized that their previous somewhat cavelier methods of researching active volcanoes needed to change. But Williams' expedition into Galeras was typical of most of the visits I have made to erupting volcanoes with various trip leaders. Perhaps volcanologists were taking dumb risks, but only a handful of volcanologists had died in eruptions before, and the risks seemed worth taking in light of the heightened learning opportunities. My concern with Bruce's book is that her criticism of Williams is too harsh; he was blamed for the sins of the profession, and perhaps volcanologists he had disagreed with in the past could see only his weaknesses and not also his strengths. In some ways this was tearing down a scrappy, non-conformist who was a sometimes too successful competitor for grants and scientific acclaim. Galeras was ten years ago; Bruce's book, and Williams' are a few years old. Everyone moves on, but I'd like the reader of these reviews to consider that Williams might not have been the self-centered egotist depicted in Bruce's book, but a flawed human unfairly treated in a book about a tragedy that surprised all of us on the volcano. Chuck Wood
Rating:
Summary: WHEN SCIENTISTS GO TOO FAR
Review: In 1993 a horrible disaster struck the geology community. On January 14 of that year, 13 volcanologists were on a workshop fieldtrip inside the caldera of Galeras, a volcano in southern Columbia, when it erupted killing 6 of the scientists and 3 local tourists. This tragic event shocked and stunned the geological community. No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz written by Victory Bruce has taken a critical look these two volcanic tragedies that struck Columbia. Victoria writes in a wonderfully easy to read narrative, that grabs your attention from the beginning. She lays out the events of the two volcanic eruptions in the form of a crime scene, where you know the final outcome, but not the events and facts leading up to the crime. She leads the reader through the multitude of facts and eyewitness accounts of these two eruptions to give a clear understanding of what happened, and the mistakes that were made. The book was inspired by the tragedy at Galeras, but to understand the tragedy there, she takes us back 8 years to the eruption at Nevado del Ruiz that caused a lahar to burry the town of Armero, killing 23,000 people. Here we meet Marta Calvache, a Columbian geologist who plays important roles in both events. Marta and her colleagues are a group of bright, young Columbian scientists who are given the responsibility to interpret the activity at Nevado del Ruiz, a task that they admit is over their heads. The Columbian scientists seek out the best international help they can get to help them interpret the volcano, and do their best to warn the government of the danger the volcano poses. In the end, their dire warnings are ignored, and the most tragic volcanic eruption of the twentieth century occurs. After Nevado del Ruiz, we jump forward 8 years to follow Marta Calvache and other Columbian scientists to the newly active volcano at Galeras. This time, the Columbians have more knowledge and equipment at their disposal, but tragedy again occurs. Victoria Bruce leads us as a detective would, setting the background of the volcano, its history and the facts about its activity leading up to the mild, but fatal eruption in 1993. She intersperses her narrative with quotes from the scientists who worked on the volcano, as well as those scientists who were in the caldera on the day of the eruption and survived. Her narrative leads the reader through a series of events, piecing together the decisions that led to the tragedy, and how it could have been prevented. The book holds you captive as you walk with the scientists into the heart of the danger. Victoria gives us access to the scientists to listen to their personal thoughts, misgivings and concerns about the tragedy and the safety of their companions. Her descriptions are so vivid, that at times I felt like ducking as I read about the explosion and the volcanic bombs that flew out of the crater. The book is not only a critical look at the two eruptions, but a detailed study of crisis management and the importance of knowing all the facts.
Rating:
Summary: Heros and Villains
Review: It's easy for characters in books to be all black or all white - to be wholly heroic or without any redeeming character whatsoever. And that's what's wrong with this book. I enjoyed the read enormously, but Ms. Bruce's "either/or" tendency towards human nature left me emphathetic towards her purported villian, Stanley Williams. I've just started reading his own account of the trajedy, and so far I see no reason to change my opinion. If he's such a bad person, why is Marta Calvache - Ms. Bruce's heroine - still work with him, and and how can she, to all appearances, continue to respect him? As to the hard hat controversy, Ms. Bruce seems to feel Williams is personally responsible for the failure of other vulcanologists to wear one. While there were, sadly, a few novice scientists among the fatalities (I leave the "tourists" out of this particular controversy), the trip also included seasoned professionals from around the globe. These experienced scientists were not in the habit of wearing hard hats or they would have worn them, regardless of what anyone else did or didn't recommend. Good policy or bad, the obvious truth is that it does not occur to even the most experienced volcanolists to wear hard hats; it has nothing whatsoever to do with one person's judgment. Is Williams responsible for the behavior of senior scientists like Igor Menyailov and Geoff Brown? Ms. Bruce herself supports this view by stating that it was only the Los Alamos scientists who wore them, and that they wore them because hard hats are US government policy for their employees. Ms. Bruce makes the Galeras trajedy sound unique; in his first few pages, Williams mentions several other vulcanologist friends who died in other volcanic eruptions, one of whom - Dave Johnston, who died on Mount St. Helens - worked for the US Geological Survey and, as a government employee, presumably wore a hard hat whenever he descended into a volcano. I should reiterate here that I very much enjoyed this book. I only think that I could have enjoyed it more if it read a little less like a vendetta. The worst part of failing to bring to light any redeeming quality whatsoever in Williams is that his actual shortcomings - oversights, errors, ego, whatever - lack the true impact they could have had. A book about black and white heroes and villians may be a good read, but a book about human failings would have been great.
Rating: 
Summary: Comments: The Galeras Eruption and it's Aftermath
Review: On January 14, 1993 the Colombian volcano Galeras had a minor eruption in the early afternoon so small that many residents of Pasto, only five miles from the explosion, were unaware it happened. But because some of the world's most experienced volcanologists were too near the crater at the time and were killed or injured as a result, this eruption and it's aftermath received worldwide press attention, and are now the subject of two competing books. One, "Surviving Galeras", is by Stanley Williams and Fen Montaigne. Williams is a co-convener of the volcanological conference then being held in Pasto. The other, "No Apparent Danger" by Victoria Bruce, is the subject of this review. The first part of "No Apparent Danger" describes the eruption of another Colombian volcano, Nevado del Ruiz in 1985, resulting in the near total destruction of the town of Armero and the loss of twenty-three thousand lives. The second and more extensive part deals with Galeras. On the positive side, the book is easy to read, the numerous characters are clearly drawn, and the reader has no trouble distinguishing the good guys from the bad. The author has interviewed many people, quoted others secondhand, and spins a gripping tale of heroism and hubris, clashing egos and inexcusable foul-ups. But the protagonists are so easily pigeonholed and the biases of the author so apparent, that even a reader with no previous knowledge of these events soon asks, "Is this portrayal of events accurate? In places yes, but as one who attended the Pasto meeting and has a personal regard for many of those portrayed here, I believe this book misrepresents the events at Galeras in several significant ways. For example: 1. The blackest hat is clearly worn by Stanley Williams, who is accused of everything from having a monotonous lecture style to complicity in the deaths of nine people. No attempt is made to present a balanced assessment of what he did and why. Also, many of his purported transgressions would have taken place after he was injured and clearly not himself. Where Williams is concerned, this book is little more than a hatchet job. 2. As some reviewers have already noted, there are several misrepresentations, quotes out of context and similar errors in the text (see among others, Monastersky, R., Under the Volcano, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/30/01). Some of these lapses are more important than others, but most or all tend to demonize Williams. 3. A few participants who should have been interviewed were not, including a geophysicist whose views differed from those given prominence in this book. 4. Very little information is given on why the meeting was held, its importance, and what was accomplished. The purpose was humanitarian; first to assess the threat posed by Galeras to the 300,000 inhabitants of Pasto, and then to identify the best ways to deal with that threat. A final report was prepared at the end of the conference, despite the grief and shock of those involved. The participants and the organizers were sincere scientists with a great deal of combined experience on volcanoes, not a bunch of volcano junkies as one might assume from reading this. Those among them who went in harm's way did so in the belief it was a necessary step that could ultimately save thousands of lives. . So although "No Apparent Danger" is interesting, the author seems to believes that for every mishap, someone is to blame. In attempting to convince us of this, she has produced a work that I found highly biased, often misleading, and sometimes wrong. I would urge potential readers to withhold any judgment of individuals who are described until they have had a chance to study "Surviving Galeras", a much more professional and balanced account.
Rating:
Summary: The volcano eruptions at Nevado del Ruiz and Galeras.
Review: There are two stories in this book. The first is about the eruption of the Nevado del Ruiz volcano that resulted in the deaths of 23,000 people. The second is the death of six scientists and three Columbians in the Galeras eruption. The scientists killed were led by Stan Williams, who also substained very serious injuries. The three Columbians were local hikers in the area.
If the focus was on numbers, Bruce should have concentrated her studies on the Nevado del Ruiz eruption that killed so many Columbians because of the mud slides. This was not done, but the focus was on diminishing the egotistical Stan Williams who led six of his companions to death. Both stories are worth a book of their own.
Rating:
Summary: Read both accounts
Review: This book, along with Williams own account of the disaster at Galeras are a must read for anyone interested in Earth science or psychology. Bruce paints Williams as a rogue volcanologist with a cavalier attitude about the dangers of working inside an active volcano. The simple fact is that Williams apparently did have some warning that Galeras was not 'sleeping' the day he led the conference into the crater and he did not insist on safety precautions. As leader of the expedition, Williams could easily have demanded that everyone wear safety gear or they would not be allowed inside. Apparently, Williams thinks anyone who is interested in safety is somewhat of a wimp. While hard hats, gas masks and flame retardent suits would not have saved everyone, no doubt a few of the nine might have also lived. The post-disaster story is almost as intriguing as the events leading to the disaster as Bruce paints Williams as a glory seeker 'cashing in' on his compatriots ill-fortune. That is perhaps over-emphasized. Williams himself suffered a serious head injury that apparently left him with some behavioral problems. Nevertheless, he was made aware of how he was portraying the incident and has done little to correct those errors of fact. I highly reccomend you read both accounts. Williams ego comes through strongly in his biography and lends support to Bruce's account as well.
| 
