Olivia Doyle
Mr. Ippolito
AP Bio
13 February 2018
St, Nicholas. “At Site of Japanese Volcano's Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks.”The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Feb. 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/science/japan-volcano-supereruption.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront.
This week, I read an article entitled “At Site of Japanese Volcano’s Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks”. The article discussed scientists’ exploration of the Kikai Caldera, a massive volcano that once caused a superruption known as the Akahoya eruption 7,300 years ago. Scientists at the Kobe Ocean Bottom Exploration Center investigated the caldera using seismic and geological analyses, and were surprised to find a massive lava dome. The dome reportedly has a more immense buildup of lava than those of the Yellowstone and Long Valley calderas. Dr. Tatsumi says of the findings: “The lava dome is chemically different from the supereruption, suggesting that a new magma supply system had been developed after 7,300 years ago.” According to Dr. Tatsumi, it is rare to find a lava dome underneath a caldera, and that this finding shows that there is activity at Kikai Caldera similar to the preparation stage for the supereruption. However, Janine Kripper, a volcanologist not involved with the study, said that further investigation must be done at the site in order to determine if it really is a single large dome or just individual buildups of lava.
This discovery, although largely inconclusive, could be very important in the future for scientists. Although Kripper argues that the findings may be not completely supported, she does say “Calderas occur around the world and the more we know about the differences and similarities, the more we can understand the hazards and how to prepare for potential eruptions in the future.” Evidently, calderas require further research before we can conclusively say that they are dangerous. However, it is important that scientists study Kikai Caldera, as the occurrence of a superuption at this site could eject 10 cubic miles of magma, covering almost all of the country of Japan. In order to keep Japan safe, it is crucial that scientists study the activity of the caldera to ensure that another eruption is not in sight or could be prevented.
In my opinion, the author did a good job of explaining the study of Kikai Caldera. He included quotes from different scientists on their views of the discovery so that the reader could understand the importance of it. He also described how the scientists went about their study so the reader could gain insight into the process of the investigation. However, I think the author should have given a clear explanation of what a caldera is and the structure of the volcano before diving into his explanation of the study, as it would have cleared up any confusion for the reader. Overall, though, I found this article to be very well-written and informative and I am interested to read about future investigations of the Kikai Caldera.
Jack Kochansky
ReplyDeleteAP Biology EF Even
Mr. Ippolito
13 February 2017
At Site of Japanese Volcano's Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks
By Nicholas St. Fleur
Reviewed by Olivia Doyle
St. Fleur, Nicholas. “At Site of Japanese Volcano's Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome
Lurks.”The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Feb. 2018.
www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/science/japan-volcano-supereruption.html?rref=c
ollection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science
®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=se
ctionfront.
For this current events assignment, I reviewed my classmate and friend Olivia’s review, and she did a wonderful job throughout by quickly covering all of the points she needed to in a very strong response. First of all, she gave a good, concise summary of the article that she read, including the researchers’ names, the source of the findings, and the fact that some scientists are not convinced so far. It showed a clear understanding of the article and the research behind it. Second, Olivia points out the huge relevance of research on volcanoes like the Kikai Caldera, pointing to specific numbers and comparisons to emphasize the huge size of the volcano. Finally, she does a good job throughout qualifying the claims that the scientists make, underlining that not everyone is convinced that there is in fact a single large lava dome under these islands. Being skeptical and avoiding jumping to conclusions is an essential part of the scientific process.
I had to struggle deeply to find any flaws in the simply wonderful current events review that the magnificent Olivia wrote, but alas, I did manage to stumble upon one or two. While she does point out one thing that the author could have improved upon, it would have made her review even stronger if she had gone into more detail or given a few more examples. It might have also made her review even better if she had connected it directly with the biological implications, although it is pretty easy to imagine what would happen to the wildlife in Japan if the entire islands were covered in ash. Overall, Olivia had a very strong current events review, and there was little to critique about it.
I had scarcely really considered the awe-inspiring power of supervolcanoes to reshape local and even global ecosystems, but reading about the Kikai Caldera reminded me of them. When we think about huge volcanoes like Yellowstone or Kikai Caldera or others, we need to remember that if they erupt, there will be nothing for us to do except to try to run away. That’s why it’s so important to study them -- if we can see the warning signs beforehand, it could save countless lives by allowing enough people to escape as quickly as possible. Not only will if affect plants and animals; it will shake established human societies to their core. Geological studies like this one are therefore essential and have a strong impact on almost everything we know.
Olivia Doyle wrote a wonderful review on “At Site of Japanese Volcano’s Supereruption, an Intense Lava Dome Lurks” by Nicholas St. Fleur. One aspect Olivia did well in was defining key terms and elaborating on what they mean. For example, in her summary, Doyle explained what the Kikai Caldera was, expanding on its eruption history for readers to understand that the volcano has recently been active. Another success in her review can be found in the connections to society she makes. As she recognizes that the studies have not amounted to a stable conclusion, Doyle built off of another scientists quote, arguing that any research done is important to help society be prepared for a possible disaster. In the event that the Kikai Caldera should release magma across Japan, it could reach 10 cubic miles” (Doyle, 1) from the caldera, and in turn leaving Japan in ruins of lava. It is entirely necessary for scientists to gather as much information as they can to ensure the public’s safety. Lastly, Doyle thoroughly provided quantitative and qualitative data from the experiments. For instance, she included a quote concerning the super-eruption that occured at the Kikai Caldera, explaining that it occured 7,300 years ago. She also wrote about the scientist’s findings that the lava from the caldera could reach 10 miles from the caldera itself, illustrating an image of destruction for her readers.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Doyle wrote an amazing review, there were a few areas that could have been improved. In her critique, Doyle mentioned that the author did not include an explanation of a caldera, but neither did she. She described what the Kikai Caldera was, but how what calderas were in general. A solution to this would be for her to write a few sentences explaining what a caldera is and how it forms. Another area of confusion arose in Doyle’s summary. Here, she failed to introduce Dr.Tatsumi, which may leave a few readers unsure of who exactly she is referring to with her quotes. A quick introduction to Dr. Tatsumi would rid of this confusion quickly and easily.
This review introduced me to yet another geological concern of Japan. In addition to frequent earthquakes, the Japanese are threatened by possibilities of eruptions spewing large quantities of lava in any direction. Reading the review also made me worry. I realized how unpredictable terrestrial events are and how little scientists know about them. However, knowing that scientists are doing more research on calderas secures my worries enough. As long as scientists are determined and are focusing on the Kikai Caldera, there is hope that they will find some way to predict when it will erupt, hopefully avoiding the extreme losses brought about by natural disasters.
Susie Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
2/14/18
St Fleur, Nicholas. “At Site of Japanese Volcano's Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks.”The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Feb. 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/science/japan-volcano-supereruption.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront.
Current Event 16
For this current event, I decided to read my friend Olivia’s review of the article “At Site of Japanese Volcano’s Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks,” by Nicholas St. Fleur of The New York Times. The article discusses a recent exploration of the Kikai Caldera, the volcano that caused a supereruption, the Akahoya, 7,300 years ago by scientists at the Kobe Ocean Bottom Exploration Center. Olivia wrote a really good review. She included many quotes from scientists on the project. This backed up her claims and explained concepts that she introduced in her summary. Olivia also provided adequate information about the volcano and its history to help readers who do not know anything about this topic. She did a good job, as well, describing the implications of a supereruption and the importance of this exploration.
Despite all of the good aspects of the review, there are a few aspects that could be improved. First, she could explain the results of the exploration in more depth as it is confusing for readers who do not know much about volcanoes. She states that it was largely inconclusive, but she could have gone further with the results the researchers did find. I know that I was confused with what the scientists gathered from examining the volcano. Also, she could critique the article a bit more, especially when she discusses what the author could have done better.
I chose to read this review because I had never heard of a supereruption before. It is really interesting to learn about and it amazes me that this supereruption is not talked about much. This is an important volcano to investigate because, as Olivia stated in her review, if the Kikai Caldera has another supereruption, it will wipe out almost the entire country of Japan. Scientists can learn much from studying this volcano, maybe even a way to prevent future supereruptions.
Luke Redman
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Mr.Ippolito
Current Event #16
St, Nicholas. “At Site of Japanese Volcano's Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks.”The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Feb. 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/science/japan-volcano-supereruption.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront
I chose to read Olivia’s review of “At Site of Japanese Volcano's Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks” by the New York Times. The article talks about a massive Lava dome in Japan. She did a great job weaving quotes into her writing, along with how those quotes supported the topic. She also kept the language in the review reasonably simple, which enhanced the experience. Another thing she did well was critique the author, and gave reasonable criticisms.
While her review was very well written, there were some areas that she could have improved. She could have included more details about the actual experiment which would have enriched the overall experience of reading the review.Lastly, she could have explained what the discovery meant for the average American
I had no idea about this massive Lava dome in Japan, and I though that Japan was mostly tsunamis and earthquakes.There is still more to be learned even though I’ve already taken Earth Science.Overall, Olivia’s article was extremely well written, and I look forward to reading another one of her reviews.
David Weild
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Mr.Ippolito
Current Event #16
02/13/18
St, Nicholas. “At Site of Japanese Volcanoes Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks.”The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Feb. 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/science/japan-volcano-supereruption.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront
I read Olivia’s review of “At Site of Japanese Volcanoes Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks” by the New York Times. The article describes a Lava dome in Japan. Olivia used many which created a good reading experience along with her explaining how the quotes she used supported the article. The language she used was very fluid which again, enhanced the experience of reading. She critiqued very well and her criticism was easily agreeable.
Some areas of her review that she could have improved are as follows: She could have given more background information on the article which would have made the review a better read. Lastly,I found at some points, her grammar was off. She could have fixed these things by proofreading.
I was not aware with this lava dome in Japan. I had thought of most ways a natural disaster could occur. This was not one of them.Overall, Olivia’s article was amazing. She her work is similar to that of Truman Capote.
Ava Austi
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event #17
2/25/18
St, Nicholas. “At Site of Japanese Volcano's Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks.”The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Feb. 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/science/japan-volcano-supereruption.html
Olivia wrote a great review based off the article “At Site of Japanese Volcanoes Supereruption, an Immense Lava Dome Lurks,” by Nicholas St. from The New York Times. Throughout the review of the article, there were many aspects that Olivia did well in order to write a great review. Firstly, Olivia did a great job of providing the audience with a concise summary of the article that she read, including the researcher’s names, the source of the findings, and the fact that some scientists are not so convinced with the research. This detailed summary allows the reader to understand the main point of the article without any confusion. Olivia also did a excellent job of weaving in quotes from the article to use to further ground her information. The use of quotes backed up her claims and explained concepts that she introduced in her summary. Lastly, Olivia did a wonderful job of providing the reader with quantitative and qualitative data from the experiments. This information strengthened her review as a whole. Olivia successfully wrote a clear and interesting review of the article she read.
Although Olivia presented a great review of the article, there were some aspects where she could have improved. Firstly, it would have been beneficial for Olivia if she had explained the results of the exploration in more depth as it is confusing for readers who do not know a lot about volcanoes. She could have went further with the results that the researchers found. Also, Olivia could have critiqued the article a bit more. In specific, she could have gone further with what the author could have done better. These issues are both easy to fix in order to make Olivia’s review even better. Even though there were some parts of the review that Olivia could have improved, I think she wrote a great review of the article.
I thought Olivia did a great job in writing her review and I really enjoyed reading it. I chose to read this review because I personally had never heard of a super eruption before and I wanted to learn about it. I am glad that I chose to read this review because it was very interesting to learn about and it amazed me that this supereruption is not talked about more. After reading Olivia’s review, I want to learn more about this topic. Overall, I think Olivia successfully wrote a clear and detailed review of her article.