The smoke from burning moss generated by the advancing lava flow
- Reason
- An interesting image, which shows yet another cause of wildfire, which was not represented in the article before. The image also shows lava flow.
- Proposed caption
- Pāhoehoe lava flow on the coastal plain of Kīlauea, The Big Island of Hawai generated wildfire. The new lava is moving across the old surface ,which is covered with a layer of moss about an inch thick. This moss is burning generating the smoke visible in the image. This kind of fire cannot be easily prevented or suppressed. The update that was written by USGS for the same day the image was taken - 09/04/07 says :"Lava flows advancing through vegetation are hazardous and can produce fire and methane explosions that propel chunks of lava and rock several feet into the air. "The picture was taken from a helicopter.
- Articles this image appears in
- Wildfire
- Creator
- Mbz1
- Support as nominator Mbz1 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- query - is this really a wildfire? It sort of seems like smoke being generated by the direct heating of the lava on soil and other rocks, rather than a fire. It seems more likely to illustrate something like
lava or
Kilauea. I think the statement that the fire cannot be prevented or suppressed is misleading because lava floes can be diverted, which is similar enough. Other than that, I like the image and am ready to support.
Debivort 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your questions.Here is the quote from the report by USGS that was written for the same day the image was taken - 09/04/07 :"Lava flows advancing through vegetation are hazardous and can produce fire and methane explosions that propel chunks of lava and rock several feet into the air. "The important word here is vegetation. It is what is burning in the image - vegetation. I do not think this kind of smoke could be generated by the lava flow itself (at least I've never seen one). I did see and photographed smoke,when the lava entered Pacific
, but it was because a hot lava met relatively cold ocean. Otherwise as you could see from my other image
no any smoke was generated from the lava flow.
I'm not sure about your second statement that lava floes can be diverted. I know only about one such case, which happened if Iceland. The lava flow was about to close a harbor, which was used for fishing ships. Desperate people used the water from icy ocean over the lava flow for 24 hours a day. The water was getting right from the ocean by special ships and the water was really, really cold. Eventually the lava stopped and solidified, but remember they had unlimited quantity of very cold, icy water. The only other case of a stopped lava I know of was never proved. It happened on Etna. The lava flow was about to cover a small town. The local people went to churches to pray, while military shot missiles at the lava. Eventually the lava changed direction and the town was saved, yet nobody knows exactly what helped. The believers believe that the God helped them, military is sure their missiles did, while I think that Etna just changed her mind as it often happens with volcanoes. Whatever it was , I do not think somebody ever has been able to divert lava flow at Hawaii. They did try and they failed.-- Mbz1 03:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1- The iceland example is the one I was thinking about, but the two you have given prove that the caption above is technically false - these fires can in fact be suppressed, under the conditions you have described. Best to say something like "this kind of fire cannot be easily prevented or suppressed."
Debivort 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I Agree and the caption is corrected.-- Mbz1 04:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- The iceland example is the one I was thinking about, but the two you have given prove that the caption above is technically false - these fires can in fact be suppressed, under the conditions you have described. Best to say something like "this kind of fire cannot be easily prevented or suppressed."
Debivort 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your questions.Here is the quote from the report by USGS that was written for the same day the image was taken - 09/04/07 :"Lava flows advancing through vegetation are hazardous and can produce fire and methane explosions that propel chunks of lava and rock several feet into the air. "The important word here is vegetation. It is what is burning in the image - vegetation. I do not think this kind of smoke could be generated by the lava flow itself (at least I've never seen one). I did see and photographed smoke,when the lava entered Pacific
- Support per nom. Debivort 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Cacophony 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support A very encyclopedic image indeed. Managing to get a freely licensed shot of wildfire over Hawaii from a helicopter can hardly be easy. -- Chris B • talk 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- oppose.. it looks like lava flowing 1 foot across gravel- impossible to tell the scale. Are those little pebbles supposed to be rocks? Also very blurry.. understandable since it's from a helicopter but too blurry --
froth
t 05:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you came up with "lava flowing 1 foot across gravel"? Do you see lava flow all across the smoke line, (which is clearly seen in full resolution), or you are talking only about lava river, which is seen at the top of the lava flow? I agree there's no scale, yet it is much, much, much wider than 1 foot. Blurry you said? It looks fine to me even the highest resolution.-- Mbz1 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose not quite beautiful enough, and I don't really see the "wildfire" connection. It illustrates lava, but wildfire? Whether or not that lava actually caused a fire or not, the image just doesn't show that: it shows lava advancing over rocks, and producing smoke. So it's not really showing what it purports to show, and it's not beautiful.
Stevage 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is said: "There's no smoke without fire". The advancing lava by itself does not produce smoke. Something is burning at the ground and that's why the smoke is seen. So, in your opinion the picture is not beautiful? Well, in my opinion the picture is not just beatiful, it is spectacular. -- Mbz1 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I see no vegetation anywhere... --
froth
t 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I sent the image to U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory.
Here's their response:
"Hi Mila,
What you can't see from the air is that the old surface that the new lava is moving across is covered with a layer of moss about an inch thick. It's this moss burning that made the smoke visible in your photograph.
Aloha,
Tim.
Tim R. Orr
U.S. Geological Survey
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory."
So as you could from see Tim's response the moss(vegetation) is burning, which means that the image does show a wildfire.-- Mbz1 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1- Right. But the image doesn't clearly show that, so as an "encyclopaedic" image, it's a bit of a failure. That's all. We're judging the image itself, not the event.
Stevage 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I added Tim's response to the caption of the image to clarify what is burning.-- Mbz1 13:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Right. But the image doesn't clearly show that, so as an "encyclopaedic" image, it's a bit of a failure. That's all. We're judging the image itself, not the event.
Stevage 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I sent the image to U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory.
- I see no vegetation anywhere... --
froth
t 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support based on image. I also have concerns about whether the use of the word "wildfire" in the caption is unnecessarily confusing-- why not simply say that the smoke comes from burning moss?>
Spikebrennan 15:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the concern about "wildfire" in the caption. I just added to the caption the update of USGS, which was written for the same day and also talks about fire. Maybe this new addition makes the caption more satisfactory? The thing is that in my opinion it is important to show the hazard, which associated with the lava flow advancing over vegetation and specify in particular that it could generate a rather dangerous wildfire.--
Mbz1 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Well, the name of the image still refers to "wildfire", which is just misleading. It's like showing a photo of a bird, and saying "Bird feeding its young", with the explanation that birds have young, and that the baby birds might be just out of shot. It's an interesting photo of lava advancing, burning moss as it goes...but the connection with wildfire is tenuous. And hence its use in
wildfire is marginal.
Stevage 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank you for all your comment, Stevage. They forced me to e-mail to U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaiian Volcano observatory and to learn from their response what really is burning in the image. Your comments also helped me to write much better caption, which in my opinion explains nicely what is going on. In my opinion to compare the image with image of a bird with no chicks is not exactly fair, just because you still could see not only lava, but also the smoke in my image. Remember "There's no smoke without fire" and there are many birds with no chiks. Anyway I've changed the title of the image like user Spikebrennan suggested. I hope that the using image in wildfire article could save somebody's life. Many people hike to see the lava flow at Hawaii. They do not see the danger because the lava usually advances slowly there one could easily run away from it. The picture shows one more hazard associated with the lava moving through vegetation. In my opinion it is important to keep the picture in wildfire article. Once again I'd like to thank everybody for the comments and votes.-- Mbz1 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: You are very kind, Mbz1, but we're not nominating this image for deletion here; quite the opposite. In fact, given that this image is in the public domain, that's highly unlikely. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the name of the image still refers to "wildfire", which is just misleading. It's like showing a photo of a bird, and saying "Bird feeding its young", with the explanation that birds have young, and that the baby birds might be just out of shot. It's an interesting photo of lava advancing, burning moss as it goes...but the connection with wildfire is tenuous. And hence its use in
wildfire is marginal.
Stevage 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the concern about "wildfire" in the caption. I just added to the caption the update of USGS, which was written for the same day and also talks about fire. Maybe this new addition makes the caption more satisfactory? The thing is that in my opinion it is important to show the hazard, which associated with the lava flow advancing over vegetation and specify in particular that it could generate a rather dangerous wildfire.--
Mbz1 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Promoted Image:Lava wildfire.JPG MER-C 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)