Neatorama » Blog Archive » E-Mail » The Strangest Disaster of the 20th Century.

E-Mail Post To A Friend

Email a copy of 'The Strangest Disaster of the 20th Century.' to a friend

Loading ...

109 comments to "The Strangest Disaster of the 20th Century."

Aramax
May 21st, 2007 at 3:21 am
They should definitly call this lake the “earth’s anus” because it make sense.
fluff
May 21st, 2007 at 3:38 am
Very interesting reading.
Siusau
May 21st, 2007 at 4:25 am
This was fascinating.
Nora
May 21st, 2007 at 5:24 am
Damn Interesting! I mean… um… neatorama?
Becky
May 21st, 2007 at 7:24 am
Good read. Thanks!
John
May 21st, 2007 at 10:46 am
Anuses release methane and are not full of water. Your description is stupid, Aramax.
xirvyg
May 21st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
We’re just releasing CO2 into the atmo?!? These guys are the REAL cause of global warming! Couldn’t we be capturing the CO2 for use? And stick a turbine on that tube to generate electricity.
haptiK
May 21st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Sounds to me that having the lake store this much CO2 is a good thing. It is essentially the same as plants storing CO2.

I can understand that it is dangerous for the surrounding people. But, releasing yet more CO2 into the environment doesn’t sound like a great idea.

The Earth can take care of itself. Just another example of humans interacting unnecessarily.

Very interesting read though. Thanks for publishing it.
ap
May 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
C’mon xirvyg,

That makes WAY too much sense.
ap
May 21st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
haptiK,

They aren’t actually putting any extra CO2 into the environment… it would make it out eventually. All they are really doing is getting rid of it at a regular rate rather than having it come out in giant chunks.
Weakly
May 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I had the same thought at xirvyg — why not put a turbine on that flow of CO2 which costs nothing and runs indefinitely?
Jeff
May 21st, 2007 at 5:01 pm
“He wondered if theyâ€™d all been killed by a lightening strike â€“ when lightening hits the ground itâ€™s not unusual for animals nearby to be killed by the shock.”

Lightening? That means to “make lighter”; try lightning.
Dave
May 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I remember hearing about this in 1986, and when my wife & I visited Cameroon in 2003, people we spoke with in Wum and Bamenda still had not gotten over it. There is the scientific explanation of what happened, then there is the locals’ version; an evil spirit (or spirits) living in the lake had become angered and killed everything near the lake. As logical as the real cause sounds to us, the legend is more plausible for the locals, who mostly practice native animistic religions. Even some who are Christian or Muslim & others who are somewhat Westernized have a tough time accepting the real cause of it.

Cameroon also has another active volcano; Mount Cameroon. That one erupted with a large lava flow in 2001, and when I was there we saw the tail end of the flow; it was a gigantic mound of black boulders that crossed a main highway and stopped about 20 yards past the road. In 2003, we stopped to take a look (in the dark!) and the rocks were still warm to the touch. Because of the heat and the sheer bulk of it, they haven’t been able to remove it from the road, but there’s now a dirt detour through the jungle to take you around it.

The satellite image available on Google Maps even shows the flow crossing the road (but unfortunately no high-res image for that area.) If you click that link, you can pan to the north-east & follow the flow to its source on the side of Mt. Cameroon. Go to the peak and you can see other recent lava flows. And the sand on the beaches near there is pitch black, most likely from all of the lava flows in the past.

And if you zoom out in the Google Earth satellite image, turn on the Map or Hybrid feature and scroll further north-east, you can pick out Wum; Lake Nyos is a fairly small lake a little further north-east of there. If you do a Google Maps search for Lake Nyos, Cameroon, it’ll pinpoint it for you. The amazing/cool thing is that if you zoom out on the satellite image, it looks like the very roots of the earth are exposed in that area. Very, very, very remote, and very, very mountainous. The elevation of Lake Nyos is just under 10,000 feet (3,000 meters). The “highway” that you can see if you turn on the Map or Hybrid feature in Google Maps is little more than a dirt road. Getting the venting mechanism into Lake Nyos was a major undertaking; anything more than that, like your turbine generator, would take huge amounts of outside help; the locals don’t have the money nor the need for electricity, although if it were available, they’d make use of it. But as remote a place like that is, it’s amazing how many people carry cell phones!

Lots more info on the ongoing de-gassing here (also linked above.)
Geekazoid
May 21st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I remember when this happened years ago, it really creeped me out. Reading this again gave me the chills again
colinnwn
May 21st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
@Geekazoid,

Why does it creep you out? The loss of life is a tragedy. But to me it is yet another wondrous natural phenomenon. I wonder how many similar strange events happen on Earth we don’t know about. And sad about the day when we know so much about the Earth that finding a new event is a once in a lifetime occurrence.
Buraikero
May 21st, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I just read a few days ago that the waters of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica have been saturated with C02. Does this mean that the same release could happen on a much larger scale?

Source: http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=39105401687
Anthony
May 21st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Perhaps what fascinated me most was that the villagers had already known the lake as “bad lake” I assume (although this could be ignorant on my part) that in a scoiety like that, a good amount of the villagers knowledge is passed down from previous generations. The negative name given to the lake may mean that an incident similar to this had already occured in the past.
Katie Ann
May 21st, 2007 at 11:58 pm
That was the most fascinating thing I’ve read in a while, thank you.
Geekazoid
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 am
colinnwn, it creeped me out when I was younger because of the suddenness of how it happened. One minute you’re asleep, next minute you’re dead and all the animals are dead too. When you first saw the pictures of dead cattle strewn around, and no one knew what happened for a while, it creeps you out.

Along with what Anthony pointed out, the villagers already had legends about the lake, about the evil spirits in them that would come out and kill people.
Darryl
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:33 am
How about piping some of the CO2 through a greenhouse to accelerate plant growth - providing food and conversion to harmless O2. Or bottling some of the water and selling it to Europeans, as spa water. Or just keeping away from it, as you would any other dangerous natural thing.
lol
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:07 am
@John That was just an analogy. The gases released don’t necessarily have to be methane as long as it can kill with fumes. Or would you rather everyone got farted to death?

From this I can’t help but think if the Red Sea is the Earth’s ass crack. Or maybe some other canal.
Jimmy
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:38 am
Another example of what humans do best…fearing what they do not understand and ‘probably’ making it worse in the long run. Though I do agree ‘in theory’ about trying to create energy out of this phenomenon.

Global Warming…HA! read State of Fear by Micheal Crichton, especially the part on the Americans messing around with Yellow Stone National park and mayby even the part on scientists being bought out for the last 30+ years by the Government, Industry and Environmentalists (they’re just as bad)

Jimmy
Toby
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 am
Very interesting read, thanks!
steve
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 am
Hey Aramax, http://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/
MW
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 am
Why not put more pipes in the lake?

If one dispel so many gas, two or three more will do the more job sufficiently?
Vivek
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:01 am
This was really interesting and great to know.
Thanks for putting up a great article.
Warner
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 am
this is really an interesting read. i know this was a tragedy but i also laughed my head off at some of the comments like the ass and fart and definitely. ty guys. i have to go wipe my eyes, it got wet while i was laughing. all you good people, pls do not tell me now that i am insensitive and all, i know it was a tragedy.
SHRIKEE
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:43 am
I agree on the electricity thing, put one or 2 more tubes down in that lake and put a turbine over it. Cameroon could make some money selling electricity and modernizing their country. Thus improving the economy…
Mark
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:57 am
There was a very interesting programme on TV a couple of weeks ago suggesting the Biblical plagues of Egypt were caused by the Santorini explosion (which could, of course, have been divinely triggered).

The final plague, the deaths of the first-born, has always been tricky to explain via natural methods, but the suggestion here was that it was CO2 poisoning. The first-borns, as heads of the house, tended to sleep downstairs whilst the rest of the family slept higher up.

Evidence, comparing with Lake Nyos: the Nile turns red (Exodus 7:14ff); livestock dies (Exodus 9:1ff) - although only Egyptian livestock, perhaps they grazed lower down closer to the river?; and the Hebrews stayed awake on the fateful night (Exodus 12).
Duncan
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Fascinating article. Really quite interesting.

Couldn’t scientists just put LOADS of trees around the lake to soak up the CO2?
lawl
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
What’s the point of a turbine for a remote Cameroonian village? Seems unnecessary.

And it’s not “extra” CO2, it’s merely being released across an even time period, rather than all at once and killing everybody.

That article on how the South Ocean is doing the same thing is pretty frightening though.
Alistair
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
I really hope the scientists have thought about the affect their “fix” will have on the environment. Fair enough the lake is safe now, but perhaps a simple warning system or a permanent evacuation would be the sensible option…

The release system is a natural mechism of the area, and while the solution isn’t creating more CO2, it is likely that it is speeding up the release from the underlying chamber. The pressure of the water and gradual buildup of CO2 above would have slowed down the release of the CO2 from the chamber into the water. In theory, now that the pressure has been lowered, the CO2 will be released from the magma chamber at a much higher release rate, lowering the pressure in the chamber and allowing the creation rate of the gas to increase to its highest potential.
RickW
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 am
Nature responsible for large chunks of CO2 which we’re only discovering lately? And what ratio is nature’s CO2 emission to man’s? Oh, we don’t know yet? But haven’t we already come to the conclusion that it’s man’s CO2 that’s ruining the atmosphere, and man who must change his ways, at gunpoint if necessary? Isn’t anyone who questions this, even with evidence, as out of touch and deserving of ostracism as a holocaust denier? I’m confused. We’d better put a stop to all this discovery of new natural CO2 sources, or we’ll derail an opinion train as it gains peak momentum.
Satoru
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 am
For those worried about the ecological problems with releasing the CO2 gases into the atmosphere. Lake Nyos contains about 300 million m3 of CO2, and recharges at a rate of 300,000 m3 per year.

http://www.icbe.com/carbondatabase/CO2volumecalculation.asp

The US emits about 3 trillion m3 of CO2 per year.

The total amount of co2 in the lake is quite large, but the release of this CO2 is fairly small in the grand scheme of things. And not all of it needs to be released, just enough so that a similar release won’t happen in the future.
Mr. Car Parts
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Taht is just strange.
Satoru
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:56 am
Newscientist just released a good series of articles as a result of the recent IPCC abstract that humans are 90%-ish likely to be the cause of global warming.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Warner
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
even more interesting info is surfacing from interesting and knowledgeable people… good, this is good.
Warner
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 am
man, its true, usa to be more precise per info above.
Jonathan
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 am
Holy crap, Satoru. That website you posted is a complete waste of information accumulation. First of all the article you posted to only has conjecture and opinion in it. The supporting links like the first one have way too many loop holes to even count in their “scientific” findings. You would do best to stay away from that site from now on as it will only make you sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
massacre
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Very interesting article, thanks. For anyone who still believes that we are causing global warming, I direct you to this article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html. There are also several others in which NASA indicates that similar “global warming” events have been seen on other planets that coincide with our own relative warming . In other words, nature is FAR more capable of doing any changes and, in fact, is. Our output is minimal compared to the machinery of our planet and solar system.

It’s just a great way for industrialists, activists, PACs, and politicians to usurp freedom and spread fear to maintain or increase their power. I’m more than happy to fight against sending toxins into the air and our seas, but global warming is a myth. It still doesn’t stop me from wanting to curb energy consumption or plant trees. But I’m not beholden to Al Gore or anyone else’s interpretation of “facts”. Sure they are facts, but they conveniently exclude the most obvious cause… our sun is releasing more energy lately, likely on a cyclical basis.
lothar
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
yeah very interesting indeed! Never heard of that incident before… Good read, well written
massacre
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I should have said that “global warming being caused by man is a myth”. Sorry… I guess I assumed that was evident based on my post.
Steve
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I love that book! It’s awesome!
Jeff
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Tapping this to generate electricity will not work. The reason why the CO2 siphon (the fountain you see) works is because the turbulant pressure releases the gas at deeper depths than it would otherwise. Impede that pressure and you lose the siphoning effect.

Besides, you wouldn’t generate enough electricity to power a fountain that shoots water 100 feet into the air.
Bill
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Take an astronomy course if you’re concerned with “cyclical energy release of the sun” and it’s relation to climate change.

Come to terms with the fact that our CO2 (as well as loads of other global warming gasses) output is excessive. Just because its “less than our planet” produces doesn’t mean we’re not grossly accelerating the rate. Take those blinders off…there is no need to “usurp freedom;” we can still live as “free” as we do with our eyes open to the environment and our world.

Why can’t anyone read an interesting article with some amazing natural phenomena without attempting to make a cheap political point in the meantime?
borsch
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
This problem makes me very skeptical of Carbon Sequestration technologies that are being touted all over the place these days. Yes, maybe the caverns used are deep under the earth, but what happens when there is an earthquake in one of these places? You not only have the problem of the earthquake, but people perishing en masse from lack of O2. Just a thought
Bucky from bloggingwv.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
In one blog post, you have sold me on this book.

I am headed out to purchase it right now. It could possibly be the most interesting book I will ever read….I hope so anyway!
massacre
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Bill, I wasn’t making a political point, but a scientific one. I’ll not disagree that we are contributors to the naturally occurring phenomena known as the greenhouse effect. The percentage of our contribution is what’s important to understand and taken along with the additional data from NASA’s research on other planets in our solar system also experiencing similar temperature increases, the most immediate and obvious argument is that if we are “causing” anything, it’s very limited in scope.

We may be accelerating by a couple of years something that nature already had going, but just as our output is tiny compared to the overall picture, reducing it, even to zero, won’t stop it of affect the process much, especially if you are talking on the grand scale of time.

What I find to be more concerning is the amount of non-biodegradeable toxins we release, often with that same CO2 production, as well as our energy policy in general.

I like how you dismiss my argument with your comment about reading an interesting article without making a political point, not to mention that it’s a cheap point. Lovely. As if that’s not thinly veiled. So, instead you do exactly what you accuse me of doing - you made your point, not about the very interesting CO2 sink, but about the climate, same as me. And I was simply continuing a conversation started here. Oh, and you politicized it by implying that I have some political agenda. Other than accusing OTHERS of having an agenda, politicians included, in reducing our choice, freedom, and increasing FUD to gain power, I couldn’t care less where you stand in the political spectrum. I’m also more than willing to concede that we may have helped things along, but this is nothing new and almost certainly nothing we can stop.

If you reduced our net out put of carbon to effectively zero, then, 99.9%+ of the current greenhouse gases are still there. And I’ve taken several courses dealing with this, thanks. Maybe you should take one. It would help you understand that there’s hard evidence that the sun is in a current increase activity cycle and that our sun is having a FAR greater effect on Global Warming than we are - and not just on Earth.

Where’s your facts stating that our output is “excessive”? Based on what? Compared to? Could we reduce it, yes. Would it matter? Show me the math that says it would and on what timescale.

I have no blinders. I’m open to all information and I can clearly think it through and I wait for data from both sides to make decisions. Group think isn’t my thing, thanks. And if you think the “Greens” don’t have an agenda, you are wrong. I agree that being good stewards of our environment, eliminating toxic output, and striving to leave nature as untouched as possible are all excellent goals. And laws can be enacted to accomplish them. So, I clearly am “pro-environment” and not of the belief that humans cause global warming. My eyes are open, I hope you can open yours as well. There’s no need to just “believe” what you are told without considering WHY you are being told. Someone somewhere wants you to identify with their “cause” and do what’s “right”. You should watch Penn and Teller’s video on recycling, but I fear you might cry a little at the truthiness.
Jeff
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Massacre,

Don’t you know that when you’re being shouted down that you’re supposed to give up and agree with the “consensus”?
mertens
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Fred Thompson wouldn’t have let this happen!
PENIX
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I think they were wrong. I think it was evil spirits from the lake.
CheeseDuck
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Woo! Massacre.. I think you got worked up a little to much there..
Shawn
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Hmmm….I dooon’t know….Who is this Uncle John guy anyway? How do I know he didn’t just make this all up?
Ghostboy
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Haven’t read it yet, but had to comment already.. Who was the guy on the bike, Rocky Balboa? I guess he had a strong rope handy, just tied it around the saddle and changed into Antelope towing gear. Easy.

And if there are dead bodies everywhere, don’t throw down the bike and run.. It’s a long way back to town! Bikes are FASTER dude!
Idaho Falls
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I like the idea of a floating greenhouse, or multiple floating greenhouses with each one having a pipe that goes down to the lake bottom.
Bill
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Massacre, I wasn’t trying to make any point at all, really. All I was saying was that we can be conscious of our lives and what we do and how it may affect our environment without giving up any sort of freedoms. I’m not looking to get into any debate or anything at all at this point. There’s enough I can attack and defend and whatever else, it’s just not worth it, especially on some “comment page” of an article I found interesting. My comments were not directed at you as much as they were directed at the postings and the direction they were going in. I don’t stand with the “Greens” as you put them or with any party really. Party-politics is bull and as closed minded as anything else. I’ve seen Penn and Teller and I feel it’s a great show (not just the one on recycling, but their entire BS series). The reason I feel like this is not the medium to have this discussion is that, as you can see, our comments are so easily misconstrued. I never aimed to attack you, which it apparently seemed, or anyone. You are under the impression I am some blind follower of some other group or some ignorant liberal. Because we are limited on a comment page, the things we spout off about are so limited it seems like we only know what’s been told to us, and clearly that’s not the case. If I wanted to make a point earlier, it would be lengthy like your last one, and I don’t feel the desire to do that here. I don’t even entirely know why I defended this much aside from trying to reassure you that I’m not aiming for anything or at anyone regarding any sort of political point.
padoodaa
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
I see a lot of wishful thinkers all have their own thoughts on how much the release of the gas effects the environment, short or long term and what should be done about it.
No one has eluded to the fact to just “let it be” and avoid adding to the overpopulation of the earth. This is another callous opinion that totally ignores mans ability to seek out and provide a workable solution to life’s problems within our grasp.
I applaud the efforts of all parties to turn it into another global warming debate.
Andrew32
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 am
interesting…
the g
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 am
People People, leave the nature alone…

the more you mess with it, the more messed up you will be….

Dinos ruled the earth, not very long back.

It took just a stone big enough to wipe them out of the face of the earth.

Humans, we assume that every thing that is there is there for ever. Nature will find a ’stone’ big enough to show us our place…

By all our activities, we can either postpone the eventuality, or prepone and perish….
aravind.s@ndo
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
oh, no
its very interesting and very bad to world
Bob
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
“He didnâ€™t find a single person still aliveâ€”everyone in the huts was dead. The man threw down his bicycle and ran all the way back to Wum.”

That’s real smart… Something real bad happened. Must flee. Hmmm, discard means of fast transportation and run away on foot. Sounds like a plan!
Jon
May 24th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Lightning.
Motorcycle Guy
May 25th, 2007 at 8:29 am
That was better than a damninteresting article!
TioWoody
May 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
As to throwing down the bicycle. While it sounds wierd, I have seen many, many places in the third world where running would be much faster than riding a bicycle! Often the bike paths are bumpy and twisty. One running can go straight across fields.

My thanks to massacre for some truth about the global warming hoax. The freedom destroying “cures” will hurt the people in the third world countries like Cameroon.
Brian Dunaway
May 25th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Fascinating, and tragic. I still have (somewhere) the 1986 front page headline story (Houston Chronicle?) of this event. My recollection is that the explanation given in the immediate aftermath of the event was somewhat different, i.e., some unknown â€œtoxic gas.â€ I had never heard this follow-up explanation.

However, there is quite a bit of confusion in one paragraph that I would like to untangle.

The paragraph begins, â€œCO2 is odorless, colorless, and non-toxic; your body produces it and you exhale some every time you breathe. Even the air you inhale consists of about 0.05% CO2.â€ Well, regarding the latter, yes; but that doesnâ€™t mean that that CO2 isnâ€™t toxic. For example, the NASA Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration (SMAC) for CO2 is 10.0 mm Hg (1.3% at sea level pressure) for a one-hour period. The NASA Bioastronautics Data Book indicates that after only 80 minutes, at a ppCO2 level of ~18 mm Hg (2.4%), the subject can experience â€œmental depression, headache, dizziness, nausea.â€ At ~45 mm Hg (5.9%), the subject experiences â€œmarked deterioration leading to dizziness and stupor, with inability to take steps for self preservation. The final state is unconsciousness.â€ Not exactly â€œnon-toxic.â€

This toxicity has nothing to do with oxygen displacement (starvation) by an â€œinertâ€ gas, e.g., nitrogen and argon, which typically comprise 78% and 1% of the atmosphere, respectively.

The paragraph continues, â€œWhat makes it a killer in certain circumstances is the fact that itâ€™s heavier than air: If enough escapes into the environment at once, it displaces the air on the ground, making breathing impossible. A mixture of as little as 10% CO2 in the air can be fatal â€¦â€ Again, at this concentration, the danger of CO2 is due to its toxicity, not the oxygen it displaces. As aforementioned, ~6% is enough to cause death by toxicity. By contrast, merely adding 10% CO2 to the existing environment will only have the effect of diminishing oxygen concentration by 9%, which is the equivalent of traveling from sea level to 2500 feet (770 m) elevation â€“ hardly lethal.

The accounts of the witnesses also attest to these phenomena. Victims are said to have â€œquickly collapsed and died right on their own doorsteps,â€ which is altogether inconsistent with oxygen deprivation. Hypoxia symptoms, even in the presence of no oxygen, occur slowly (a few minutes), beginning with various subtle symptoms, then blackout, then unconsciousness. The description of the victimsâ€™ sudden unconsciousness would have to be due to very high levels of CO2.

Having said all of that, from the description of the event offered, it seems very likely that the balance of victims were exposed to near-100% concentrations of CO2, causing their instant unconsciousness, with death resulting from some combination of severe CO2 poisoning and oxygen starvation.

Brian Dunaway
The Boeing Company
Space Exploration
Environmental Control and Life Support
Houston, Texas
Alex
May 25th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Thanks for the typo correction, Jeff #12 - and thanks to everyone who added very useful comments/discussion points.
Kerry
May 26th, 2007 at 4:02 am
very interesting article!! & comments too!!!
raman
May 26th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Very interesting story, but not so much for the victims though. Poor fellas did not know what was coming.
Koijmonop
May 27th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
This is getting kind of far away from Cameroon, but a question for massacre. I am interested in your comment that changes in the sun are having a significant role in earthly climate change and indeed “a FAR greater effect on Global Warming than we are - and not just on Earth.” I am unfamiliar with this line of thought and a bit of looking around found this article: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate (Nature, 14 September 2006). The article addresses specifically the idea you mentioned a few times in your post. A summary of this article seems in fact to exactly contradict your comment: â€œOur results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun’s brightness,â€ says Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
I admit I have not taken any courses on these subjects and I was wondering if you had anything to say about this?
FincherFanatic
June 1st, 2007 at 9:39 am
Heard of this before. But wow … this is really scary. Thanks for the post!
TurboFool
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 am
As I began reading the article I immediately recognized the issue at hand due to a story I read a couple of years ago on this issue… except that story referred to such an event occurring somewhere in the United States if I remember correctly. Has anyone else read about such an occurrence in the US? This article suggests that that’s never happened, so I’m wondering if the story I read was fabricated…
Pundirty
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Quick! Someone call Al Gore! We need a moratorium on African water-filled volcanic craters! The CARBON FOOTPRINT(tm) is much too big!
Bogwan
June 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Why did it take so long to figure out the cause of death here? Hypercapnia (CO2 poisoning) lowers the PH of the blood a huge amount. Wouldn’t 2000 super acidic corpses who died without a struggle tip you off? “No sign of exposure to poison gas” my ass.
Maox
June 6th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Er.. Why did they cross out the misspelled words instead of just replacing them like any normal person would?

And I’m finding it pretty hard to believe the guy “threw down his bicycle” and ran all the way back to his home village. What sources are they quoting here?

This reeks. Of something. Not worth my time, that’s for sure.
James
June 7th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Amazing stuff, surprised I’ve not heard of it before.
The picture of the CO2 escaping reminded me of something. Could this be a similar installation in Geneve?
http://www.geneve-tourisme.ch/?rubrique=0000000172&lang=_eng
Uhhhh
June 7th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Maox… go somewhere and find a bunch of dead bodies… then see if you freak out and do something spontaneous. Just because dude can run and you can’t… doesn’t make this story BS.
nekto
June 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Very interesting and strange…
Matthew R.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Rick W-

You say that we are going to derail scientific discovery as to the cause of greenhouse gasses on our planet. The difference between the earth “releasing” gasses and us, as humans “releasing” gasses is that the gasses of which are released due to the use of gasoline and such are technically synthesized. The carbon and oxygen may be a part of the petroleum, but they are not CO2 until the petroleum is burned, therefore creating more carbon dioxide and creating a higher percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere than what would be there naturally.

Think thoughts through before posting such a wild idea of which has no scientific base

-Matt
nintendo
June 9th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Improbably…
Odie
June 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I heard about this a few years ago while on a working trip to Rwanda. The hotel there is right up against the lake. The volcano is still active and you can see the glow from the roof of the hotel at night. I guess we will never learn.
DylanCarter
June 19th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Xirvyg, it’s not carbon dioxide that’s the big threat, it’s carbon monoxide. I like the turbine idea though.
Berry
June 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I have a couple of questions left to this article.
Firstly, I wonder why the gas escaped through the pipe, and not through the rest of the water. Maybe I just didn’t understand the idea of that pipe, but can someone explain, why the CO2 goes through the pipe and not the water (there’s water in the pipe, too, isn’t there)?
Secondly, why didn’t the wind mix the CO2 into the air in the surroundings of the lake? Was that just because there were mountains there, too?
to comment 13 (dave): If the locals don’t have the need, nor the money for electricity, how do they buy and charge their cell-phones? i know a lot of Africans try to get one, but I was surprised to hear that about a little village.
Mark H
June 28th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
@Berry.

In the depths of the lake, the water is under great pressure and the CO2 is dissolved and in solution with the water. This CO2 is coming up slowly enough to not disturb the lake very much. The Lake is surrounded by high hills, which keeps the wind from disturbing the surface and apparently it does not experience much temperature change as well. This makes for a very quiet body of water, which allows super saturation to occur. A super saturated liquid, in this case water with CO2, can explosively release the gas at the slightest disturbance. To prevent that, the scientists are trying to release the gas in a controlled manner, so they came up with this tube.

The tube siphons water off the bottom of the lake. As the water rises the pressure reduces and when the pressure gets low enough, at some elevation in the tube, the CO2 comes out of solution (bubbles out of the water/CO2 solution). The flow continues up and the water and CO2, now a liquid/gas mixture and not a solution, blasts out of the pipe.

It seems kind of counter intuitive, but it works. You would think that the pressure spraying the water out of the pipe would stop the flow, but apparently not. That has something to do with hydrodynamics which involves scarier math than I want to do right now.

The CO2 that blasts out is coming out at a low enough rate that it is not a great hazard to the surrounding environment and the wind just carries it away.

As for what adding tons and tons of CO2 to the atmosphere will do for global warming, it is not known, regardless of what the GW scaremongers say. Global climatology is a science in its infancy right now. We don’t know enough about it yet to reliably theorize, let alone reach a conclusion.
Jeff
July 9th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Actually, DylanCarter, it is CO2 that is the problem, not CO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming).

Besides.. Colorado as a whole isn’t such a bad place…
lordsonny
July 14th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I saw a tv program that suggested that was what happened during the Exodus, where the alleged God allegedly killed all the oldest Egyptian boys.
Thoren
July 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Jeff says: “I’m a tiny little insecure man who, rather than contributing to the conversation in some way, feel compelled to point out simple spelling mistakes to make myself feel big and intelligent.”

You dickhead.
Zzzz
August 10th, 2007 at 12:54 am
I dunno about you guys, but this reminds me of Hinamizawa.
Ozone
August 29th, 2007 at 3:27 am
its a natural phenomenon, what about the man-made disasters happening every day??
denex
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:57 am
The Lake Nyos event was neither a natural disaster nor a spiritual attack. The Lake Nyos disaster was the result of collaborative Nuclear testing between South Africa and Israel, working with the Permission of Cameroonian President, Paul Biya.

The disaster occured on 21st August. On Thursday Night, 9pm a powerful explosion occured in the Lake Nyos. About 3 minutes later, a violent wind started blowing towards the Villages of Fang, Chai, Lower Nyos and Subum.

The gas was hot and suffocated all the living things . All those affected had burns on their bodies.

On Saturday, at 6pm, a medical team arrived in a military plane headed by the director of health Professor Kaptue. Others were doctor Simo Moyo and Dr Muna.

Sunday August 24 1986, President Paul Biya arrived unannounced at the nearby village of Bamenda to personally appraise the situation and pay condolences.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Shimon Perez also arrived on the same Sunday 24th of August 1986 to also appraise the situation and offer his assistance during a state visit. Prime Minister Shimon Peres arrives with 17 scientists fully equipped with full body protective gear, gas masks and observation equipment when in fact, by this time, the news hadn’t been broken to the international community. It was officially broken in Cameroon on Saturday 23rd and to the rest of the world on Sunday 24th (Remember, this was not the time of internet, gprs, email, video calls and i-reports).

So what really happened?

A dutch Reverend, Father Tenhorn said it was a neutron bomb. He was the first to have an aerial view of the incident from a helicopter

The Congolese President at the time, Dennis Sassou Nguesso said it was a thermonuclear device which had earlier been advertised to him for testing in his country by the Israelis.

Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS)

Symptoms:
Nervousness, confusion, severe nausea, vomiting, watery diarrhea, burning sensation of the skin causing scratching, loss of consciousness, convulsion, coma and death.

The symptoms are quite similar to CO2 poisoning, but victims of CO2 poisoning do not have skin burns and scratch their skin wildly. CO2 in fact, would have even cooled their skins. That’s why it is concentrated commercially as dry ice and it is also used in fire extinguishing. The lamps that were off was due to the windspeed of the violent fallout.

Vast amounts of CO2 suddenly escaping rapidly into the atmosphere would not cause a astoundingly loud explosion that would be heard over miles.

CO2 escaping rapidly into the atmosphere will not cause a fallout or violent rush of wind after the explosion.

The fallout which descended on the habitations around Nyos had a strange pungent smell. CO2 is actually odourless.

South Africa had nuclear weapons and Israel still has nuclear weapons. Has anybody ever wondered where they tested these weapons? Lest I forget, besides this Lake Nyos explosion, there was also the Lake Monoun explosion that yielded about the same result.

I’m a Nigerian living in Nigeria which is just west of Cameroon. I was about 17 when I was first taught about the Lake Nyos phenomenon. I’d always been top in my chemistry classes throughout high school but the theories being touted about the Lake Nyos incidence made me abandon chemistry for a career in Agriculture because the science of CO2 in Lake Nyos didn’t add up.
K
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:16 am
I’ll never fart in the bath tub again.
Jesse
October 16th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
And the Ramifications? First off - the movement inside the tube could create some significant energy (lets me efficient here). And secondly - that much CO2 being released does not seem healthy either: human or planet.

I hope they’re planting some vegetation along the water’s edge.
Ema
October 28th, 2007 at 10:13 am
hello my name’s Ema i’m 13 and i have to do a geography project on this volcano so far i am at a dead end, though this page has been useful. can anyone point me in the right direction of a website that would help me gather valid info in it (preferebly without many long words i’m blond you know =]) thanks
XanderMan227
November 5th, 2007 at 12:33 am
As the leading scientist on CO2 at the University of Wisconsin I believe that lake Mendota is due for a similar eruption by the end of the decade. The government has kicked me out of the country for expressing this opinion.
HiDD
November 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
So Americans test their new traceless chemical weapon on poor Cameroon people and it must be the Earth released poison gas bla bla bla…
Nick
November 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
There’s a couple important points on which there appears to be some misunderstanding.

1. Releasing this CO2 is no worse for the environment than leaving it there. All of the gas which gets added beyond the saturation point of the water will eventually come out. The two options are to “Let the world take care of itself” and kill a few thousand people every now and then, or to drain the gas at the same rate which it is naturally added.

Either way, the same amount of gas will enter the atmosphere at the same average rate (long-term). On one hand you kill a couple thousand people and release a couple million cubic meters of CO2, on the other hand nobody dies and you release a couple million cubic meters of CO2.

2. There isn’t that much energy being wasted. It is true that a turbine could be used to harness some energy, but at the expense of the pressure difference of the syphon. As Jeff already suggested, at 100% efficiency such a turbine could power a fountain the same size as the one naturally occurring from the syphon. In reality, you would be lucky to reach half that efficiency, and you would be reducing the speed of the syphon, necessitating many more pipes.

3. Plants do use CO2 and light via photosynthesis, but there’s a maximum rate at which they’ll use it, and even if there weren’t, they’ll be limited by the amount of available light. I’m not saying the co2 couldn’t be used this way, but planting more trees nearby would be just as effective. Seeing as that area is already pretty much jungle, it’s probably already doing a pretty good job with this task.

As far as the other major discussion points go:

Neutron bombs? The only response that I’ll give to that, is that I don’t see any scientific fault with the CO2 explanation, and I guarantee you that a violent release of that much dissolved gas is entirely capable of making a very loud noise.

Global Warming: I believe that humans are a major contributing factor. Burning fossil fuels is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that wouldn’t otherwise end up there. A lot of money is being put towards non-scientific research to make it look like global warming is not a problem, and we’re not responsible. A lot of money is also spent (and made) on non-scientific research demonstrating that it is a problem.
People need to start looking at this scientifically. Just because some “environmentalists” make things up because they think it will support their cause, doesn’t mean that their cause doesn’t warrant support.
I’m not excusing bad science. I’m not saying we should listen to the nonsense, but if someone says the right thing for the wrong reason, you can ignore them and still listen to a proper scientist who came to the same conclusion scientifically.

If I tell you that you shouldn’t drink gasoline because it contains over 20% potassium cyanide I would be guilty of making stuff up.

If the pro-gasoline drinking lobby proves that gasoline doesn’t contain potassium cyanide, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s safe to drink. There’s probably plenty of other people saying not to drink your auto fuel without using these same scare-mongering tactics that are used by “environmental” organizations so frequently.

I know this analogy may seem ridiculous, but this same logic is being used for global warming all the time.

I haven’t seen absolute proof of either viewpoint, but the evidence does seem to support the theory for the most part. If someone proves otherwise, that’s great. Pointing out a single flaw in the evidence doesn’t automatically invalidate the whole theory, just that piece of evidence.

-Nick
Kull
November 27th, 2007 at 11:52 am
There was a Planet of the Apes t.v episode about co2 gas killing people who entered a cave. The primitive people around it thought it was spirits and started sacrificing people for their ignorant beliefs.
ppp
February 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
wow.. I could see a movie being made about this.
Mr Surbade
February 29th, 2008 at 5:19 am
What an amazing story !
Wolf Kazumaru
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 am
“Scientists and engineers have devised a plan for shoring up the natural dam with concrete, and it’s believed that the installation of as few as for more siphon tubes could reduce the CO2 in the lake to safe levels in as little as four years.” Four more siphon tubes, not for more siphon tubes.
Danny
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Nicely done!
I’ve read it !
I’m making my own blog! Spyware removal is effecient way to get rid of all spyware and adware!!
Spyware removal news
Tin Ear
March 10th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
One Word!: MENTOS!
Just drop a couple into the bottom of the lake and stand back!!!!
Joe
March 15th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Bill
March 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Still
March 15th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Dominic
March 15th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
SCEPTIC
April 15th, 2008 at 3:04 am
http://www.nyos.lv/

A Trigger mechanism the limnological catastrophes in CAMEROON on “MONOUN” lake in 1984 and on “NYOS” lake in 1986 has been switched on by the atmospheric precipitations in 1983.
Limnological catastrophes on “MONOUN” lake in 1984 and on “NYOS” lake in 1986, were caused by the instantaneous ejections of the gaseous carbon dioxide from the sediment stratums under the lake’s bottom. The Degassing the waters of the lakes “NYOS” and “MONOUN” can not prevent from the repetition in lakes “NYOS” and “MONOUN” of the limnological catastrophes, similar to the catastrophes of 1984 and of 1986. At any time, A Trigger mechanism may be switched on, and after switching, will happen a new limnological catastrophes in “Nyos” lake and in “Monoun” lake.
Tara
May 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
If you go to this page and click on the summer report 2006 it will explain why they aren’t harnessing this carbon dioxide and also why releasing it from the lake is not causing any extra greehouse gases. It is a website maintained by one of the actual scientists that has been involved from the beginning and therefore pretty reliable.
Tara
May 6th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gwk/research/nyos.html
sorry website didn’t post above
SCEPTIC
May 8th, 2008 at 4:23 am
SCEPTIC

Sorry, “Description of the Gas Disaster in lakes Nyos and Monoun “ on the site of http: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gwk/research/nyos.html
based on the erroneous theory of catastrophes (see of http://www.nyos.lv/ ) on the lake of Nyos in 1986 and on the lake of Monoun in 1984. Because of this, the plan (see of site) of degassing is unavailing for prevention of catastrophes, similar to the catastrophes on the lake of Nyos in 1986 and on the lake of Monoun in 1984.

Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!