I would argue that it has a lower risk than riding in a jet boat (or at least, before this event it could have been argued). Every few years someone dies in a jetboat crash, but this event I believe was the first time ever that there has been volcanic eruption tourism deaths, except perhaps the pink and white terraces in the 1800s.

The court cases show heaps of issues with the procedures, but I don't see a reason not to allow anyone to ever go there. Just maybe don't go when the alert level has been raised and make sure you stay within health and safety rules.

We also let people ski on Ruapehu which erupts every so often, seems the same to me.

[–] liv@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can see your point.

I always got the impression seismologically Whakaari was more likely to go than Ruapehu, but that might just be because it's a tsunami risk so civil defence always talked about it. "White Island Eruption" was a bit like "Quicksand".

In terms of the jet boat I think it's a probability vs magnitude issue i.e a jetboat is not able to kill as many people at a time. Also not sure whether the per capita is much worse?

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago

I think it's where the volcanic alert levels come in. At this event, the rating had been raised to say there was a risk but operators still went anyway because they got away with it in the past. I can see a future where we continue these trips but only at volcanic alert levels of 0 or 1.