The White Island Recovery Operation (Volcanologist) - PART TWO

What does a 4% chance of death really mean?

In Part Two of this conversation, volcanologist Nico Fournier takes us inside the risk calculations behind the Whakaari / White Island eruption recovery operation in New Zealand. When scientists estimated a 4-6% probability that someone could die during a three-hour mission on the island, the question shifted from “Is it safe?” to something far harder: Is this risk acceptable?

We break down how that number was built using expert elicitation, why uncertainty is inherent in volcanic systems, and how scientists communicate risk to police, emergency services, and government officials in real time. Nico explains the difference between individual risk and societal risk in volcano tourism, how legal inquiries reshaped responsibilities after the 2019 eruption, and why emotional decision-making plays a bigger role than most people realise.

The discussion expands globally — from Stromboli and Etna to Lake Taupō and supervolcano risk — exploring how volcanologists forecast eruptions, where prediction succeeds, and where it fails. Nico shares experiences from Montserrat, moments of near real-time forecasting, and a powerful lesson from decades in the field: never judge a decision purely by its outcome.

If you’re interested in volcano science, disaster risk management, emergency response, or how high-stakes decisions are made under uncertainty, this episode goes deep.


🔎 Topics Covered:
 • Whakaari White Island eruption recovery
 • Volcano risk assessment & probability
 • Volcanology and eruption forecasting
 • Expert elicitation explained
 • Volcano tourism safety
 • Supervolcano risk (Lake Taupō)
 • Montserrat eruptions
 • Risk tolerance vs risk calculation
 • Disaster decision-making under uncertainty


🌋 Learn More About Nico:

GNS Science Profile:
https://www.gns.cri.nz/about-us/staff-search/nico-fournier/

International Association of Volcanology (IAVCEI):
https://www.iavceivolcano.org/

Donate to support global volcano research and collaboration:
https://www.iavceivolcano.org/donation-form/

⸻

📲 Follow:

Nico on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nicofournier
Nico on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nico-fournier-0130704/

IAVCEI Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iavcei/
IAVCEI LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/iavcei-int-assoc-of-volcanology-chemistry-of-the-earth-s-interior/posts/?feedView=all

⸻

🎙 Support No Ordinary Monday

NOM is 100% independent.

☕ Support the show: https://buymeacoffee.com/noordinarymonday
⭐ Leave a five-star rating
📝 Write a short review
📤 Share this episode with someone interested in volcanoes, science, or decision-making

SUPPORT US - NOM is a 100% independent show. Help us keep the lights on by buying us a coffee (or a beer) - https://buymeacoffee.com/noordinarymonday. We're deeply grateful for any level of support. 

SHOW SOME LOVE - click five-stars on whatever platform you're on, and leave us a review, or tell a friend about the show. 

WANT TO BE A GUEST? You can submit your own career story through our website at www.noordinarymonday.com, or email us at hello@noordinarymonday.com.

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:01

One of the questions back on back to that famous week uh following the eruption was would you bring your son? Would you bring your son to the island right now? I couldn't answer the is it safe question. What I could answer is the probability of those people to get killed by the eruption, the teams going on the island while they were on the island. Typically, what we estimated was for the first recovery operation, the risk of one in one of those guys to get killed would be about 4%. On one hand seems quite low, but actually, if you think about going to work and 4% chance of getting killed, that's enormous.

From Recovery To Legal Inquiries

SPEAKER_00 0:45

Hey folks, welcome back to another episode of No Ordinary Monday. This is part two of my conversation with volcanologist Nico Fournier. And if you haven't listened to part one, I would really recommend you go back and start there, because these two episodes kind of stick together and you'll get a much fuller experience hearing the story unfold from the beginning. So a quick recap from part one, Nico relived the hours and the days after the Fakadi White Island eruption and the recovery operation that followed. And in particular, his role in deciding when and how it would be safe for teams to go back to the unstable volcano. They were going back to retrieve the bodies of eight victims who sadly lost their lives that day back in 2019. I've had some incredible feedback from you guys since that first episode went out, so huge, huge love and thanks to you guys who reached out because genuinely it means so much when you take the time to message and reflect and also just to share what resonated with you. So in this episode, we find out that Nico's story didn't end when the recovery operation finished. Today he reveals what came after that. The legal inquiries, the sort of global conversation around volcanic tourism, and the much harder question beneath everything. How do we actually talk about risk when it comes to unpredictable volcanoes that are also irresistible to tourists and visitors? Alrighty, so where are we going to drop into in this episode? As you heard in the Cold Open, at one point before the recovery, Nico and his team estimated that the risk to the recovery teams returning to the island was about 4%. Exactly. It is a number that sounds small, but would you go to work if you had a 4% chance of not coming home? I don't think so. We're going to unpack how that number was calculated, what it means, and how events like Farkadio Island reshaped conversations about risk and responsibility and decision making under uncertainty. You're listening to No Ordinary Monday? Let's get into the show. Again, it's a side of the story that that I was missing from the documentary. You know, like I could tell, you know, both those documentaries were fantastic and told fantastic stories about the survivors and what they went through. But it I guess it's the and they touched on a little bit of the fallout, you know, like what happens after that? You know, we talk about, you know, there were eight bodies on the island, but you're only unfortunately able to recover six of them. Like when you got back and when it was decided that there would not be any further subsequent, you know, rescue attempts for those two bodies, like did you have to face those families again and say, look, you know, what we've decided that they're probably we're never going to find them.

SPEAKER_02 3:30

So I I didn't have to do that at that time just because um police at that time had already engaged a lot with the families and we had some family years on as well. Um so they they knew pretty much um I think at the time that there was um one last shot that we could give um to uh two or three of the loved ones. So I think the um some families might, you know, might have gone around the the island afterwards just in the odd chance that you you know you never know what you can find. I know that after the the second recovery operat uh operations, when we so I was based in a helicopter at that point in time, and we you know we had to basically call it a day at some point. What we did was actually following the currents with a helicopter just in the odd chance that you've got something that you can spot from the air, etc. So you know it's it's that difficult point in time where you say, okay, now it now we we know that we are in that till of probability in terms of likelihood of actually success, effectively.

SPEAKER_01 4:26

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 4:26

Um but let's give let's give it a crack. Let's get that extra few percent of chances, whatever we can grab, whatever we can do to actually try to do that. But uh as expected, we we we couldn't we couldn't find anything at all. Yeah.

Communicating Risk Versus “Is It Safe”

SPEAKER_00 4:38

Yeah. And I guess uh in terms of you know, once once all the dust is settled, often maybe not everybody, but certainly some people would look to someone to blame for an event like this. I mean, how how do you even begin to to go about that? Um is there is it just Mother Nature, or should the tour operators never have been there in the first place? I mean, obviously hindsight's 2020. Should they have you know given everyone a little bit more of a hey, this is a risky situation? Uh or should they take more hindsight or more awareness that I'm sure the tour guys are watching your you know, level one, level two situations. Should they be all these sorts of things are running through my mind, but obviously before that you it doesn't happen at all. So what was the fallout in in that respect?

SPEAKER_02 5:29

Yeah, so the uh we we probably need to mention that the there has been so the event has been followed by two legal inquiries. So we've had a a first inquiry which was um called by by WorkSafe. So it's basically a a part of the New Zealand government which looks after um health and safety at work. And the intent for for that or the scope for that inquiry was to look at basically the uh the the moments of um prior to the eruption ending at the at the time of the eruption, and basically at the processes that could have led to um to an adverse outcome on the date. So what I mean by this, um this looked into um the the death, for instance, of the tour operator guides, because they are employed by tour operator companies, and those have a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of their employees. Um likewise, if you make a if you have a if you run a business or not, actually, if you have um we've got something that we call a PCBU uh obligation in New Zealand, and what this is, it means that basically it's an obligation to ensure the safety of your customers if you actually have them doing activities under your under your company or your organization. So, what that means practically, it means uh um what was the the level of responsibility of um the two operators, but also not also us as scientists in terms of ensuring the uh the safety of the visitors of the staff that were involved in the uh in the eruptions, etc. So that was the first inquiry that um was finished um basically a couple of years ago. The second inquiry that is still ongoing is uh what we call a coroner coronal inquiry. And what that is, it unlike the other one, it doesn't lead to um to fines uh or or kind of financial um retribution. Instead, it leads to recommendations for systemic improvements. So the the it's it's divided in two phases. The first one is um that's just past um late 2025, is the uh was the basically the the hours following the eruption. So it was very much focusing on the rescue operations, not even the recovery operations, just the rescue operations in the hours following the eruption. And this is basically in terms of uh whether anything could be learned in terms of how that was managed and so on, uh, with a different outcome or not for the people involved and and the victims. The second phase of that inquiry, which we're getting into soon in 2026, is around all the period leading to the eruption. And and this is the one that is actually touching on exactly the point you're mentioning, which is about adventure tourism at active volcanoes. Um so I'm I won't be kind of uh preempting, I guess, any of the outcome of that inquiry. I guess for me, there are a few lines of thoughts and learnings that have come through over the past years because it's been plus five years and a bit now already. Um one of them has been around how as scientists, but also as um, I guess, emergency management practitioners, how we not only estimate, but also how we communicate risk. And also trying to unpack a bit more the is it safe conversation, uh, which actually is it safe is two questions is yeah, what is the risk and is that risk acceptable? And I think very often we oversimplify the is it safe by yes or no? But it's actually a very different value proposition. So um one of the questions um back on back to that famous week uh following the eruption, one of the first questions that was asked by one of the police officers uh who was extraordinary, but he he you know, trying to get some answers and tangible outcome of those conversations so that he could make some informed decision as to whether or not they could go back to the island to recover those bodies. Um one of the questions he asked me was Would you bring your son? So I've got a I've got a son, would you bring your son to to the island right now? And I said, Well, I'm not sure that answering that question is really going to help. So the example I took there was um the example or contrasting two situations where um it's about understanding what the level of risk is, but more importantly, it's talking about risk tolerance and whether is that risk acceptable and um for the rewards I'm getting. So the first situation could be um you're outside of your house and you see your car outside of your house is on fire. Um and in that car you might just have bits of papers, nothing of value at all, basically, just bits and pieces. So you have got a high level of risk, um, and you may decide not to get into that car to pick up those two pieces of paper because the reward is not worth it, basically, and they and you don't find that the risk is acceptable. Now you take the same situation, same car, same fire, same risk, but you put your son in there, you put your kids in there.

unknown 10:33

Yeah.

Calculating The 4% And Tolerance

SPEAKER_02 10:34

I can't say what I will do, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of people will probably think about grabbing in there, trying to grab their kids out, right? The level of risk has not changed, it's exactly the same, but the risk tolerance has increased dramastically because the the reward is is totally different. So this has been around, I think the the the risk conversation is as as is something that we need to unpack. So the risk conversation too often stops at the at the risk assessment. Very, very rarely do we talk about risk tolerance. And that was one of the accelerated learning from that eruption as we were trying to actually unlock that risk assessment in the days following the eruption. Um I couldn't answer the is it safe question? What I could answer is the probability of those people to get killed by the eruption, the teams going on the island while they were on the island. Exactly right. And then once we unlocked that on our end, um effectively what we estimated was for the first recovery operation, for the three hours that the teams would be on the island for, the risk of one in one of those guys to get killed would be about four percent. And basically, um that was falling broadly um within the the type of risk that the explosive ordnance disposal teams would be taking on the job. So I remember the time when we finally unlocked that conversation, we're able to actually broadly estimate with huge um error bars, of course, but that's the best we could do at the time. Um so broadly speaking, I think we're talking about broadly kind of that percentage. At 4% um on one hand seems quite low, but actually, if we think about going to work and 4% chance of getting killed, that's enormous. That is enormous. None of us would take this kind of risk, and no employers would think this is actually um probably a good thing, with the exception of some of the some of the um the uh the police armies, etc., where they face those kind of situations. Um so I remember at the time very vividly um the the the the officer in charge for the police gave me the the biggest high five I think I've had in this in in in quite a long time and effectively say you know again expletive yeah um we can do this, that we can work with those numbers.

SPEAKER_00 12:54

Wow.

SPEAKER_02 12:55

Um and I think you know more widely, I think it's it was for that particular operation, but I think genuinely it comes back to the question of risk tolerance and who is making that decision. So um without geeking out too much, but there are the risk tolerance can often be split in two. Uh one of them is the risk to an individual, and then basically it comes down then to that individual's tolerance to risk. So say Euchre is going to Minapi. Um, it's basically there is a level of risk with you with your family is well, is that risk acceptable for me as an individual? And I would argue that um you're probably the best person to make that decision. Um, you know, if you can understand risk and and how and what your tolerance is. But there is a different type of risk, which is the societal risk. So this is where it gets complicated because it's not the problem, it's not the risk for one individual, is the risk of someone getting killed by an eruption. And this is the difference between having, say, just one or two persons going to that volcano on a regular basis, a person having 300 people going there every day. Um of course, if you want to mitigate that societal risk, you can decrease the number of people going every day, for instance. And so this doesn't come down in terms of decision making to the individuals, it comes down to the authorities basically allowing people to go to to the two operators, etc. etc. So long story short, I think it's been around uh one of the big um discussion and conversation in our field has been around about around risk and how we communicate risk.

SPEAKER_00 14:30

And that four percent is fascinating because I'm sure that was a very difficult number to come to. A lot of work was put into that. But if you had to is it possible for you to kind of even conjure a number for what that risk percentage would have been on the day, on the morning of those people going there?

Expert Elicitation And Uncertainty

SPEAKER_02 14:52

The answer is is is no. Um the the the way we come up with those numbers is is quite sophisticated and it it basically is a two-step process where the first step is basically we try to estimate uh the the likelihood of an event that would that would affect the people in that area, basically, over say the next 24 hours. So um you've got different ways of going about it. So now we've got more and more sophisticated way, sophisticated ways to go about it, but nothing really is proper real time. Um and because of the very highly nonlinear nature of volcanic processes and the huge uncertainty. So the way we tackle that on our end at the moment and and yet exploring other options is by doing what we call an expert elicitation. So, what's an expert elicitation is, it's a way to actually get experts' opinion to collate it and to come up with a single number out of a multitude of numbers. So the way we would ask, for instance, a question. So the question we might have asked um our team was uh so a group of experts would have been what do you think is the probability of an eruption occurring over the next 24 hours that would affect the area where the teams would be? And then basically you might ask for your best guess, you might be asking for the the minimum you think, that is kind of under which you would be very surprised, and the maximum over which you would be very surprised. So kind of three numbers. And then we take everybody's opinion there and we come up with a single number with an error bar on that. So that takes quite a bit. Um and we it's it's a process that we've we've probably I wouldn't say we've mastered it, but we we we're getting quite good at it, we're getting proficient at it. We were able to actually turn over those things quite quickly. But what it does require, it does require that unavoidable discussion that you need around the data and what the data actually means. And not only your data as a specialist of earthquake, for instance, or gas, but also what everybody's bringing in terms of their understanding of the symptoms of of what's happening. So that discussion plus the elicitation itself uh would take a few hours at least. And that was one of the big conversations and one of the outcome now as well is how can we provide some form of risk assessment in near real time when we just don't have the luxury of time. And uh and I don't I don't think we've cracked that just yet. Basically, we're working actively on it.

Policy Shifts And Actionable Advice

SPEAKER_00 17:17

Yeah, it's difficult. I mean, we we've talked about kind of what what's happened from a policy point of view, I'm guessing. I'm I think it goes without saying that no one, the old tours have been sort of suspended onto the island. You can do sort of aerial tours and boat tours, but anyone going to the island is is off. But I'm sure there's been a huge number of policy changes nationwide on on how you know adventure tourism is is looked at, particularly when it comes to these highly unpredictable events. But take it from you personally as Nico, like before and after this event. Like how how do you compare those sort of two people? What's changed in you?

SPEAKER_02 17:56

Yeah, it's a really good question. Probably uh quite a deep question that uh we need uh a few things to uh to unpack.

SPEAKER_00 18:02

Um or maybe it more be a better way to sort of think about it is like, you know, once once all said and done, you know, you've kind of got you know, everyone's the the the recovery operation is you know finished, you've got everyone you can do, you arrive home, crack open a beer, probably, you know. Um what was kind of going through your your mind at that point?

SPEAKER_02 18:24

Yeah, I think so. I think the uh probably the biggest immediate learning, if you wish, from that, as and it was a learning that was as as we went literally in the day, say we in the thick of it really, was that um and you really had as a as a scientist, especially or as a subject matter expert, it doesn't have to be science, it could be anything, you have to make sure that whatever advice you're providing has a landing space. So it has to be actionable. As much as we love volcanoes for me or my colleagues, as much as we love volcanoes, and as much as we love to quantify risk, we quantify things, etc., if that information is not actionable, we are probably um missing the target. We're probably not hitting the sweet spot there. So one of the things, for instance, that we did is the uh those 4% I was talking about, um we we could actually provide that quite quickly, not on the day, but that's something that we we could provide quite quickly afterwards. But what we actually realized at the time is that uh that quantification of the risk of fatality was something was we were actually grossly overshooting the type of scientific advice that we could provide. There was not a landing spot for that because there hadn't been a discussion by the authorities or or the way they actually operated in terms of what threshold was acceptable, was not for them. So we would be able to provide that number, but then it didn't have a landing spot where it could be evaluated and say, oh yeah, that's fine or that's not fine. So initially we had to go back to um slightly simpler um form of science advice, which is the usual um risk matrix, which has basically the consequence and likelihood with different colours basically on there, uh from green to red. And um and for us, it felt like it was going backwards because we had been there before and we had gone much further. But the point was not to provide the best possible advice, the point was to provide the best possible actionable advice. And I think that's for me, that's a that's a big deal.

SPEAKER_00 20:36

Because uh clearly you had already been provided it wasn't like you guys were negligent because you were constantly monitoring the volcano in the in the weeks and months and years before the the event, and you had raised the level to two. Um and I guess that it comes back to the risk tolerance thing is the tour operator clearly every morning or probably throughout twenty-four hours, is constantly looking at that sort of what is it what is it gonna be? Level one, level two, level three? And they had made the decision that level two is fine, we're gonna go out there because you know we've been out for level two before and nothing's happened. But it's just really uh it's very easy to say in hindsight that they shouldn't have gone out there. Um but like even I I guess that's what you're saying, is that you're trying to provide actionable information in a way that a tour operator might look at level two and go, you know, maybe there's a a 10% or five percent or four percent chance of something happening, but that's not a risk that we're willing to take. You know, and I guess that's the hardest thing is to to create a a a level system, or maybe there should be you know a level, you know, one a two point one or two point seven or like you know, that kind of thing. Like once it gets past two point five, that's past our level of risk. But you know, uh it's kind of hard, it's hard to know what to do.

Individual And Societal Risk

SPEAKER_02 22:00

Yeah, so I I think the solution here, or or maybe part of the solution, is maybe not so much into the numbers, because we can crack numbers. That's not that's something we know how to do. And I think um the problem was not cracking the numbers. I think the the problem is in the in the dialogue around risk. And I think um if we go back to who is actually making the decision. So if I'm um so I love mountaineering, I love climbing. Um there is a level of risk attached to that, depending on the conditions. I make continuous dynamic risk assessment and I sometimes get it right, sometimes get it terribly wrong. Um But um one of the ways where I can try to make an informed decision is by being able to compare that risk to something I can relate to. So the dialogue around risk, instead of us, I think, providing numbers, is probably more around that level of risk of getting killed, basically, by by by a volcanic eruption, could be anything really, is the same than say um driving between in in New Zealand, Auckland, Wellington, um, three times in a row without stopping and being drunk.

SPEAKER_01 23:07

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 23:07

How do you feel about that? How does that make you feel? And I think that's right. And I think it touches on something as well, which for me has been a very sobering realization as well, is that as much as I love to think that decision making is evidence-based, purely evidence-based, that it is um rational, etc., um, the reality is that there is a very, very strong, dare I say, dominant emotional component to decision making. And I think unless we acknowledge that, um, which I think I've failed to do for years, yeah, realistically, and I think all of us do or may do, um, unless we ex- we acknowledge that there is an emotional component to decision making, um, we will not progress in that dialogue. So we'll keep progressing on the techniques to provide those numbers. We'll keep tracking numbers, but we won't be actually achieving the uh, I guess, a positive difference because we won't be able to engage in that dialogue in a meaningful way. And something that people can relate to, really.

SPEAKER_00 24:09

I love I love that going from a you know level one, two, three, four system. It's imagine if you're driving an hour on the motorway and you've had 10 pints and you're on a motorbike kind of thing. Like that that's what we've come down to in terms of like that's what we're that's what our numbers are translating into. Would you take that risk? And then that's people going, okay, maybe I wouldn't do that, you know, after a whole night session. But um that's fascinating. It's just a very human you know, it's just a very human thing, you know, dealing with you know risk and and large groups of people and and how we decide to live our lives. So it's amazing.

SPEAKER_02 24:46

Um we and we don't we don't make quantitative risk assessment every single day, right? That's that's the reality as well, is as much as I love to do that and I advocate for that every day for our partners and agencies and authorities, 90% of the decisions I'm making are not qu I'm not doing a quantitative risk assessment for those.

SPEAKER_00 25:05

Absolutely. Yeah. I guess uh kind of more globally. I'm sure things have changed nationwide in New Zealand, but after an event like that, I'm sure the global volcanologist community would have had discussions and conversations. Has it kind of impacted how other countries may uh may approach because you know again I can walk out, I can drive, you know, 30, 40 minutes and be up an active volcano. No one's gonna Okay, admittedly, the the authorities here have stopped people from climbing to the summit, but that's about it. You know, I I guess globally uh has there been a wider conversation about how we approach volcanic tourism?

Global Tourism And Responsibility

SPEAKER_02 25:47

Yeah, so I think the uh so so they they they there have been huge discussions. Uh this is a very topical thing. Um we've got examples, so we've had people uh getting killed at other volcanoes since then. Uh we've had people in in including Indonesia, if I'm not mistaken. Um Italy has been in the same position where we've got people as well at um at Stromboli or EtNAP getting um either close cause or affected. Uh and same in many other places. So I think the the the from an international standpoint, there have been two main um directions of learnings, I would say, for uh beyond the the actually the the hardcore volcano science, um around the the predictability or forecastability of of those tiny eruptions. Um I think one of them was around um, I guess the the precedent that this set of having an inquiry to volcanologists uh in terms of you know and questioning of the role of volcanologists, etc. So, so and and responsibilities of volcanologists. It is not a first in earth sciences. We've had the uh an earthquake in in Italy, Laquila, where um where some of our colleagues were basically prosecuted there um because it was deemed that they had a level of responsibility um and duty of care for for the some of the people who got killed there, um who got affected. Um so it was not a first, but certainly in the volcano space it was a first. So this has attracted a lot of attention, and uh, and a lot of countries have been very and colleagues have been um just keeping an eye on development and what it meant for the wider communities. And uh and I think operationally there there are a lot of learnings in terms of how you document everything you do, how you document your decision making, how you're just able to present the facts and and how you've gone through those processes. So and a lot of our colleagues, obviously, I I know have have already um either were doing that already or have basically taken that as a good prompt to step up in that space. So that's that's certainly one of the aspects. Um the the the other one is around volcano tourism indeed and and how to approach that. So we've um we've created um a bit of a work group of international um interested parties, basically, volcanologists, and uh and we're coming up with a number of tools that hopefully will help in that space a little bit. So one of them is is um is checklist, for instance. So some of them are targeted to tourists so that they can make um make hopefully better decisions. You know, what do you do if you want to visit an active volcano? Um what do you do? What does it mean? Um before, during, and after. So before could be, you know, do you know that there are volcano observatories that you should be checking there? If it's a guided tour, maybe take a guided tour. Um, question the risk, question, um, you know, compare it with things you know. Um during it, basically respect whatever is is is being put in place to support the risk, um, the risk mitigation. Um, and then after is more around basically learning what you've done, um clearing, clearing new stuff as well, because it's quite an aggressive environment, as you know, at Mirapi, uh, with the ash, with the gas, etc. So there are a number of things we're doing in that space towards the tourists, also um with different audiences, like two operators. Um there are wider conversations around rules and responsibilities, but this is where really the devil's in the details, because ultimately it becomes then very country-dependent. So the rules of Vulcan observatories, the roles of local authorities, the roles of national parks, the roles of guides, of mayors, etc., will vary hugely around the world. So this is where you there is a limit in terms of the, I guess, the learnings you can draw because they will not apply everywhere. I think ultimately it's probably the one thing that is quite common to everything is that volcano tourism is probably unavoidable. Uh, yes, you can totally mitigate volcanic risk for tourists if you stop any tourism activity. I think we'd be fooling ourselves if we felt that it was a viable option. And frankly, um, the majority of us think that it's great to see volcano. That's why we we we do this. That's why we do what we do, because we love volcanoes. So it's it's completely understandable. So I think there is an appetite there. So it's more around how what kind of things can be done to engage in that meaningful conversations around that, almost regardless of the local legislative framework and roles and responsibilities.

SPEAKER_00 30:13

And I I guess you know it's having all this work that you guys are doing, putting in you know, frameworks and and checklists and all this kind of stuff. But ultimately, one of those powerful tools is is trying to have better prediction abilities and technologies and and whatever tools you need. And I I know how hard it is to to predict these things. But still, you know, freak things happen and uh all this kind of stuff. You're trying to predict the weather under the ground and under the you know the c the mantle of the earth and all this kind of stuff. Are we ever gonna get to a point where you can predict these things accurately, or is that just sort of a pipe dream?

SPEAKER_02 31:01

Yeah, I think it's uh I mean we're getting better. I and I think what we are what we are getting really better is at understanding when the volcanoes are becoming more restless. So to go back to maybe a medical analogy, what we are I think genuinely quite good now and quite confident doing is saying that the patient is a bit sick. What in most cases we can't tell is when the volcano is going to cough. Sorry, or when the patient is going to cough. So throughout the depending on how you feel about it.

SPEAKER_01 31:30

Yeah.

Forecast Wins, Failures, And Evacuations

SPEAKER_02 31:31

So and that's always that thing. So this is when you know Facati, we raised the airlet level to two, so hey, that volcano is more active, more like you know, probably more what it means, it's more likely to erupt, but we can't tell exactly when. So that last bit of forecast, which is not so much you know, the the the bigger picture where we can broadly estimate the we can try to quantify that as well, but it's really what is really the crux of it is those last few days, hours where things go peer shape. So they are volcanoes uh where it is possible, but usually those are volcanoes which are quite specific and tend to be, I'm gonna say, well behaved. I know the my my dear colleagues who who monitor those volcanoes will probably very disagree with that, but um volcanoes like in Iceland, uh uh Rhenian Ireland um or or Hawaii to an extent as well, where we've got an uh quite an understanding of the behavior, but also the the viscosity of the um of the um of the lava or the magma when it's underground and and some of the physical properties of that volcano means that the the signs are perhaps a little bit clearer than in some uh of the other volcanoes which uh don't erupt as often and often erupt more violently. So the those volcanoes we are we are closer to to achieve that, and in some cases we've had some really fantastic success stories. Um I've experienced one of those when I was working in the Caribbean before coming to New Zealand, uh uh when I was working at the at the Montserrat Volcane Observatory, um, near a volcano called Sufri Hills in in the island of Montserrat, so that's in in the Eastern Caribbean. And we had a period of time where in late 2008, where the volcano was erupting more and more regularly, but we could actually really see on the seismic signal, so those wiggles that we observe, the ground vibration, we could actually see a pattern that was repeating and that would correlate beautifully with what was actually happening at the volcano, which meant that for a few days, um I would be able to, as I say sometimes to some of my colleagues, was able to call the governor of the island and say, hey, uh Peter, I'm uh we probably, if you want to have a to see a nice little eruption and maybe just have a you know have a drink at the observatory outside after work, etc., uh, it's probably gonna be at you know 6.45 tonight. Uh and it would work really well. So it was quite fascinating to actually be able to experience that even for a volcano that usually doesn't quite fall into the the um easier to forecast um category. And again, you know, I'm using that with a pinch of salt, every volcano is different. Um yet the same volcano, um, shortly after we started to we flicked a switch. I don't know what switch we flicked, but we flicked a switch and um and literally we lost all correlation between what we were recording and what was happening at the surface. And then basically the only way to actually see what was happening there and actually eventually making a decision as to evacuate the populations which were still living further down the valley, a few kilometers away, was by literally spending the night at the observatory with uh infrared um thermal cameras and basically trying to understand at night and and during the day how far those pyroclastic flows were going down the valley and effectively set a um yet another gut-feeling threshold a little bit, to be honest, uh, in terms of you know bringing that expertise together into a single sentiment, is like when do we start to feel really uncomfortable? And that was the question and the conversation we had with us with the staff at the observatory. And basically we came up with a bit of a threshold is that if we if bioclassic flows tend to go down that area, we'll start to feel very uncomfortable. It sounds like a very natural step to to basically trigger or s or suggest an evacuation, and that's we did. Um, and then we had an eruption basically the following morning uh after the evacuation, and uh nobody got injured, etc. So the so yeah, we we're not there yet. Basically, that's a that's a long story. There were interesting learnings though about that experience, if I if I if I if I may expand a bit on that, for sure. It was not so much around the the science of it, but it was around again, back to the people. We always back to the people. Um, we've got this wonderful um terumori expression um in in in in New Zealand, which is you know what really matters, it's the people, the people, the people. Tangata, tangatata, tangata. And um so one of interesting things of that experience in Montserrat was that we had that eruption. So we the volcano had been active, uh erupting a lot. We still had people living down, down one of those valleys. The eruption was progressing, it was filling up those valleys higher up on the volcano with those deposits from those paraclastic flows, and then progressively the paraclastic flows started to actually go farther and farther away from the volcano, eventually to the point where it we had to suggest an evacuation of the residents out there. So we did that one night. An eruption occurred, or series of eruptions occurred in the following morning. Nobody got injured. We managed to be confident enough in our understanding of what was happening that the the residents were allowed um back in their homes for a few hours to pick up some of their stuff the following day and basically evacuate back, and then eventually came back the other day. So the reason why I'm mentioning that is one of the learnings there um was we were treated as heroes basically. Um and and um I don't think I've felt so loved in many ways in my life where people say, Oh, you guys have been absolutely awesome, you know, you personally have been awesome, you've been, you know, you you knew what happened, you just kept people safe, etc. And it made me feel really, really uncomfortable. And so, you know, invited to have drinks, to have um to have some food, you know, fantastic. It was a bit of celebration of success, really. But the point I started to bring into the conversation is that hey, so yeah, it worked really well. It worked really, really well. But what do you think you would have? I was talking to them, what do you think you would have done? Do you think you would have invited me for to share some food and maybe a drink, etc., if we had evacuated you, but no eruption had occurred. And quite immediately, I guess the the sentiment changed quite a bit. So my following question say, well, yet wouldn't evacuating still have been the right option, the best option with what we knew. And I think you know, if I had to distill that in in one um polyphrased sentence, perhaps, is that I think for me, one of the massive learning, and that's probably one of the biggest learnings for me, or learning and I guess really it's the understanding, but it's also really kind of the um the true deep appreciation of that, that you you shouldn't judge the uh the the the value of a decision-making process exclusively by this outcome. So what that means, it means that basically you could have an absolute wonderful outcome, um yet poor decisions. Um and I think all of us, I'm I'm gonna be a bit uh gender discriminant here, but I think all of us teenage boys who've survived uh teenage hoods can attest to that. I don't think that our survivability has been exclusively attached to good decision making. And um when I'm bringing that learning to to the island uh to the to the to the month to the uh Fakari White Island experience, it's almost the other around. The same principle, but the other around, is people died on the day. And undoubtedly there are some things that hopefully can be done better in the future, etc. Yet some of the decisions um that were made probably still were the right ones, yet the outcome was was not a good one. Um so I think it's if if I had to philosophize a little, that's been probably one of the deepest learning, I think, for me personally as an individual over the past couple of decades based on that.

SPEAKER_00 39:35

Yeah, absolutely. Just to sort of yeah, the whole decision-making aspect of it is um it's incredibly difficult when you're when the consequences are so high, but the thing that you're dealing with is so inherently unpredictable. You can make a good call and have a good result, or vice versa, you know. Um I guess that kind of leads me to because we're in kind of a philosophy mood or mode at the moment. At the end of your career, you know, when all said and done, what do you hope to have achieved or have a legacy of, or you know, what's your ultimate goal that you want to have by the time that you retire?

SPEAKER_02 40:14

So I mean one of my um So I I've got a I've got a uh almost like a jokingly answer to to that, and and a more serious one perhaps, which I'm I'm yet to to think about and formulate, but I'll start with a jokey one. Um I think for someone in my in my role, something I've I've said um quite um jokingly initially, uh maybe 10, 15 years ago when I when I came here, especially when I started to take uh to take on the um, I guess the um the head of heading of the of the volcano um observatory side of things, was I think in my career, basically, if I um the worst possible things that could be happening could be to basically an eruption at Fakari with uh with visitors on the island. That would be one of the worst things that could happen for personally that I felt for me would happen. Um the other one was having to raise um, and so that one there unfortunately did happen. Uh, the second one out of three was a having to raise the outlet level at one of our super volcanoes. Now, funny we should say that because that's actually what we had to do a few years ago in 2022, 23, um, uh around uh around uh Topo Volcano, which is one of those big caldera, is that for the first time ever, um we felt that it was the right thing to raise the adult level. So I've ticked that box as well, um, unfortunately. So the next one really is around uh I thought at the time would be um some restlessness or even eruptions in Auckland, which is our biggest city in the country, 1.5 million, um, that can come with very little warning. And I think that if genuinely, if that I had even to manage or help manage um an unrest in Auckland, I think I would have ticked all the three boxes and would happily retire soon. So that's for the for the um perhaps for the slighter joke joking uh answer to your question. Um more fundamentally, I I I don't think I can I'm I'm not really thinking about legacy. I I there is some I I talk about legacy sometimes with my colleagues, um, and I think when I talk about legacy, it's really about leaving the place better than we found it. Uh so I think this is really the legacy I'm talking about. There is no particular monument of science or monument of as a piece of work that I'm um I feel is anywhere deserving a form legacy of of what I've done, basically. I don't think I think it would be presumptuous perhaps and also not not very realistic. I think if I'm hoping to be able to achieve something is is basically keeping people engaged in those conversations. Um and I think that's really genuinely what I'm hoping that I'm promoting is um is with my colleagues, with the students as well, with some of our authorities or partners, etc., is basically just really giving that sentiment that we're all in this together. Um and there is one piece of advice I tend to give is to be courageous, because a lot of those conversations are really not easy conversations. They can be very confronting, whether it's to talk about what it would take to evacuate Auckland, for instance. And I can give you kudos to my emergency manager colleagues from from the city who are hearing those very confronting facts and yet saying, okay, well, not thinking about it, not planning for it, not doing anything about it, it's just not optional really. So let's embrace the conversation. So I think if there's anything I'm hoping to left behind, is not so much of a legacy of something achieved, it's probably more an attitude to our profession.

SPEAKER_00 43:48

People are sort of more willing to have the conversation about okay, we need to look at this a little bit more detail. You know, we need to be prepared. You know, it's it's taking the mountain rescue kind of approach to it as well. You have to be prepared. For every scenario that you can think about and all the ones that you can't think about as best as you can. That's right.

SPEAKER_02 44:06

And with and with humidity, basically. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 44:09

Yeah. And on the super volcano thing, like that's a good point. I hadn't even thought about asking about super volcanoes. But if a super volcano goes off, it's not just like an island, it's like an entire hemisphere that you've got to worry about, right?

Don’t Judge Decisions By Outcomes

SPEAKER_02 44:23

Yeah, so this one there is quite a so we've got a few of those in uh in uh in New Zealand. So one of them is literally, I can I can see it from from my house, is I live literally a few, a few um a few minutes away from Lake Topo. Which is basically um part of it is uh is a is a succession of big craters or calderas which have been left by um by two large eruptions, um and not that long ago, and that volcano is still very much active. So we had a period of time, every few, I'd say few years or decades, certainly we've got periods of um earthquakes, etc. uh that that do happen. We've got the ground swells in places, so it is very much alive and and kicking. Um the the the beauty of those volcanoes is that um, yes, they are. I think we have to reframe the the thinking about it. We tend to think about oh, that volcano is doing something, it is a super volcano, it will basically destroy um all the whole of the North Island, which we know it's pretty much capable of doing. There is no question there. We can see it on the roadside when we do a cut, you know, we can actually see all the deposits. It's probably more useful to rephrase it as a volcano that is capable at times of doing these massive eruptions, and then it opens up a more useful conversation, which is actually that volcano, one the vast majority of those periods of unrest do not lead to an eruption. That's the reality. And even when they do, the majority of those eruptions are actually quite small eruptions, so they wouldn't affect huge areas, etc. Only very rarely do we have those huge eruptions, and those huge eruptions basically do require quite a lot of magma to accumulate at depth, etc. So they can't happen that often because it takes time to mature the wine, basically, as as my grandfather. Yeah, very much so. Um so this like topo, for instance, uh, we know for some great works by some of our colleagues in a university um in in Wellington and around the country that um you know it would take actually quite a while for that magma to for that system if you wish to recharge in a way that would be capable to produce a caldera forming eruption, which as you say, then could effectively affect uh quite uh quite a large area. So in which case, basically, I think um yeah, genuinely we we probably planning for those things is incredibly difficult. That's the reality. Uh, what do you do? Um and it's always the question is do we plan for those? Uh we can plan for the small ones, do we plan up to what point do we do we do we plan? So do we plan for a meteoric strike? Do we plan for those very large eruptions? So we should talk about them, we should keep doing that. Um I guess they remain in the slightly unmanageable um categories for for quite a while there. The the fun fact around that event though was that um the day we raised the outert level, I was basically coincidentally, I had to go overseas and to fly overseas for for some work and conference or some meetings. So um it's a small community where I live. It's a small town of a few tens of thousands of people. So you're you're you're you we all know each other quite well. And um, so the day we raised the outlet level, which was quite interested in in the media, etc., um basically I was seen at the airport with my bags basically just leaving the area because I was flying overseas. So uh I had to to basically have a good conversation with a few people working at the airport. So now it is not related to what we've just done. I'm not just flying away because everything is gonna turn to tongue. Um, it's it was planned, it is not something like this. So it was it was uh yeah, not a very good look.

SPEAKER_00 48:04

It sounds like some of my Hollywood movies like the sort of volcanologist has found something that's like, oh, the world is gonna end. I'm just gonna quietly get to the airport and to my secret bunker in uh France back at home or whatever it is.

SPEAKER_02 48:16

That's fine. That's right.

SPEAKER_00 48:18

Yeah. Oh man. But yeah, it it is interesting. You're you are living in a in a risky environment. You are taking a risk living where you are, as am I living in in a volcanic kind of region. So um kind of interesting to see those parallels with the people that unfortunately went to Baccaria on that day versus you know, every anyone that lives in a in an earthquake zone or a volcanic zone. It's uh it's worth everyone listening to have a think about where you live right now. Yeah, for sure. Are you willing to take the risk?

SPEAKER_02 48:48

Well, that's right. And and to what benefits, right? I think the benefits for me of living around here is is um is also feeling closer to nature. Uh it's an awesome place to uh if you love the outdoors, the mountains, etc., running up the hill. Um and there is something to be said, I think, um, you know, within reason, of course, but about um about living in a place that uh gets regularly affected by by natural hazards. Um I think the reality for me, it I feel far more resilient, for instance, now having lived in New Zealand and before that in the Caribbean, that probably I would feel if I had um continued to live in the UK, for instance, for for decades afterwards, just because I we get pummeled by earthquake, um, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, cyclones, etc., etc., and hurricanes in the Caribbean. So I think it just teaches you a little bit how to be resilient. And and the other thing, it's back to the people again. It teaches you as well that in those moments, this is often where you see the best of people. You see the worst of uh of the events, but you also see the best of people.

SPEAKER_00 49:53

That's true. I think we saw that in Fakari as well, very much so. So I mean, just very finally wrapping up, I always like to ask guests, you know, um, if anyone listening is a you know aspiring volcanologist and and sort of wants to follow in your footsteps, kind of what advice have you got for people listening who might want to do that? Or, you know, what does it take to be a volcanologist if you, you know, um what are the who shouldn't be a volcanologist?

Legacy, Courage, And Preparedness

SPEAKER_02 50:19

Yeah, that's right. And so I I would say that um, I mean, be better than me, that's for sure. Please do. Please be better than me because we need to keep moving forward. And I don't think this is this is a very achievable challenge to anyone, so that's gonna be easy. Um so I I would say uh volcanology is not so much of a of a science per se. Volcanoes are the objects, and you look at it, you look at them through a range of different options, whether they are um seismology, whether they're chemistry, whether they are geophysics, whether it's geology, whether it's social science, uh, whether it's um communication, in terms of how you best communicate. So I would say if anybody is um quite passionate about volcanoes, um, it's finding the things that makes them tick as well in terms of what kind of disciplines, what kind of angles would they like to bring to the table for those conversations. Um and then basically just get right into that. Um one of the unfortunate things as mentioned earlier is the there is uh there is very little that is getting taught in the university system um about volcano monitoring. So if you want to work as a volcanologist in a volcano observatory, which is only one of the options, you can also um have a career in academia, you can be a teacher, which and all of those things are awesome. Um but if the thing that is really kind of interesting you more is to work in a volcano observatory, um you will have to basically learn on the job. There is no other option. So, what I would suggest here is um once you do your degree at university in any of the disciplines you're interested in, is do perhaps two things. One of them is um you could be doing internships in volcano observatories. So contact your either your local volcano observatory if there is one. Uh if you live in a country which doesn't have one, um they're on just look for volcano observatories around the world. Um, and we've got a list online that we can maybe put as a uh as a as a as a link to the episodes where people can have a look at that. Um where we've got a um we've got a world organization of volcano observatories we call Vovo, which tends to, we're rebuilding it at the moment and we're trying to put more and more information. So go to that webpage, check the country you're interested in, and we've got some links to to the observatories there. And basically contact those guys and say, hey, I would love to do an internship for you, maybe over the break, over the summer break. Um don't necessarily wait to be um to be paid. That's the reality for those things. Often, especially if you go to developing countries, there may not be any budgets for that. So um, what I did uh and what many people do is um you have a um a summer job, you do some a bit of work there, you put some money aside, and then maybe the last month before you get back to uni, you just basically travel and volunteer effectively in one observatory. So that's one of the options. Um the final one I can think of is if you do some research projects, whether it's through your postgrad mostly, uh maybe, um basically find a project that has a link or collaborators in a Vulcan observatory. And then you will hopefully have the opportunity to do both your academic work with a university, but also maybe spending time and learning the rope a little bit within that operational context, which otherwise doesn't get talked. So yeah, that's what I I would I would broadly suggest to to anybody who's interested.

SPEAKER_00 53:34

That's great, that's really, really good. I think it kind of leads me on as well, just finally, if if there's anything you'd like to plug to people, I mean I know you do a lot of work in these organizations, um, or you know, there's so you know social media stuff that you might do, or you know, anything you want to reach out. Where can people find you or or see what you've been up to?

SPEAKER_02 53:52

So um I I used to be a bit more active on social media and haven't really for a few years that much. I mean, I'm um if you I I put a few things on Instagram, but very poorly. I'm I'm probably a middle-aged man now who's not uh as good as uh as um as others as putting things on social media. So it may it may it may come and go. I might have period there. So if you look for my name um on social media, you will you will find me, Nicofornia for sure. Um probably more importantly, we we've got a number of organizations um and uh and that are probably worth mentioning. So one of them is the um, I was mentioning earlier, is the World Organization of Volcano Observatories. So Vovo is basically putting, trying to connect and advocate for volcano observatories around the world. So we've got a website that people can have a look at, uh especially around the uh around the list of of uh of uh volcano observatories around the world. Um but there is also an overarching uh international association of volcanology. And uh this is more um so this is basically the umbrella organization for observatory association, or that organization, VOVO, but also other aspects like research, like teaching, etc., etc. And one of the things that people may not realize is that um what we do with that uh association is uh we share our research, we share our learnings, but also we try to provide opportunities to um some of our colleagues from maybe slightly less privileged countries to come to conferences, to exchange, to basically work and have access to resources from um more privileged countries. So you don't have to be a scientist, anybody who's interested can actually donate to that organization, to that association, to the IFC, and we can use then those funds to support colleagues from um a range of uh less privileged countries to come to some of the meetings that we're organizing at times and uh and offer grants basically to students and to people like this. So there's one thing that people can do is have a look at the website, see what they can do, and more than happy to donate if they wanted.

SPEAKER_00 55:52

That's amazing. So just remind us what the website is though, Nico.

SPEAKER_02 55:55

So the website is um so the name is is an incredible name. It's called IFC, which is basically IAVCEI, and it stands for the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth Interior. So it's quite a mouthful. Um but uh the website is a bit simpler, it's IFCVolcano.org. And that's basically Iavceano.org, and that's where you can find that. Otherwise, you just Google it and you will find it.

SPEAKER_00 56:28

Fantastic. We'll uh we'll put all the um information in the show notes so people can find it. And um absolutely please donate because there are volcanoes all over the world, you know, not just in you know places like New Zealand or Indonesia. There are places with people that that may not have the resources to come and study them and need to help learn and have the infrastructure and the resources, the knowledge that you guys are putting together. And I think it's such a worthwhile thing to do. So if anyone listening has the opportunity, um please uh do donate if you can. Um so fantastic. But yeah, listen, Nico, thank you so much for um for all the uh the time you give me today and sharing the story and and all your insights. It's been absolutely wonderful speaking with you.

Supervolcano Reality Check

SPEAKER_02 57:10

Thank you very much, Chris, for for having me and for um yeah, enabling me to to share some of those experiences and and what we do. And um, yeah, I'm looking forward to um to listening to your other podcasts because you always have some amazing people coming in and uh I'll find it just just bloody awesome to to um to listen to those. So thank you very much for having me.

SPEAKER_00 57:29

Absolutely fantastic. All right, have a good day, man. Thank you very much. Bye. And that's a wrap on part two of Nico's incredible story. A huge thanks again to Nico for taking the time to share his experiences on the show, and of course, a big thanks to you all as well for listening and watching and sharing your thoughts on the show. It genuinely means so much that you guys are enjoying these episodes. If you'd like to learn more about Nico's work, the organizations we mentioned, or anything else from these two episodes, you'll find all the links in the show notes or over on the website, noordinarymonday.com. And as always, you can watch full video versions of these episodes on YouTube, and we share clips and updates across our socials, which are LinkedIn, on Instagram, and the No Ordinary Monday podcast community on Facebook. Next week on the show, we step into a completely different world. I'm joined by legendary burlesque performer Angie Pontani. She is an incredible dancer who spent decades mastering the art of tease, satire, reinvention, and commanding a stage. We talk about what burlesque really is on and off stage, the discipline behind the glamour, and what it takes to build a life and career in an art form that's often misunderstood. I love this episode because it's bold and funny and super genuine and also gets into dark and surprising places as well. I can't wait for you guys to hear it, so make sure you're subscribed so you don't miss out. If you enjoyed today's episode, there are four simple ways that you can enjoy the show. Number one, subscribe or follow on your podcast app. Number two, click five stars or leave a short review. Number three, share the episode with a friend, a family member, or maybe a colleague. And then finally, number four, support the show at buymeacoffee.com slash no ordinary monday. If you do any one of these things, it helps us keep the show independent, we can avoid adverts, and allows me to keep bringing you amazing guests and stories week after week. And that's it for this episode. This podcast is independently produced, hosted, and edited by me, Chris Baron. Thank you so much for listening. Take care. We'll see you next Monday.