Explain Why The Government Should Monitor Volcanoes

There is one simple question asked, and most would agree with the simple answer. Should the government scientists monitor volcanic activity and earthquakes? The average person would think so, and brush it off. If you look deeper into it however, there are some compelling arguments to why they possibly shouldn’t monitor volcanoes and earthquakes. For the argument on why the government should still monitor earthquakes and volcanoes, let’s first consider both sides, and explain a solid conclusion at the end.

Volcanoes are one of the most dangerous natural disasters, possibly even more than earthquakes. When a earthquake occurs, things can end devastatingly, especially when it happens in a largely populated area. Earthquakes materialize when two tectonic plates rub against each other, and can cause the ground to break open and crumble huge buildings. Even so the death rate and destruction when compared to a volcano is relatively small. When looking back at the large earthquake that hit California’s San Francisco Bay back in October 17th, 1989, with a magnitude of 6.9, it cost $5 billion in damage and killed 67 people. As horrible and destructive as that is, volcanoes can cause worse damage, with long lasting effects, such as when

Earthquakes are not as easy to detect, not a correct 100% result at least. Even monitoring volcanoes can be difficult, and can be proven wrong. This could cause a false alarm to go off in a certain area, for both earthquakes and volcanoes, depending on where the location is. Evacuations can be ordered for the people if it is a populated area. Say somehow everyone was evacuated and safe out of harm’s way, but since our current technology can not be 100% certain, the whole process could end up being a false alarm. These erroneous evacuations can weaver the idea of relying on our technology, since the people couldn’t fully trust