
Experts on high alert as multiple volcanoes in 'Pacific Ring of Fire' suddenly come to life
Also called the Circum-Pacific Belt, it is a 25,000-mile chain of volcanoes and earthquake zones from South America to Alaska, across Japan, and down to New Zealand.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) has found four volcanoes, all in the US, which are rumbling, including the Great Sitkin Volcano in Alaska that has been steadil y erupting lava into its summit crater for nearly four years.
Recent satellite imagery confirms the eruption remains slow and non-explosive, with lava continuing to flow southwest.
In Hawaii, Kilauea has paused its lava fountains but continues to build pressure.
Scientists anticipate a new eruptive phase between July 17 and 20. Although lava fountains have ceased, sulfur dioxide emissions remain elevated, measured between 1,200 and 1,500 tons per day, indicating ongoing volcanic activity.
Mount Rainier in Washington experienced its largest recorded earthquake swarm in early July, with 334 quakes detected over two days starting July 8, raising vigilance among volcanologists.
Offshore Oregon, the underwater Axial Seamount is under close observation, with researchers forecasting an eruption possibly occurring in 2025.
According to the scientists, these volcanoes are unpredictable as they are a result of natural movement in the Earth's crust, especially along the Pacific Ring of Fire.
That is because this area is where the Pacific tectonic plate sinks under neighboring plates, creating quakes and eruptions.
Even with the flurry of quakes and lava, none of these volcanoes currently threaten the nearby communities.
Each of the rumbling volcanoes has its own history and behavior pattern. The Great Sitkin Volcano, located in Alaska's Aleutian Islands, began erupting in 2021 after decades of inactivity.
In April, USGS volcanologist reported that lava has slowly filled the crater over the years, building a thick dome, but it has not triggered ash clouds or air travel disruptions, a key concern for aviation in the region.
Lava is still pushing out of the summit crater at Great Sitkin Volcano in Alaska. It is not explosive, but steady. Small quakes continue, and there is no sign the eruption is ending anytime soon.
Mount Spurr, roughly 80 miles west of Anchorage, had its last explosive eruption in 1992, sending ash clouds 40,000 feet into the sky.
The recent shallow earthquake swarms echo early warning signs from that event, though experts say there is no magma movement yet.
Nearby, Mount Spurr has had shallow earthquake swarms since February. As of now, it is quiet, no gas, no lava, and no expected eruption, but USGS has kept it under an advisory level.
However, Kilauea, on Hawaii's Big Island, is being monitored around the clock because of its proximity to residential areas.
In 2018, lava flows from the volcano destroyed over 700 homes in the Leilani Estates subdivision. Scientists are now tracking surface deformation, quake movement, and gas emissions to anticipate another potential hazard phase.
Kilauea is one of the most active volcanoes in the world but is not part of the Ring of Fire. It sits above a hot spot in the Earth's mantle, a fixed plume of heat and magma that stays in place while the Pacific Plate moves slowly over it.
Seismologists are now concerned that Kilauea is swelling again and showing more quakes, signs it could erupt soon.
A vent on the undersea volcano Axial Seamount. Scientists expect an eruption next year, but it will likely go unnoticed by anyone except the seafloor monitoring teams
The activity could mark the start of what is known as Episode 29, the latest phase in the volcano's ongoing eruption cycle that began in 1983.
The volcano, containing gas, ash, and threads, poses a threat to humans due to its confined nature and potential for eruptions.
Mount Rainier, despite not erupting in centuries, remains one of the most hazardous volcanoes in North America because of its massive glacial coverage.
A 2023 USGS risk assessment found that even small eruptions or earthquakes could trigger deadly mudflows, known as lahars, capable of reaching communities like Orting and Puyallup within minutes.
Earlier this month, the volcano experienced its largest earthquake swarm since 2009, with hundreds of small tremors rattling the area.
According to USGS, each quake was under magnitude 1.7 and originated just a few miles beneath the summit, deep enough to raise concern among scientists.
While the volcano's alert level remains at 'normal' and no ground deformation has been detected, this swarm adds to approximately thousands, of quakes recorded at Rainier since 2020.
Although an eruption is not expected in the immediate future, experts still rank Mount Rainier among the most dangerous volcanoes in the Pacific Northwest due to its potential to unleash lahars, ash fall, and pyroclastic flows.
Scientists emphasize that it is not lava that poses the greatest threat, but the lahars. These violent mudflows can form during an eruption or even without one, triggered by intense rainfall, melting snow, or weakened slopes.
Off Oregon's coast, Axial Seamount continues to slowly inflate.
Scientists expect an eruption next year, but it will likely go unnoticed by anyone except the seafloor monitoring teams.
Volcano experts say there is no cause for panic. The activity fits into long-term patterns in the Ring of Fire and Hawaii's hot spot as the scientists are watching them closely.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Scientists are BAFFLED after discovering a mysterious new structure hiding inside human cells
Scientists have discovered a mysterious new structure lurking inside every human cell. These tiny structures, dubbed hemifusomes, are just 200 to 400 nanometres in diameter. To put that into perspective, that's about 500 times thinner than a human hair. Scientists believe the structures play a critical role in helping our cells recycle and discard waste materials. Co-author Dr Seham Ebrahim, of the University of Virginia, says: 'It's exciting because finding something truly new inside cells is rare - and it gives us a whole new path to explore. 'This is like discovering a new recycling centre inside the cell. 'We think the hemifusome helps manage how cells package and process material, and when this goes wrong, it may contribute to diseases that affect many systems in the body.' In the future, the finding could help scientists to develop treatments for conditions such as Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome - a rare genetic disorder that can cause albinism, vision problems, and lung disease. Since hemifusomes are exceptionally small, the researchers needed extremely sensitive equipment to spot them. The team used a method called cryo-electron tomography, in which samples are rapidly frozen to around -150°C (-240°F) before being sliced very thinly. The scientists then took lots of photos with a powerful microscope which uses electrons instead of visible light. This allowed them to look at extremely small structures just as they would appear in a living cell by freezing them in time, rather than damaging the samples by trying to preserve them. Using this method, a team of researchers from the University of Virginia spotted structures which looked like two thin bubbles stuck together at the edges. The researchers believe hemifusomes produce vesicles - tiny sacs that act as 'mixing bowls', as well as making structures made of lots of these vesicles. Dr Ebrahim says: 'You can think of vesicles like little delivery trucks inside the cell. 'The hemifusome is like a loading dock where they connect and transfer cargo. It's a step in the process we didn't know existed.' By placing vesicles inside themselves, hemifusoles can store and combine different chemicals and waste products. Scientists think that some diseases might be caused when this process is disrupted By building vesicles, and even putting vesicles inside each other, the hemifusomes allow our cells to package and sort proteins or recycle parts of the cell. One thing that the researchers were surprised to find is that the layer which connects the hemifusome and the vesicles is much thinner than scientists previously thought possible. This 'hemifusion diaphragm' sticks to the two structures together but doesn't let their contents mix, like two water balloons that have melted together at the edges. Previously, scientists thought these types of structures would be too unstable to do anything useful in our cells. But in the hemifusome, the researchers spotted them playing a really important role in keeping our cells healthy. That discovery could have big implications for how we understand and treat diseases which interfere with our cells' recycling functions. Dr Ebrahim says: 'We're just beginning to understand how this new organelle fits into the bigger picture of cell health and disease. 'Now that we know hemifusomes exist, we can start asking how they behave in healthy cells and what happens when things go wrong. That could lead us to new strategies for treating complex genetic diseases. Cells in numbers Scientists believe the first known cells originated on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. The diameter in centimeters of most animal cells is 0.001 to 0.003, making them invisible to the naked eye. In 1665, British scientist Robert Hooke coined the term cell to describe the porous, grid-like structure he saw when viewing a thin slice of cork under a microscope. There are 200 different types of cells are in the human body. There are 24 hours in an animal cell cycle, the time from a cell's formation to when it splits in two to make more cells. A human red blood cells lives about 120 days. Each day, approximately 50 to 70 billion cells die in the human.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Shortest day in history set for TOMORROW as Earth's rotation mysteriously gets even faster
Scientists have announced that tomorrow could be the shortest day of your life, breaking a mark that was just set two weeks ago. That's because Earth's rotation has continued to pick up speed, and is expected to spin even faster than it did on July 9, when everyone on the plant experienced a day that was 1.3 milliseconds shorter than normal. New data has revealed that the Earth appeared to have spun even faster a day later on July 10, making the day 1.36 milliseconds shorter than usual. A millisecond equals one thousandth of a second, which is so impossibly difficult to measure that takes an atomic clock to track the numbers, measuring what's called 'Length of Day,' or LOD. LOD marks the time it takes Earth to rotate once, down to the millisecond. Normally, that process takes exactly 86,400 seconds, or 24 hours, to complete. However, Earth's rotation has been speeding up in recent years. While the cause is still a mystery, new research from NASA has suggested it may be connected to the moon's gravitational pull. The major uptick in speed this summer has led to the possibility that scientists will have to add a negative leap second to the calendar by 2029, meaning one second will be taken away from our clocks to keep them in sync. While the tiny change may seem insignificant, researchers have found that the shorter day can affect everything from satellite systems and GPS accuracy to how we measure time itself. Earth's rotation is affected by a number of different factors, both on the planet and out in space. Some of the potential reasons include changes in the atmosphere, the melting of glaciers worldwide shifting water volume, a change in motion inside the Earth's metal core, and a weakening magnetic field. NASA researchers have also suggested that this year's acceleration is actually a result of Earth hitting the moon's 'orbital sweet spot,' causing the planet to receive a tiny speed boost. Before this recent acceleration in Earth's spin, the planet was actually slowing down, due to the moon's gravitational pull, which has been stretching our days into the 24-hour cycle we now live by in modern times. Geoscientist Stephen Meyers, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, found that as the moon moves further away, its changing gravitational impact on Earth would slowly make days incrementally longer. However, scientists recently observed variations in the planet's rotation, causing the planet to speed up in 2020, 2022, and 2024. On July 9 and now again on July 22, the moon will be at its furthest point from Earth's equator, which alters its gravitational pull on our planet's axis. In simpler terms, the moon has been spinning the Earth like a top, holding on to the planet at the midpoint, which is usually closer to the moon than the north or south poles. On July 22, and again on August 5, the moon's gravity will exert more of a pull on the Earth's poles, essentially spinning our planet at its top, which naturally makes it rotate faster. The fastest day recorded so far was just over one year ago on July 5, 2024, when Earth spun 1.66 milliseconds faster than the standard 24 hours. Although scientists have been recording Earth's rotation since the 1970s, they only started noticing record-breaking changes on a regular basis in 2020. That year, July 19 came in 1.47 milliseconds short. On July 9, 2021, there was another 1.47 millisecond drop. In 2022, Earth recorded its shortest day on June 30, shaving off 1.59 milliseconds from the usual 24 hours. In 2023, the planet's rotation slowed again, and no new records were set. In 2024, however, the speed picked up. Several days broke the previous records, making it the year with the most consistently shorter days on record. These estimates are based on past observations and computer models, and include systematic corrections and smoothing to account for natural fluctuations. Right now, the world has kept time using Coordinated Universal Time, or UTC. Sometimes we've added a leap second to stay in sync with Earth's slow shifts. Due to these ongoing spikes in our rotation, however, the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) has already announced that no leap second will be added in 2025.


The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Human-level AI is not inevitable. We have the power to change course
'Technology happens because it is possible,' OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman, told the New York Times in 2019, consciously paraphrasing Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb. Altman captures a Silicon Valley mantra: technology marches forward inexorably. Another widespread techie conviction is that the first human-level AI – also known as artificial general intelligence (AGI) – will lead to one of two futures: a post-scarcity techno-utopia or the annihilation of humanity. For countless other species, the arrival of humans spelled doom. We weren't tougher, faster or stronger – just smarter and better coordinated. In many cases, extinction was an accidental byproduct of some other goal we had. A true AGI would amount to creating a new species, which might quickly outsmart or outnumber us. It could see humanity as a minor obstacle, like an anthill in the way of a planned hydroelectric dam, or a resource to exploit, like the billions of animals confined in factory farms. Altman, along with the heads of the other top AI labs, believes that AI-driven extinction is a real possibility (joining hundreds of leading AI researchers and prominent figures). Given all this, it's natural to ask: should we really try to build a technology that may kill us all if it goes wrong? Perhaps the most common reply says: AGI is inevitable. It's just too useful not to build. After all, AGI would be the ultimate technology – what a colleague of Alan Turing called 'the last invention that man need ever make'. Besides, the reasoning goes within AI labs, if we don't, someone else will do it – less responsibly, of course. A new ideology out of Silicon Valley, effective accelerationism (e/acc), claims that AGI's inevitability is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics and that its engine is 'technocapital'. The e/acc manifesto asserts: 'This engine cannot be stopped. The ratchet of progress only ever turns in one direction. Going back is not an option.' For Altman and e/accs, technology takes on a mystical quality – the march of invention is treated as a fact of nature. But it's not. Technology is the product of deliberate human choices, motivated by myriad powerful forces. We have the agency to shape those forces, and history shows that we've done it before. No technology is inevitable, not even something as tempting as AGI. Some AI worriers like to point out the times humanity resisted and restrained valuable technologies. Fearing novel risks, biologists initially banned and then successfully regulated experiments on recombinant DNA in the 1970s. No human has been reproduced via cloning, even though it's been technically possible for over a decade, and the only scientist to genetically engineer humans was imprisoned for his efforts. Nuclear power can provide consistent, carbon-free energy, but vivid fears of catastrophe have motivated stifling regulations and outright bans. And if Altman were more familiar with the history of the Manhattan Project, he might realize that the creation of nuclear weapons in 1945 was actually a highly contingent and unlikely outcome, motivated by a mistaken belief that the Germans were ahead in a 'race' for the bomb. Philip Zelikow, the historian who led the 9/11 Commission, said: 'I think had the United States not built an atomic bomb during the Second World War, it's actually not clear to me when or possibly even if an atomic bomb ever is built.' It's now hard to imagine a world without nuclear weapons. But in a little-known episode, then president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev nearly agreed to ditch all their bombs (a misunderstanding over the 'Star Wars' satellite defense system dashed these hopes). Even though the dream of full disarmament remains just that, nuke counts are less than 20% of their 1986 peak, thanks largely to international agreements. These choices weren't made in a vacuum. Reagan was a staunch opponent of disarmament before the millions-strong Nuclear Freeze movement got to him. In 1983, he commented to his secretary of state : 'If things get hotter and hotter and arms control remains an issue, maybe I should go see [Soviet leader Yuri] Andropov and propose eliminating all nuclear weapons.' There are extremely strong economic incentives to keep burning fossil fuels, but climate advocacy has pried open the Overton window and significantly accelerated our decarbonization efforts. In April 2019, the young climate group Extinction Rebellion (XR) brought London to a halt, demanding the UK target net-zero carbon emissions by 2025. Their controversial civil disobedience prompted parliament to declare a climate emergency and the Labour party to adopt a 2030 target to decarbonize the UK's electricity production. The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign was lesser-known but wildly effective. In just its first five years, the campaign helped shutter more than one-third of US coal plants. Thanks primarily to its move from coal, US per capita carbon emissions are now lower than they were in 1913. In many ways, the challenge of regulating efforts to build AGI is much smaller than that of decarbonizing. Eighty-two percent of global energy production comes from fossil fuels. Energy is what makes civilization work, but we're not dependent on a hypothetical AGI to make the world go round. Further, slowing and guiding the development of future systems doesn't mean we'd need to stop using existing systems or developing specialist AIs to tackle important problems in medicine, climate and elsewhere. It's obvious why so many capitalists are AI enthusiasts: they foresee a technology that can achieve their long-time dream of cutting workers out of the loop (and the balance sheet). But governments are not profit maximizers. Sure, they care about economic growth, but they also care about things like employment, social stability, market concentration, and, occasionally, democracy. It's far less clear how AGI would affect these domains overall. Governments aren't prepared for a world where most people are technologically unemployed. Capitalists often get what they want, particularly in recent decades, and the boundless pursuit of profit may undermine any regulatory effort to slow the speed of AI development. But capitalists don't always get what they want. At a bar in San Francisco in February, a longtime OpenAI safety researcher pronounced to a group that the e/accs shouldn't be worried about the 'extreme' AI safety people, because they'll never have power. The boosters should actually be afraid of AOC and Senator Josh Hawley because they 'can really fuck things up for you'. Assuming humans stick around for many millennia, there's no way to know we won't eventually build AGI. But this isn't really what the inevitabilists are saying. Instead, the message tends to be: AGI is imminent. Resistance is futile. But whether we build AGI in five, 20 or 100 years really matters. And the timeline is far more in our control than the boosters will admit. Deep down, I suspect many of them realize this, which is why they spend so much effort trying to convince others that there's no point in trying. Besides, if you think AGI is inevitable, why bother convincing anybody? We actually had the computing power required to train GPT-2 more than a decade before OpenAI actually did it, but people didn't know whether it was worth doing. But right now, the top AI labs are locked in such a fierce race that they aren't implementing all the precautions that even their own safety teams want. (One OpenAI employee announced recently that he quit 'due to losing confidence that it would behave responsibly around the time of AGI'.) There's a 'safety tax' that labs can't afford to pay if they hope to stay competitive; testing slows product releases and consumes company resources. Governments, on the other hand, aren't subject to the same financial pressures. An inevitabilist tech entrepreneur recently said regulating AI development is impossible 'unless you control every line of written code'. That might be true if anyone could spin up an AGI on their laptop. But it turns out that building advanced, general AI models requires enormous arrays of supercomputers, with chips produced by an absurdly monopolistic industry. Because of this, many AI safety advocates see 'compute governance' as a promising approach. Governments could compel cloud computing providers to halt next generation training runs that don't comply with established guardrails. Far from locking out upstarts or requiring Orwellian levels of surveillance, thresholds could be chosen to only affect players who can afford to spend more than $100m on a single training run. Governments do have to worry about international competition and the risk of unilateral disarmament, so to speak. But international treaties can be negotiated to widely share the benefits from cutting-edge AI systems while ensuring that labs aren't blindly scaling up systems they don't understand. And while the world may feel fractious, rival nations have cooperated to surprising degrees. The Montreal Protocol fixed the ozone layer by banning chlorofluorocarbons. Most of the world has agreed to ethically motivated bans on militarily useful weapons, such as biological and chemical weapons, blinding laser weapons, and 'weather warfare'. In the 1960s and 70s, many analysts feared that every country that could build nukes, would. But most of the world's roughly three-dozen nuclear programs were abandoned. This wasn't the result of happenstance, but rather the creation of a global nonproliferation norm through deliberate statecraft, like the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the few occasions when Americans were asked if they wanted superhuman AI, large majorities said 'no'. Opposition to AI has grown as the technology has become more prevalent. When people argue that AGI is inevitable, what they're really saying is that the popular will shouldn't matter. The boosters see the masses as provincial neo-Luddites who don't know what's good for them. That's why inevitability holds such rhetorical allure for them; it lets them avoid making their real argument, which they know is a loser in the court of public opinion. The draw of AGI is strong. But the risks involved are potentially civilization-ending. A civilization-scale effort is needed to compel the necessary powers to resist it. Technology happens because people make it happen. We can choose otherwise. Garrison Lovely is a freelance journalist