There's always the Rio Grande.

The best photos I've seen of the volcano - some are gorgeous. Am shocked at how close some peops are getting to the lava.

I'd love to see it in person. I'm a volcano nut, once upon a time aspiring geologist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...ST2010041501422



The paralysis that began in London and Paris soon spread to Hong Kong and Tokyo, to Nairobi and Buenos Aires, and to New York and both of the Washington area's international airports. It was, by all accounts, one of the most bizarre acts of nature ever to constrict world travel, and it grounded tens of thousands of passengers internationally.

Until the eruption, which began last month, Iceland's long volcanic history was little known beyond trivia games, but as that legacy surfaced Thursday, so did news that the last time the Eyjafjallajokull volcano exploded -- 187 years ago -- the eruptions went on for more than a year.

Officials were at a loss to predict how long it would take for the ash to dissipate or for flights to resume.

... the cloud that hung over Europe was so high -- between 20,000 and 36,000 feet -- that it wasn't visible from the ground and health authorities said it posed no immediate danger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041500560.html?hpid=artslot

London to Paris is quicker by train (2hours) than plane already -
same goes for most cities in europe less than 500mi apart.

By the time you have spent an hour getting out to the airport, an hour or two at checkin, an hour flying and an hour getting into the city center at the other end - a 190mph train is pretty efficient.

"The ash from the volcano ... was reported to be drifting at 18,000 to 33,000 feet above the earth. At those altitudes, the cloud is directly in the way of commercial airliners but not an immediate health threat to people on the ground..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/world/europe/17ash.html

Sue

I would have no problem at all with an ocean voyage. Catch up on some sleep, do some reading, arrive at your destination rested. You need a couple of days to recover from the the stress of air travel and the time change anyway, so you're not losing that much time. Bring back the ocean liner I say!

Heard an interview on the radio with a scientist from Iceland today. He said the previous eruption of this volcano went on for a year. And isn't there a much larger volcano right next to it thats also a major concern? Just read this on Wiki .

so Icland vocano goes off, China has a earthquake, and we have another earthquake here in the US (very small one in the US) does anyone else here seem to think that something is afoot? or am I seeing too much into this?

I am in agreement with all of you that sugested the re-visiting of Train, and boat travel. I once saw and advertisement that said a CSX train could do 70 miles on one gallon of diesel fule and moving something like 80tons of material. If that is even half accurate then it makes plane travle look like a grose misuse of fule. But I am no expert and only make these asumption on what I hear and what I saw, and I have not done any research tof back this up or validate these statements. just a loosly put together thought.

To illustrate some of the consequences of shutting down the air space: All air ambulance or rescue helicopters are grounded. Two incidents have surfaced so far, several more to come:

- A heart problem had to go by supply vessel (12 hour journey) from oil platform to shore, and then by ambulance to hospital. Compare that with a round trip flight time of one hour, i.e. wait for less than half an hour, then less than half an hour flight time that takes you to the top of the hospital.

- A guy with an amputated hand and the only hospital capable of fixing that is on the other side of the country. The regular 8 hour car ride was done in ambulance in 6 hour, which is according to his doctor is "within the time frame for these kind of operations". You have to experience the really bad Norwegian roads to really appreciate what that ambulance driver managed to pull off. (Hint: In the U.S. I use a 60 miles per hour for a conservative estimate of my average speed including breaks and minor traffic delays. In rural parts of Norway, I use 37 miles per hour... (60 km/h).)


Not much we can do about it. Luckily, once you're in the hands of professionals, time of transport is rarely THAT critical. Still, some poor sod is inevitably going to die if this lasts.

Rail is far more efficient than any of the other current forms of ground travel. Air travel is for speed, not for fuel conservation. People talk about conservation, but what they really want is speed.

According to the Association of American Railroads, a freight train can haul one ton of freight coast to coast (~3,000 miles) on seven gallons of fuel; a semi-truck would take 27 gallons to haul the same weight the same distance.
Railroads: Green from the Start

An article by UK Parliament shows that
Passenger rail (diesel) w/90 people aboard= 182 mpg/per passenger
Buses carrying 9 people (avg # per load) = 98 mpg/per passenger
Air (long haul) w/300 people = 66 mpg/per passenger
Air (short haul) w/100 people = 40 mpg/per passenger
UK Passenger Transport: Fuel Consumption

Sue

Yep I'm afraid so. But don't worry, you can phone us still.