Tragic events in New Zealand, obviously, but I find myself somewhat puzzled by this sentence in today's BBC piece on it:
How can anyone, expert or otherwise, argue that it was "safe enough for visitors" when this minor eruption occurred, causing five to lose their lives, eight to be missing (presumed dead) and many others suffering burns so severe they may also not survive.
Since the eruption, experts are arguing whether the tours to the island were a disaster waiting to happen or still safe enough for visitors.
How can anyone, expert or otherwise, argue that it was "safe enough for visitors" when this minor eruption occurred, causing five to lose their lives, eight to be missing (presumed dead) and many others suffering burns so severe they may also not survive.