Mt. Etna

The only mention of Mt. Etna in the Cayce readings is in reference to a 1932 question about when a change in the Earth's activity will begin to be apparent. The answer was:

On pages 50-54 of my book, Coming Earth Changes (CEC) attention is given to recent sinking and rising of the crust in the Etna area, as reported by scientists up to 1996. This includes evidence that "both the volcano and northeastern Sicily have been uplifted 1.5 mm/year during Holocene times, although more recent rates of uplift may have been greater." (Firth, C., and Others, 1996, Geol. Soc. Spec. Pub, No. 110).

Some commentators on the readings confuse Etna's recent spectacular eruptive activity of the past few years with "sinking or rising" in the Etna area. But while the recent magma pumping does cause the volcano to inflate (swell slightly) and to deflate temporarily, and while lava flows add somewhat to the elevation of Etna's slopes, these changes do not relate to the broader "Etna area" mentioned in the reading. Also, the wording of reading 311-8 seems to require that vertical crustal movements in the vicinity of Etna must become more obvious before we can truly say that significant Earth changes are imminent. Such accelerated sinking or rising of the crust in the immediate Etna area might soon be signaled by future eruptive phases that will surpass those of 1950, 1971, 1983, and 1991-1993. Volcanic activity during all of these previous times resulted in greater quantities of eruptive material than in 1932, the date of reading 311-8. And see subsection, "The Vesuvius," below for a better yardstick to assess the degree of "sinking or rising.... in the Mediterranean and Etna area" that we might need to observe before we can be certain that the historically unprecedented Earth changes predicted in Cayce's readings are indeed about to begin.

As for "breaking up of some conditions in the South Pacific," mentioned in 311-8, two geologists have recently reported ⁽¹⁾ that the Pacific tectonic plate is being torn "through the entire thickness of the ocean lithosphere" at the northern end of the Tonga Trench. The significance of the discovery of "breaking up" in this area -- being as it is "almost opposite" to the Mediterranean or Etna area -- is evident. Taken together with the small but accelerating crustal uplift in the Etna area cited above, it appears that we stand on the threshold of significant Earth changes.

Eruptions of Vesuvius and Pelée, 
And "Inundations" By Earthquakes

The purpose of one or the other of these indicator volcanoes is to provide a warning of impending earthquakes and "inundations" in California, Utah, and Nevada.

There are two possible ways of interpreting the "inundations-by-the-earthquakes" language of this reading. Conventional interpretation of the phrase has been that it is a figure of speech for "an overwhelming number of earthquakes." But a credible case can be made also for earthquake-induced flooding of the areas referenced in the reading. For example, a recent analysis (Chang, W. and R. Smith, 1996, AGUFall Meet. Proc., Abstr. No. S31C-6). of the earthquake hazard in the Salt Lake City area, by two seismologists at the University of Utah, suggests a different interpretation. These researchers modeled land- deformation effects of a hypothetical, magnitude 7.2 quake that could be expected to occur on the south Weber segment of the north Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch Fault. The seismologists put into their model a "scenario quake" consisting of the same ground-surface deformations that were observed in the M 7.5, 1959 Hebgen Lake, Montana, quake that occurred 270 miles north of Salt Lake City. They concluded:

The changes implied by reading 270-35 above would involve far more than the isolated-earthquake, land-deformation, and flooding scenario modeled by the Utah scientists. Our new interpretation of reading 270-35 is that catastrophic earthquakes and flooding may occur in the land areas around Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake in Utah, around and below Lake Mead in far southern Nevada, and along those land areas fronting the Pacific Ocean in southern California. Such aqueous inundations could directly or indirectly affect population centers like Bringham City, Salt Lake City, Murray, Orem, and Provo in Utah, Las Vegas in Nevada, and the cities of coastal California from Santa Barbara south to San Diego.

Thus, we now have two ways of interpreting the "inundation-by-the-earthquakes" language of reading 270-35. And the ambiguity of the phraseology used seems to have allowed science to catch up to the reading, here near the end of the 40-year period (1958 to 1998) said to be prelude to catastrophic Earth changes between 1998 and 2998. As if to bolster our interpretation at this critical time, there is new global-scale seismic-tomography evidence for deep mantle circulation of unprecedented proportion.

There's no question that the language of the readings can be quite challenging at times, as outlined in the examples above. But in continually trying to understand, we may in fact get understanding, often in unexpected ways. Here, recent scientific findings are accommodated by seemingly obscure phrases in the readings, many years after Cayce gave them. Were certain of the readings intentionally constructed this way? If so, we may have insight here from the promise that, "In 1998 we may find a great deal of the activities as have been wrought by the gradual changes that are coming about....[and] ....as has been indicated, we will begin to understand fully in '98". (1602-3)

What are the chances of "an [aqueous] inundation of the southern coast of California" due to earthquakes, as just discussed? Have there been any earthquakes and associated tsunamis (seismic sea waves) there before? Yes, indeed.

But first, just what are tsunamis? (The word is Japanese for tsu harbor + nami wave). A tsunami (pronounced tsoo-nah-mee) is a series of waves, generated in a body of water by an impulsive disturbance that vertically displaces ocean water. Sea-floor movements accompanying earthquakes are the most common cause of tsunamis. But landslides into the sea, submarine landslides, explosive submarine volcanic eruptions, and even meteorite impacts can generate tsunamis. Locally-generated tsunamis are the greatest threat to U.S. coastlines, but tsunamis originating at a distance are also a constant threat. The U.S. has suffered damage from tsunamis originating in Chile, Japan, Russia, and Alaska. Eventually, tsunamis will strike all U.S. Pacific Ocean coastlines. Because reading 270-35 above refers to tsunamis generated by local earthquakes, we will cite details for several here to give the reader an idea of historical numbers and effects. As covered in Tsunamis Affecting The West Coast of the United States: 1806-1992, ⁽²⁾ the Santa Barbara tsunami of December 21, 1812, was most probably caused by a submarine landslide in the Santa Barbara basin. This landslide was believed due to an earthquake estimated at M7.7, and originating on the San Andreas Fault. The maximum wave height was about 15 feet or so, and is said to have reached half a mile inland. Submarine landslide tsunamis in California typically have waves with a maximum amplitude of 10 feet and affect a very restricted area. The tsunami of November 4, 1927, was such a one, and affected about 35 miles of shoreline. It was recorded as a six-foot wave at Surf, just north of Pt. Arguello near Santa Barbara, and as a five-foot surge at Port San Luis. Near Los Angeles, on July 10, 1855, four earthquakes generated a "probable submarine landslide and local tsunami." On May 27, 1862, an M5.9 earthquake at San Diego caused the only local tsunami observed there. On August 30, 1930, a M5.2 earthquake caused a 20-foot wave at Santa Monica, Venice, and Redondo Beach: "Probably a submarine landslide source given the low magnitude of the earthquake and localized effect. Sixteen people were rescued from the surf. One drowned at Redondo Beach." These few representative records show that local tsunami inundations "by [the] earthquakes" are quite possible for the southern coast of California.

In all, some 21 locally generated tsunamis of various destructive power have been documented for the southern California coast between 1806 and 1992. Although this coast seems safe from locally generated tsunamis relative to the coasts of, say, Japan or Alaska, the dangers from large tsunamis cannot be ignored. D. S. McCullough, in a U.S. Geological Survey report on tsunamis along the Pacific coast, says that "a preliminary appraisal of the potential for locally generated tsunamis suggests that wave run-up heights as great as four to six meters," or 13 to 20 feet, could be caused by seabed movements due to earthquakes. Such waves are not in the same league with the giant tsunamis that hit Hawaii in 1946 and 1975, but even a five- or six-foot tsunami can cause widespread damage in a harbor or along a heavily settled stretch of coastline.

One tsunami-prone area in southern California is located off Santa Barbara where the offshore area has created an odd set of conditions with the potential for making large seismic sea waves. Quoting a report on southern California's tsunami potential, D. Ritchie says in his book Superquake! (Crown, NY, 1988), "'Surface fault rupture accompanied by sea-floor displacement is a distinct possibility beneath the Santa Barbara Channel. To put it another way, a big quake on land could set off another quake under the sea and thus send tsunamis rolling toward the California shore." Support for this view is found in J. Deng and L. Sykes's recent study of the 200-year evolution of the crustal stress field in southern California (Jour. Geophysical Research, v. 102, B5, May 10, 1997). The authors write: "Future great earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault, especially if the San Bernardino and Coachella Valley segments rupture together, can trigger moderate to large earthquakes in the Transverse Ranges, as appears to have happened in the Santa Barbara earthquake that occurred 13 days after the great San Andreas shock of 1812."

We note in passing that another kind of inundation that could occur would be due to flooding by reservoir waters released when earthquakes cause dams to fail. Several stream-dammed reservoirs are located in the coastal zone of southern California.

If the ultimate cause of the tsunamis mentioned in our speculation on the meaning of 270-35 above is an acceleration of lithospheric plate movements incident to pole shift, there is one last, far-out possibility to consider. And it ties into the last sentence of the reading, which indicates that the effects of the inundations by the earthquakes will be felt more in the southern hemisphere. This understanding of the phrase "inundations by the earthquakes" would relate to tsunamis generated from distant sources. If a huge piece of the Kilauea volcano, on the island of Hawaii, suddenly slides into the Pacific, highly energetic tsunamis would be generated that would strongly impact the southern California shoreline and those of Central and South America. Indeed, the coast of southern California has experienced no less than 44 tsunamis generated by earthquakes or submarine landslides beyond the U.S. Pacific coast (excluding Alaska) between 1806 and 1992. These waves have traveled from Japan, coastal Alaska, Chile, the Kuril Islands, the Java Sea, El Salvador, and other places. Many of the 44 tsunamis of distant origin that hit the coast of southern California were recorded only as minor excursions on tide-gage records. But consider what could happen as accelerating mantle motions cause earthquakes and landslides at currently erupting Kilaeua. (The seismic hazard for the southern portion of Hawaii rivals that of the area around the San Andreas Fault in California, according to F. Klein, seismologist with the U. S. Geological Survey. And geophysicists in early 1997 were measuring progressive seaward displacements of the land portion of Kilauea's southeastern flank).

First, note that the tsunami of December 21, 1812, mentioned above traveled all the way from Santa Barbara, California, to Hookena, Kona, Hawaii, where the wave run-up height was estimated at between six and 14 feet. Now let's reverse the California-to-Hawaii tsunami travel direction. Suppose that a giant submarine landslide occurs on the southeastern flank of Kilauea and generates a large tsunami. The coastlines of Peru and Chile would receive the brunt of such a tsunami, but the coast of southern California would also be affected. Recall the words of reading 270-35, "But these [inundations by the earthquakes] are to be more in the southern than in the northern hemisphere."

In their study, "Giant Hawaiian Landslides" (Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science, 1994), J. Moore, and others, document dozens of major landslides that have recently been discovered on the flanks of the Hawaiian Ridge. They are among the largest on Earth, attaining lengths greater than 200 km and volumes of several thousand cubic kilometers." The authors write that rapid movement of some of the submarine debris avalanches "is indicated by the fact that some have moved uphill for tens of kilometers, and are believed to have produced major tsunamis."

Just What Is Meant By "Greater Activities" Of Indicator Volcanoes?

To return to the main topic of this article, just what "greater activities" means involves a somewhat subjective judgment. Greater than what other activities? When the reading was given in 1936, Vesuvius had been erupting intermittently for 23 years (since 1913). It continued to do so until 1944. Apparently, eruptions between 1936 and 1944 were not sufficient to qualify as "greater activities," because the "inundation by the earthquakes" did not occur. Volcanic activity during the 1936-1944 period was generally confined to the summit and upper slopes of Vesuvius.

Thus, "greater activities" at Mt. Vesuvius will be interpreted here to mean the occurrence of more vigorous and widespread eruptions than those that occurred between 1913 and 1944. Such stronger eruptions will presumably reflect the beginning of worldwide movements in the mantle and overlying lithospheric plates, associated with the beginning of a shift in the poles predicted for 2000 - 2001.

"The Vesuvius"

(Note: some images can be clicked on to see an enlarged view )

Mt. Vesuvius, located on the outskirts of Naples, Italy, last erupted in 1944. Nothing special is going on at this indicator volcano, or in its immediate area, at the present time. Mt. Vesuvius is a cone-shaped edifice built within a very old caldera ⁽³⁾, Mt. Somma. The 18,000-year-old Mt. Somma caldera lies just east of another ancient caldera, Campi Flegrei. Thus, "the Vesuvius [realm?]" of the above reading comprises a highly volcanic portion of the Earth's crust.

The Mt. Nuovo eruption of 1538 A.D., which occurred in the Campi Flegrei caldera, is extremely interesting from the standpoint of reading 311-8. That reading speaks of "sinking or rising in the Mediterranean and the Etna area," and here follows just such an example for the Mediterranean area. It occurred within historical times, only 220 miles to the north of Mt. Etna. The eruptive events surrounding construction of Mt. Nuovo also provide an excellent example of the type of "greater activities" that might be expected in "the Vesuvius" of reading 270-35 above. (We ask again, did Cayce's psychic source mean "the Vesuvius [realm]"? Mt. Nuovo is only 16 miles from Mt. Vesuvius).

On September 29, 1538, an eruption began in Campi Flegrei that in one week built a cone-shaped volcano, Mt. Nuovo. The eruption was preceded by a period of uplift in the area that ended a 1,400-year period of sinking. Emergence of new land from places formerly occupied by the sea was first noted in 1502 by residents of Pozzuoli, a coastal town some 15 miles from Vesuvius. By the early 1530s, this uplift was accompanied by unusual seismicity. In September 1538, earthquakes increased dramatically and a remarkable rising of the seafloor displaced the coastline by several hundred feet in the area just west of Pozzuoli. Some sources mention an uplift amounting to about 23 feet. On September 29, a crack opened in the area of maximum uplift. This newly opened vent began to emit vast amounts of pumice, fire, and black and white smoke. Ash from the initial activity fell over a wide area. The bulk of the new cone was built during the first 24 hours and, when first climbed on October 2, a "boiling" lava lake was observed within the crater.

These observations provide a splendid historical record of "greater activities" in a volcanic area only 16 miles from Mt. Vesuvius; that is, in "the Vesuvius [area]" of reading 270-35. And they also provide an example of "sinking or rising....in the Mediterranean area." Again, Mt. Nuovo is only 220 miles from Mt. Etna. Thus, vertical crustal movements at Campi Flegrei today could perhaps qualify as occurring "in the Mediterranean and Etna area." Well then, note the following. Two important episodes of ground-surface uplift occurred in the Pozzuoli area in 1970-1972 (+5.6 ft) and in 1982-1984 (+6.0 ft). Sinking of the land surface has occurred since the end of 1984.

I speculate that something like the intensity of volcanic activity exemplified at Campi Flegrei in the 1530s will have to be repeated in the Vesuvius area today before we can assume that earthquakes and inundations will strike portions of Utah, Nevada, and coastal southern California within three-months' time. Recently, seismicity at Vesuvius during 1995 and 1996 was the strongest in the last 50 years. This indicates movement of subsurface magma. And at Campi Flegrei, increased temperatures have been noticed at vapor-emitting vents.

We continue to watch and wait for increased activities at Mt. Vesuvius proper, or in the Vesuvius area, if that's the way that "the Vesuvius" is to be interpreted. Then again, perhaps it is Mt. Pelée, rather than Mt. Vesuvius that is destined to be the indicator volcano that will trigger the three-month's warning for people living in the areas mentioned in reading 270-35 above.