Talk:Tseax Cone

Carbon Dioxide is a poison?
Quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia:

"CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals."

CO2 is a poison as much as water is a poison. It is not and reference to it as a poison should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.206.130 (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the CO2 asphyxiation is only a causal hypothesis; it could have easily been hydrogen sulphide, which is most certainly a poison, or other gases. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Active or Not?
Ok. In the Future Present section the writer states "Gases currently being emitted by the volcano are evidence that the volcano IS STILL active and potentially dangerous." But later on in the same Sub-heading they state "... limited knowledge of the dangers of the Tseax Cone IF IT becomes active or erupts ..." Well, which is it? Jellis 1975 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like two different definitions of "active". The first is that technical geological term used to classify volcanoes by the suspected ability to erupt; the second is the more common meaning of "doing something right now".  I will essay a change on that. (Later: no need; someone fixed it.) SkoreKeep (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Unclear of meaning
I'm not sure what the writer is trying to say here, but, it almost seems as though they are just stringing sentences together and we are left confused so if someone can explain.... ". The relative lack of knowledge on the previous eruptions would need modern monitoring and include studies of the gases emitted by the volcano" So what this is saying is that the "lack of knowledge needs monitoring and we need study volcanic emissions this is nonsensensical. Jellis 1975 (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)