He was working around a newly opened fissure without being clipped into something like a safety harness, which I daresay is standard practice in most of the rest of Europe and the US in similar circumstances.
The soil shifted, or he fell. In either case someone directly or indirectly working as a contractor for the government died as a result of unsafe and obviously dangerous work practices.
The government then went into overdrive to push the narrative that these fissures were so dangerous in general that they had to evacuate the town immediately.
That can also be true, but the immediate cause is needless and dangerous expediency.
In the end they fell into shit and came out smelling like roses, because the eruption happened to start a few days later.
The issue of that easily preventable death was quickly forgotten by most (but e.g. [1], in Icelandic, raises so some of the same concerns).
The evacuation order at the time had nothing to to with an imminent eruption, just the supposed general danger to the public from shifting soil and fissures.
Some other eruption in the area was expected eventually, but that it happened so fast came as a surprise.
The eruption killed them, however it's phrased. I'm aware of the semantic arguments, but it's a mistake to apply them to reality and I'm not going to engage with them with a person dead and more threatened, including the person who posted above!
> the immediate cause is needless and dangerous expediency
Why should we believe that and not the government?
There wasn't any eruption at the time. There was ongoing seismic shifting and land uplift, that's why the fissures were forming.
It happened to erupt shortly afterwards, but the way these things go that's just happenstance. The geology service did not suspect an imminent eruption at the time of the evacuation.
In retrospect it was good that the town was evacuated at the time, and probably the previous evacuation shouldn't have been lifted. I'm just noting the chronology and what was stated and known at the time.
> I'm not going to engage with them with a person dead.
Well, you'd feel right at home in Iceland, but personally I wish it had more of the US's attitude of mandatory and critical root cause investigations when workplace deaths occur.
> Why should we believe that and not the government?
I think the facts speak for themselves. Up-thread I linked to an article by a local professor of volcanology basically agreeing with what I'm saying here. It's in Icelandic, but Google Translate does a decent job of it if you're interested.
I'm pointing out that it's at best a very convenient omission that the evacuation wasn't happening due to that scenario.
Nobody randomly fell into a fissure by accident. That person and others were being directed to work adjacent to and in these fissures.
It's an on-the-clock workplace accident due to grossly inadequate safety practices.
We're not talking about some obscure inconsequential OSHA rule here. A lot of things have to go systemically wrong to have someone working alone at an unsecured edge without a teather.
For someone who isn't in Iceland that's not clear.
The notion that you might heat a house with electricity or by setting trees or dinosaurs on fire is so foreign to Icelanders that they don't think this is worth clarifying in the English translation of the news feed.
It'll have other long-tail effects, e.g. some people with outdoor hot tubs in the area are probably scrambling to drain them and all their plumbing now. Some rely on constant drip heating to avoid the pipes bursting.
Why are outdoor hot tubs full in the first place when it's -10°C (15°F) outside?
Well obviously when boiling water practically bubbles out of the ground for free you're going to get in it at scalding temperatures even if you need to dig it out of the snow first. Doesn't that go without saying?
I think the hospitals have backup diesel electric generators, but in general nobody's got backup heating, except perhaps the odd free-standing electric heater.
I don't know, but I'd expect someone at the hospital there is thinking of running those in select places.
Icelandic media is now patiently explaining to people the upsides ("yay, heat!") and downsides (you might die) of running the propane gas heaters that have just sold out in enclosed spaces: https://www.ruv.is/frettir/innlent/2024-02-08-ad-ymsu-ad-hug...
Why wouldn't they be? Those are really normal temperatures to use a hot tub in.
I'm sorry but this is hyperbole. I just spent nearly a week staying in a house *in Iceland* that was heated with wood and diesel fuel. Granted, it's an old house, built about 100 years ago, but it's hardly a foreign concept.
Obviously my comment's a bit torque-in-cheek, but I've never heard of fossil fuel heating in Iceland in residential dwellings outside af Grímsey, an island 40km off the coast.
There's fireplaces, but not for heating entire building, unless it's a small summer home or a cottage.
I'm sure there's exceptions, but what I was pointing out is that geothermal heating is universal enough that the implications of the hot water being out don't need to be explained.
No heating in winter temps that far north is dangerous.