Tokyo residents worried as temperatures exceed 35C for 9th day in a row - a precursor to a volcanic eruption?
Tokyo residents fear precursor to volcanic eruption as temperatures exceed 35C for 9th straight day
According to the Japan News Agency, Tokyo has been experiencing abnormal temperatures that have exceeded 35°C for nine consecutive days, breaking the record for the longest extremely hot temperature since 1875. Residents in Tokyo are suffering. Even at night, the temperature at night still exceeds 30°C. They cannot sleep at all and many residents are even getting sick. In addition, some residents have expressed fears that this is a precursor to a volcanic eruption.
Some time ago many residents began to feel inexplicably worried because of the eruption of Sakurajima. Five days after the eruption, another 5.9 magnitude earthquake struck Hokkaido, Japan. Residents were caught off guard one after another and were inevitably a little worried.
Sakurajima is an active volcano that erupts very frequently. The last eruption was on 28 January, so Sakurajima's eruption has little to do with this earthquake and certainly does not directly affect the eruption of Mount Fuji on the island.
The continuing high temperatures are starting to suggest that this will be a precursor to an eruption, as there has been talking on the internet for the past few years of a possible eruption of Mount Fuji.
Mount Fuji is about 80 kilometers from Tokyo. If the enormous heat of Mount Fuji is about to erupt, it seems normal for it to appear at surface temperatures. Mount Fuji is also an active volcano, but it has been dormant for over 300 years. According to eruption history, it erupts every 300 years, and it is just about that cycle now, leading to the belief that an eruption of Mount Fuji is very likely.
There is no pattern to the eruption of Mount Fuji, especially as the timing of the next eruption cannot be deduced from historical eruption times, so we cannot directly determine when the next eruption will occur. Furthermore, current human technology cannot directly predict the timing of volcanic eruptions. A volcanic eruption is an instantaneous event. Sometimes, although we know it is about to erupt, the time left for us to evacuate is too short. Especially for a volcano as huge as Mount Fuji, if it erupts, the consequences will surely be unthinkable.
It is because of the unpredictability of Mount Fuji that the unusual weather in Tokyo with its persistent high temperatures cannot be directly linked to the mountain. So what does hot weather have to do with anything?
Indeed, extreme weather is now regularly occurring around the world. For example, torrential rains occurred in Yingde, Qingyuan, China, causing flooding. In places such as Henan and Xi, there is constant heat and drought. When it never rains, people have to eat artificial rainfall to ensure that people can live normally.
Such extreme weather still occurs from time to time in various regions of the world, and the reason for this is largely related to the global warming trend.
Global warming is a phenomenon that cannot be controlled, but it can seriously affect human life and development. Imagine what human life will be like when the average temperature of the planet rises to 40 degrees Celsius. While we can cope with the effects of rising sea levels, how can humans live normally in the heat and humidity? The trend of global warming is irreversible, but its rate of development can be controlled.
The information shows that the average global temperature has risen by 1.11 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Don't underestimate this 1 degree Celsius. You know that glaciers have melted hundreds of billions of tonnes of ice just because of this small 1-degree Celsius. The rising sea levels and rapidly increasing concentrations of methane greenhouse gases caused by melting glaciers have a direct impact on human society. It is therefore urgent to protect the planet and control global warming.
I think we should try our best to research advanced science and technology to combat the global warming trend. As individuals, we should also live a low-carbon life, conserve resources and do our bit for the beauty of the planet. What do you think about this?
About the Creator
Aliser
be happy every day
The Dryads Are Calling
Deep within the heart of ancient forests, where sunlight filters through towering canopies and the air hums with life, there exists a world few humans truly understand. It is a world of dryads, the mythical tree spirits of folklore, silently observing, nurturing, and sometimes guiding the creatures that dwell among the trees. Today, their legend continues to captivate the imagination, blending myth, nature, and a touch of magic.
By Aarif Lashariabout 3 hours ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan5 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.