Do we have a good estimate for the damage the Yellowstone....

In summary: Thank you for your input.In summary, supervolcano will cause? Immediate area affected, ash patterns, etc?I don't have a source handy but, I remember reading somewhere that the ash would be several feet thick as far away as the East Coast.
  • #1
Noisy Rhysling
999
344
..."supervolcano" will cause? Immediate area affected, ash patterns, etc?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't have a source handy but, I remember reading somewhere that the ash would be several feet thick as far away as the East Coast. :olduhh:
 
  • #3
Abstract (with links to articles and explanatory stuff for non-geologists) from the USGS.
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/yellowstone_sub_page_91.html

Look at the bottom of the page for the "Bullseye". Ash distribution from supervolcano long term eruptions distributes more like a bullseye than a fan.
The model they use has ashfall, for a one month duration eruption, all over continental US, into Mexico and Canada.

Whatever @Borg is remembering differs from this in a lot of ways, I think. Maybe a link would help. Anyway, feet thick on the East Coast? - no. Inches maybe.

It would destroy or damage many kinds of the crops in the US if it occurred in growing seasons. The health concerns are major - inhaling tephra is often fatal long term.
e.g., pneumoconiosis.

Automobiles and aircraft have all sorts of problems operating during ashfall periods as well. So getting help to people would not be easy during a month long ashfall.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2078062/

You get to define 'immediate area' - my view is that it would be beyond horrible for hundreds of miles in any direction from ground zero.
 
  • #4
jim mcnamara said:
Whatever @Borg is remembering differs from this in a lot of ways, I think. Maybe a link would help. Anyway, feet thick on the East Coast? - no. Inches maybe.
From your first link, I remember seeing something like the image below. The ash does reach the East Coast but the units are much smaller than I remembered.
:doh:

img3059_350w_270h.jpg
 
  • #5
And that would damage the world economy in the process. Sounds like fun, too bad I have a dentist appt. that day.
 
  • #6
Noisy Rhysling said:
And that would damage the world economy in the process.
Is the world economy not just a dinosaur awaiting extinction.
Destruction of the world economy might be good for the Earth and for human environmental history.
 
  • #7
Baluncore said:
Is the world economy not just a dinosaur awaiting extinction.
Destruction of the world economy might be good for the Earth and for human environmental history.
But where would cats get their toys?
 
  • #8
Im a state over from Yellowstone. Expecting a slow drawn out death in the event of an erruption.
Have heard speculation that NASA wants to pump it full of water to cool it, but would result it a weakened "shell" as well.
 
  • #10
DS2C said:
Im a state over from Yellowstone. Expecting a slow drawn out death in the event of an erruption.
Have heard speculation that NASA wants to pump it full of water to cool it, but would result it a weakened "shell" as well.
That sounds insane. Surely pumping in water would cause a hastening of the super volcano by weakening the crust above the caldera due to the explosive expansion of water hitting the magma.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
  • #11
jim mcnamara said:
@DS2C - where did you read this? Citations are always helpful.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/rockyplanet/2017/08/31/2250904/ This discover science mag article says 'No'. Please read it, and please provide citations for any counterclaim you would like to make from reasonable sources. Like NASA, for example.

Thanks for understanding.

No direct citation. This is all what I heard on the news. They mentioned a "NASA employee" by the name Brian Wilcox mentioning pumping water into it. Went on to say that in doing so could actually cause it to blow or at least weaken the crust. As I stated in my post, it's speculation. So far I haven't found anything from NASA. But if I see Bruce Willis anywhere near the mountain west, you best believe I am packing my bags. :wink:
 
  • #12
phinds said:
That sounds insane. Surely pumping in water would cause a hastening of the super volcano by weakening the crust above the caldera due to the explosive expansion of water hitting the magma.
Im no Geologist but Ill go with that as well.
 
  • Like
Likes enosis_
  • #13
The article explains that- NASA was doing what scientists sometimes do - explaining every angle of a problem in a public meeting. Then they explained why it was a really bad idea. Context of a comment versus media. Why we cite articles.

Example:
The article talks about why an Icelandic eruption became so nasty. Water from melted snow and ice rushed into the erupting volcano exacerbating the output of the eruption. Get the water mix wrong and you make the situation a lot worse.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42, davenn and enosis_
  • #14
I have zero knowledge of volcanoes - just curious. How close to the magma can you safely drill to use geothermic heat for co-generation? Is it theoretically possible to cool/thicken the crust by draining heat with multiple/strategic placements of heat exchange apparatus? Is it reasonable to assume the area under the crust near the base of the cone is the coolest point? Would a thicker "cork" cause pressure to seek another/weaker release point?
 
  • #15
A volcanic eruption on a giant scale would literally kill off most of the USA. You only have to look at what happens when a hurricane hits Florida, everybody tries to go somewhere else for shelter, now imagine all of the US, half of Canada and Mexico trying to do the same thing!
Factories would stop production, food would be almost non-existant especially fresh crops out of the ground, cattle would starve because no grass available to graze. Where would gasoline get delivered if it could not be transported due to truck air filters clogging up with ash.

No fuel and america would be dead in the water.
A large ash cloud would effectively stop any transanlantic travel by air, the Iceland eruption stopped airtravel for weeks, a friend of mine was stuck in Detroit until he caught a train to New York then came back to the UK by the QE2 liner.

The fallout of ash / chemicals would not stop on the US border, it would be carried by winds across to europe with unknown consequences.

Another possibility would be what happens to the St. Andreas Fault? would such a large eruption lead to a massive earthquake? especially as it is only about 800 miles away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
I did a school project on Yellowstone National Park last year and I remembered finding a credible source saying the total damage would be about 10,000 Hiroshima bombs, but I still find the figure incredibly innacurate and absurd even though the source was credible. I'll give you the link when I can find it.
 
  • #17
Noisy Rhysling said:
..."supervolcano" will cause? Immediate area affected, ash patterns, etc?

If you don't mind waiting 6 months to a year for it, I understand Stephanie Osborn is considering writing a book on it.

Mt St Helens erupted about a cubic mile of material, dumping 2 to 5 inches of ash over about 5000 square miles of Washington state, 1/2 to 2 inches of ash over 1/3rd to 1/2 of Washington, and 1/2 to trace amounts of ash as far as the eastern sides of the Dakotas. 6 or more inches of ash is likely to kill off all your grass and ground cover. Taller bushes and trees might survive, although they can be damaged by ash weighing down and breaking the branches.

A Yellowstone super eruption is likely to drop enough ash to kill all plant life in half of Wyoming, and a quarter of Montana and Idaho, and enough to kill off all ground covering those states, plus half of Utah, Colorado, South Dakota and Nebraska, not to mention parts of Canada. The rest of the United States will get enough ash to make good fertilizer when plowed into the soil. Expect 100% of the population to be affected by respiratory problems. Expect all road and rail travel between the east and west to be severed north of the Grand Canyon and south of the Canadian border. And what will happen when that ash gets rained on, or mixed with snow melt beggars the imagination. Think of mudflows down all the major river systems from the west coast to the Mississippi.
 
  • #18
My understanding is that Yellowstone is not a major short-to-medium-term (centuries or so) problem, magma still being too deep down. Still, it's not called a super-volcano for nothing, so now might be a good time to contemplate options for mitigating the effects. Any attempts to counter a major outburst in anger would have to be correspondingly super, and the sooner the better. Refusing to do anything because that might make it worse, would be akin to refusing to insult the firing squad by calling your lawyer, in case that hurts their feelings and they become violent.

Simple-mindedly pumping water as such would be a demanding exercise, to put it politely, but should not be regarded as impossible or even rash; nature has been tinkering with that option for a long time without recent harm, though rather half-heartedly; one of her bigger initiatives is called "Old Faithful".

Personally I rather like the idea of pumping water down, brine if possible, because the steam would be useful for power and for extracting possibly valuable chemical compounds, maybe including useful uranium; the steam explosion danger is derisory, because the water would not stay down; it would flash into precious steam, extracting valuable heat and in the process thickening plastic rock into a cooler, more resistant cap. If we could do enough of that we could use the effort to pay for itself in 24/365 geothermal power (plus possible mineral extraction) for a few million years. It would mean a LOT of drilling though; Yellowstone isn't small.

But our power demands aren't very small either...

Eat your heart out, wind turbines!

More worrying is the gas content of the magma, probably mostly CO2 and H2O, which won't want to stay down as long as the rock is plastic or liquid. You see, we could deal with liquid magma, given suitable time to prepare and hoping that enough politicians and tree huggers (don't bother trying to explain how nice tree huggers are, I am a rabid ecology lover myself, but sometimes you have to make omelettes) die of endogenous hot-air poisoning before they get in the way of the project, but as long as we have a hot-ash soda-siphon to deal with, we have a serious problem, keeping it from squirting out fine ash clouds. Tephra too coarse to remain airborne is less of a problem except very locally.

There are three classes of gas-relief options, depending on the circumstances. One is super-heated steam dissolved under pressure in magma or near-liquid rock. Dangerous, mainly because it could create an ash cloud if it escapes. If however we could slow it enough to let the steam escape while the residue piles up as pumice or similar rock-dough, we have it made. Especially if we could extract power from the escaping steam, which could be tricky. A good option would be to dig a reinforced channel into the magma to let it out as an actual eruption.

Errr... Riiiight?

Yeah right.

Of course, we would need to dig quite a lot of such holes, upstaging Ol' Faithful more than somewhat. Suppose each drilling to be a metre in diameter (thumbsuck) with suitable choke devices in case the supply gets out of hand, then we could inject enough mud into the output stream to prevent airborne tephra from forming.

The second type would be similar, but with CO2 dominating. That might need more generous mud/water injection to keep the tephra down without making ash clouds. A pity about the escaping CO2, but it wouldn't want to stay down indefinitely whether we intervene or not. At worst what we would be doing would be turning a catastrophe into an embarrassment.

The third type would be where we identify large bubbles of gas accumulating above magma. We could prick them with similar shafts and let out the gas comparatively cleanly under valve control until the bubble is small enough, still extracting power (yes, I know, but read on!). By that time there still would be enough dissolved gas in the magma to be a concern, so we then start injecting water to maintain the bubble at a suitable size to gather more pending gas and energy, and finally to congeal any liquid rock in the area.

So you see, it is all very simple -- just takes a bit of good ol' Uncle Sam know-how and free enterprise.
 
  • #19
Cloud Variable said:
I did a school project on Yellowstone National Park last year and I remembered finding a credible source saying the total damage would be about 10,000 Hiroshima bombs, but I still find the figure incredibly innacurate and absurd even though the source was credible. I'll give you the link when I can find it.
To me that sounds hopelessly conservative, but don't confuse energy with damage. We could happily and harmlessly use 10 000 000 such bomb equivalents for power; what we couldn't handle is what happens if we detonate them, which is what we must avoid with Yellowstone.
 
  • #20
The last several posts all have been pure speculation based on? At least not on sound models. Yellowstone as well as other hot spots on Earth are closely watched and examined. It should be possible to find data and profound opinions other than "n Hiroshima bombs". Also the long term consequences of drilling for geothermal energy or similar are not finally answerable and subject to other heated debates as well as many current studies. Gas has also been mentioned, but I couldn't see any reference to an analysis of the Yellowstone magma chamber.

I remind everybody in the thread to do a little research to provide reliable sources for their statements. Otherwise this thread will be closed, as nightmarish stories about the consequences of a major eruption belong into the science fiction forum, but not here. It will be bad. Anything else is speculation.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, I like Serena and jim mcnamara
  • #21
fresh_42 said:
I remind everybody in the thread to do a little research to provide reliable sources for their statements. Otherwise this thread will be closed, as nightmarish stories about the consequences of a major eruption belong into the science fiction forum, but not here. It will be bad. Anything else is speculation.

Please feel welcome to set the example.

...It should be possible to find data and profound opinions other than "n Hiroshima bombs". Also the long term consequences of drilling for geothermal energy or similar are not finally answerable and subject to other heated debates as well as many current studies. Gas has also been mentioned, but I couldn't see any reference to an analysis of the Yellowstone magma chamber.
We all would be keen to see what you could turn up apart from speculation on what might be available outside of science fiction, or what bearing it might have on the questions under discussion, always bearing in mind that SF incidentally has been the basis of a lot of fertile mental stimulation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Innovation) If we were to be limited to what is "finally answerable" and not subject to heated debates as well as current studies, we would be limited to homework questions with answers in the back of the book. Is that what this forum is supposed to be about? How do you expect someone whose knowledge is limited to non-technical pronouncements about N-bombs to phrase questions in terms that meet your strictions?

If mental stimulation is to be limited to contributions that must be peer-reviewed-publishable, this would be a pretty sterile forum, wouldn't it? (And no, I lack any citation to support that speculation. I hope that my WP citations are authoritative enough for your taste? I really lack the time and resources to turn up primary sources, let alone indisputable material.)

Meanwhile, I forgot to mention in my last reply but one, the importance of partitioning (see any first-year college textbook for chemistry majors) as a possible means of tuning the gas content of magma that contains large amounts of water and CO2 (which commonly are the predominant components). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas#Magmatic_gases_and_high-temperature_volcanic_gases) Roughly speaking, the greater the gas content of the magma and the greater its viscosity, the more explosive the nature of the eruption, and the greater the water content the lower the viscosity, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_volcanic_eruptions#Magmatic_eruptions) so by pumping water and air through the gas chambers to remove CO2 by partitioning, that contributes to the release of SiO2 and increases viscosity, we could reduce the expected explosiveness of subsequent eruptions, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas) probably at an energy profit.
 
  • #22
Jon Richfield said:
If mental stimulation is to be limited to contributions that must be peer-reviewed-publishable, this would be a pretty sterile forum, wouldn't it?
No, no, and no. I think you misunderstand both the intent and the value of this forum.

As PAllen once said,
Note, we are not called the "idle speculation without understanding or knowledge" forums
This is a forum for mainstream science, not speculation and if you think it is "sterile" you haven't been around as long as your number of posts suggests, or you haven't been paying attention."
 
  • Like
Likes davenn and fresh_42
  • #23
phinds said:
No, no, and no. I think you misunderstand both the intent and the value of this forum.

As PAllen once said, This is a forum for mainstream science, not speculation and if you think it is "sterile" you haven't been around as long as your number of posts suggests, or you haven't been paying attention.
"
Fair enough; attention is not my long suit (ADD and all that).
Then please explain how the function of the forum maps onto what Fresh said, or point me at an URL that sums it up.
What I gather from what you and s/he have said is that one must not ask about anything that cannot be answered categorically,
and how that is to serve anyone wondering about Yellowstone's hidden face, defeats me, especially as it would logically require
that the enquirer first know what we do not know and therefore not to ask.
As the sainted Piet Hein said:

Knowing what
Thou knowest not
Is in a sense
Omniscience
 
  • #24
Jon Richfield said:
Then please explain how the function of the forum maps onto what Fresh said
Not sure what to say there. His post seems totally clear and straightforward to me.

What I gather from what you and s/he have said is that one must not ask about anything that cannot be answered categorically,
I don't think either of us said that or meant that. What we ARE saying is that speculation seemingly based on based on just holding your finger to the wind and guessing is not acceptable. Attempting to extrapolate known facts somewhat can be acceptable but requires some care lest you carry the extrapolation too far.

Again, the purpose of this particular forum is the explanation of known science, not speculation. Speculation can be both informative and enjoyable but this pretty much just isn't the place for it.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn and fresh_42
  • #25
Jon Richfield said:
Please feel welcome to set the example.
Don't reverse the burden of proof. This is a common trick used by populists and I do not follow such "invitations" for principle reasons.
An example must do: I have heard (don't remember when, don't remember where, and even less about the reliability), that ashes would fall meter thick as far as Chicago. Well, according to the prognosis in post #4 this is obviously wrong and I did not post it, for exact this reason: far too speculative and potentially wrong. So in order not to spread false information on a scientific webpage, I didn't post this.

I haven't claimed anything about Yellowstone, except that it is closely watched and examined: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/monitoring_map.html
And before someone finds that official American Institutes as USGS always tell people lies and aren't reliable, because it's "government": We don't debate conspiracy theories either.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #26
Avoiding any dubious citations or links(my list of those continues to grow:frown:), I would like to bring up a point from post #25's link. I was surprised to learn that Yellowstone was touchy enough that the Denali quake set off a swarm of hundreds of quakes, that's 2000 miles away. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/yvo/
. Also might add that the SIC writing the farewell letter (J. Lowenstern) wrote some very good articles dealing with the reality vs. hype concerning Yellowstone. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes Jon Richfield
  • #27
fresh_42 said:
Don't reverse the burden of proof. This is a common trick used by populists and I do not follow such "invitations" for principle reasons.
An example must do: I have heard (don't remember when, don't remember where, and even less about the reliability), that ashes would fall meter thick as far as Chicago. Well, according to the prognosis in post #4 this is obviously wrong and I did not post it, for exact this reason: far too speculative and potentially wrong. So in order not to spread false information on a scientific webpage, I didn't post this.

Please be more careful with your accusations of populism and "common tricks". I would hate to have to think of you as a mentor who misuses his/her authority to quash reasoned rejoinders to loose claims. For example where does your divide lie between "obviously wrong" and "potentially wrong"?

And what did you mean by "I didn't post this"? You have just posted it. You apparently regard it as false information when other people post, but you are immune to spreading false information on a scientific webpage?

For one thing, I never reversed any burden of anything but logic. Proof of what? Proof did not come into it. I assume that you are complaining about the "tu quoque" aspect of my response? Well, there never was one. I was referring to "I remind everybody in the thread to do a little research to provide reliable sources for their statements." You immediately capped that virtuous homily by providing no sources in claiming that the statements of other participants were not reliable. They might not have been detailed, but that is another matter. You provided no clear basis for the standard of knowledge anyone must have before they venture a question or an opinion. Note in particular that what I said there is a challenge to the substance of what you said, not a defence of what I said, which is what a tu quoque might have amounted to, and burdens of proof don't come into it either way.

Consider Cloud Variable's A-bombs remark; it might have been vague, but it was to the point. It might have been a bit naive, in confusing energy with damage, but instead of biting him you could have been a bit more helpful. I did my best by pointing out the relevance of the mode of release, but what did you do? "It should be possible to find data and profound opinions other than "n Hiroshima bombs". Very helpful, coming from someone who limited the factual content of his response to "...long term consequences of drilling for geothermal energy or similar are not finally answerable and subject to other heated debates as well as many current studies. Gas has also been mentioned, but I couldn't see any reference to an analysis of the Yellowstone magma chamber."

I am sure that you did not mean "we know nothing about it that is in the literature, so you mustn't ask about it or answer it" but can you see why it sounds like that to me? And maybe some other folk? In any event it strikes me as grossly unscientific; in science we aren't in the formal proof business, but the most-workable-available-hypothesis business, forever seeking grounds for changing our minds in the light of empirical evidence and the development of insights or tools with explanatory and predictive power.

Do we know the exact extent, nature, date and depth of the Yellowstone emissions? Darn right we don't. Are we in a position to make rational guestimates? Darn right we are, and there are people whose job it is to do so. And some of them disagree to various degrees. And yet, surprise, we know more and more about the nature of previous excursions a few MY ago, together with some of their effects on surrounding regions, and we know something of various other volcanoes. We not only can make reasonable estimates of what would happen if there were a major blow, but how matters would differ if instead there were repeated smaller, say, Mt St Helens type emissions. Just because there is dissent about details or even some principles, does not mean science is not at work. Check out "nullius in verba" if you disagree about disagreement.

I haven't claimed anything about Yellowstone, except that it is closely watched and examined: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/monitoring_map.html
And before someone finds that official American Institutes as USGS always tell people lies and aren't reliable, because it's "government": We don't debate conspiracy theories either.
Not claiming is a pretty lowly order of virtue, but "closely watched and examined" is a claim, and as claims go, it is no more of a quantitive statement than any of the claims about bombs and ash. In turn, which of my statements about Yellowstone would you challenge as indefensible? If you find any that are not, please say so. They are based on common knowledge in scientific circles. I even pointed out a few sources, right? Unless you happen to have a conspiracy theory about WP?

And if you want to make virtuous generalisations about conspiracy theorists, kindly do not in future do so while trying to refute anything I said. Separate the messages. I resent the juxtaposition. I didn't discuss say, homeopathy in any context concerning you!
 
  • #28
Baluncore said:
Is the world economy not just a dinosaur awaiting extinction.
Destruction of the world economy might be good for the Earth and for human environmental history.
Indubitably correct, the upside is all that Barbecued Bison available downwind of Yellowstone. :ok:
 
  • #29
1oldman2 said:
Avoiding any dubious citations or links(my list of those continues to grow:frown:), I would like to bring up a point from post #25's link. I was surprised to learn that Yellowstone was touchy enough that the Denali quake set off a swarm of hundreds of quakes, that's 2000 miles away. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/yvo/
. Also might add that the SIC writing the farewell letter (J. Lowenstern) wrote some very good articles dealing with the reality vs. hype concerning Yellowstone. :smile:
Good Stuff! Thanks for posting that. Everyone who has not yet read that link and its links, do yourself a favour!
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #30
Jon Richfield said:
Please be more careful with your accusations of populism and "common tricks". I would hate to have to think of you as a mentor who misuses his/her authority to quash reasoned rejoinders to loose claims. For example where does your divide lie between "obviously wrong" and "potentially wrong"?

And what did you mean by "I didn't post this"? You have just posted it. You apparently regard it as false information when other people post, but you are immune to spreading false information on a scientific webpage? ...... huge snip

Jon, @ fresh_42 was on track and you really need to review the stuff you have been saying ... you are really going off track in all you comments
This post I have partly quoted ( only because it was such a huge load of rubbish), should never have been posted

I encourage you to follow the advice given to you so that the thread stays on track with relevant and as accurate as possible info :smile:regards
Dave
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #31
Thread locked for moderation.
 
  • Like
Likes I like Serena and jim mcnamara
  • #32
As this thread has become an argue about secondary topics, which are obviously off topic, there are only two possibilities left: clean up this mess - speculations and accusations - or keep it closed. As there is seemingly no way back to a world of facts, the thread will remain closed. To all who are interested, I recommend

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/hazard_summary.html

as a starting point of research. I assume there are even studies about the implications of past eruptions publicly available, which are most likely more reliable, than any speculations about future ones.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn, 1oldman2 and I like Serena

1. What kind of damage can we expect from a potential eruption of Yellowstone?

A potential eruption of Yellowstone could cause widespread destruction in the surrounding area, including damage to infrastructure, homes, and natural habitats. It could also have global consequences, such as changes in climate and air quality.

2. How do scientists estimate the potential damage of a Yellowstone eruption?

Scientists use a variety of methods to estimate the potential damage of a Yellowstone eruption, including studying past eruptions, monitoring the volcano's activity, and creating computer models to simulate potential scenarios.

3. Is there a specific timeline for when a Yellowstone eruption may occur?

While scientists can predict the likelihood of a Yellowstone eruption based on current data, there is no specific timeline for when it may occur. It could happen in the near future or thousands of years from now.

4. What are the potential consequences of a Yellowstone eruption on a global scale?

A Yellowstone eruption could have significant global consequences, including changes in climate due to the release of large amounts of ash and gases into the atmosphere. It could also impact air travel and cause disruptions to global food supplies.

5. How prepared are we for a potential Yellowstone eruption?

While it is impossible to fully prepare for a natural disaster like a Yellowstone eruption, scientists and emergency management agencies are constantly monitoring the volcano and developing plans for potential scenarios. It is important for individuals to also have emergency plans in place in case of a disaster.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
310
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
280
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
47
Views
116K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
982
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Back
Top