Despite the ever present wailing from green activists that we are sitting on a “methane catastrophe”, it’s simply business as usual for Earth in the Arctic. Even Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS thinks the issue is “implausible”. This study further confirms that the issue is just another emotional overblown green issue of no merit.
Methane seepage from the Arctic seabed occurring for millions of years
From the Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment
We worry about greenhouse gas methane. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than CO2´s, but the impact of methane on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period. 60 percent of the methane in the atmosphere comes from emissions from human activities.
But methane is a natural gas, gigatonnes of it trapped under the ocean floor in the Arctic.
And it is leaking. And it has been leaking for longer time than the humans have roamed the Earth.
“Our planet is leaking methane gas all the time. If you go snorkeling in the Caribbean you can see bubbles raising from the ocean floor at 25 meters depth. We studied this type of release, only in a much deeper, colder and darker environment. And found out that it has been going on, periodically, for as far back as 2,7 million years.” says Andreia Plaza Faverola, researcher at Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate, and the primary author behind a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters.
She is talking about Vestnesa Ridge in Fram Strait, a thousand meters under the Arctic Ocean surface offshore West-Svalbard. Here, enormous – 800 meters high – gas flares rise from the seabed today. That’s the size of the tallest manmade structure in the world – Burj Khalifa in Dubai.
“Half of Vestnesa Ridge is showing very active seepage of methane. The other half is not. But there are obvious pockmarks on the inactive half, cavities and dents in the ocean floor, that we recognized as old seepage features. So we were wondering what activates, or deactivates, the seepage in this area.,” says Plaza Faverola.
Why 2,7 million years?
She, and a team of marine geophysicists from CAGE, used the P-Cable technology , to figure it out. It is a seismic instrument that is towed behind a research vessel. It recorded the sediments beneath these pockmarks. P-Cable renders images that look like layers of a cake. It also enables scientists to visualize deep sediments in 3D.
” We know from other studies in the region that the sediments we are looking at in our seismic data are at least 2.7 million years old. This is the period of increase of glaciations in the Northern Hemisphere, which influences the sediment.. The P-Cable enabled us to see features in this sediment, associated with gas release in the past . ”
“These features can be buried pinnacles or cavities that form what we call gas chimneys in the seismic data. Gas chimneys appear like vertical disturbances in the layers of our sedimentary cake. This enables us to reconstruct the evolution of gas expulsion from this area for at least 2,7 million years.” says Andreia Plaza Faverola.
The seismic signal penetrated into 400 to 500 meters of sediment to map this timescale.
How is the methane released?
By using this method, scientists were able to identify two major events of gas emission throughout this time period: One 1,8 million years ago, the other 200 000 years ago.
This means that there is something that activated and deactivated the emissions several times. Plaza Faverola´s paper gives a plausible explanation: It is the movement of the tectonic plates that influences the gas release. Vestnesa is not like California though, riddled with earthquakes because of the moving plates. The ridge is on a so-called passive margin. But as it turns out, it doesn´t take a huge tectonic shift to release the methane stored under the ocean floor.
“Even though Vestnesa Ridge is on a passive margin, it is between two oceanic ridges that are slowly spreading. These spreading ridges resulted in separation of Svalbard from Greenland and opening of the Fram Strait. The spreading influences the passive margin of West-Svalbard, and even small mechanical collapse in the sediment can trigger seepage.” says Faverola.
Where does the methane come from?
The methane is stored as gas hydrates, chunks of frozen gas and water, up to hundreds of meters under the ocean floor. Vestnesa hosts a large gas hydrate system. There is some concern that global warming of the oceans may melt this icy gas and release it into the atmosphere. That is not very likely in this area, according to Andreia Plaza Faverola.
” This is a deep water gas hydrate system, which means that it is in permanently cold waters and under a lot of pressure. This pressure keeps the hydrates stable and the whole system is not vulnerable to global temperature changes. But under the stable hydrates there is gas that is not frozen. The amount of this gas may increase if hydrates melt at the base of this stability zone, or if gas from deeper in the sediments arrives into the system. This could increase the pressure in this part of the system, and the free gas may escape the seafloor through chimneys. Hydrates would still remain stable in this scenario .”
Historical methane peaks coincide with increase in temperature
Throughout Earth´s history there have been several short periods of significant increase in temperature. And these periods often coincide with peaks of methane in the atmosphere , as recorded by ice cores. Scientists such as Plaza Faverola are still debating about the cause of this methane release in the past.
” One hypotheses is that massive gas release from geological sources, such as volcanos or ocean sediments may have influenced global climate.. What we know is that there is a lot of methane released at present time from the ocean floor. What we need to find out is if it reaches the atmosphere, or if it ever did.”
Historical events of methane release, such as the ones in the Vestnesa Ridge, provide crucial information that can be used in future climate modeling. Knowing if these events repeat, and identifying what makes them happen, may help us to better predict the potential influence of methane from the oceans on future climate.
###
Reference: Role of tectonic stress in seepage evolution along the gas hydrate-charged Vestnesa Ridge, Fram Strait. A.Plaza Faverola, S.Bünz, J.E.Johnson, S. Chand, J. Knies, J. Mienert and P. Franek. Geophysical Research Letters. 2015.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062474/abstract
Abstract
Methane expulsion from the world ocean floor is a broadly observed phenomenon known to be episodic. Yet the processes that modulate seepage remain elusive. In the Arctic offshore west Svalbard, for instance, seepage at 200–400 m water depth may be explained by ocean temperature-controlled gas hydrate instabilities at the shelf break, but additional processes are required to explain seepage in permanently cold waters at depths >1000 m. We discuss the influence of tectonic stress on seepage evolution along the ~100 km long hydrate-bearing Vestnesa Ridge in Fram Strait. High-resolution P-Cable 3-D seismic data revealed fine-scale (>10 m width) near-vertical faults and fractures controlling seepage distribution. Gas chimneys record multiple seepage events coinciding with glacial intensification and active faulting. The faults document the influence of nearby tectonic stress fields in seepage evolution along this deepwater gas hydrate system for at least the last ~2.7 Ma.
” So we were wondering what activates, or deactivates, the seepage in this area.,” says Plaza Faverola.”
Well obviously it’s the retreating glaciers in Iceland causing the sea floor to rise off the coast of Alaska ….
Methane comes from two sources. Biogenic comes from Archea methanogens. Thermogenic comes from end point catagegenesis of organic matter that was originally marine kerogen or terrestrial peat. Permian Basin is the former, Norway’s offshore fields are the latter. Methane hydrate can form from either source. Japan’s Nankai trough is biogenic. GoM is thermogenic. Alaska and Sineria tundra hydrates are both.
And methane in seawater can be metabolized by methanotrophs. Most of the Macondo blowout methane was metabolized. Been papers written on that. Some formed hydrate; that is what plugged the failed dome it over and pump the captured oil and has out attempt.
Most of the methane on Earth comes from the geochemical reaction of water and carbonate rock at high temperature-pressure. The reproducible reaction has the ugly name “serpentinization,” which seems to prevent it from being widely adopted or understood:
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05lostcity/background/serp/serpentinization.html
That’s unfortunate, because it appears to be the most important clue we have to the origin of life, producing complex organic molecules from rock & water without violating thermodynamic constraints:
http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/ncr
It is also how we explain the abundance of hydrocarbons and “organics” on Titan:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18410
No “marine kerogen” or “terrestrial peat” there. (Comet Haley is 1/3 “kerogen” – 500 years of OPEC output on that tiny pebble)
I think the real concern is methane release from melting permafrost:
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html
if methane release from seabeds has been occurring for millions of years, then it’s obviously part of the “background” that existed well before humans started pumping methane into the atmosphere.
“One hypotheses is that massive gas release from geological sources, such as volcanos or ocean sediments may have influenced global climate”
Methane is not found in volcanoes. It is too thermally unstable.
“By using this method, scientists were able to identify two major events of gas emission throughout this time period: One 1,8 million years ago, the other 200 000 years ago.”
The big release 200 000 years ago would have fallen in the middle of the Saalian/Illinoian Ice-age (MIS 6). No warming happened. The Antarctic ice-cores (EPICA Dome C, Vostok) do show a peak to c. 610-630 ppb at that time, but that is hardly sensational, there have been several higher ones.
“Methane is not found in volcanoes. It is too thermally unstable.” So what is the explanation for the light emitted by erupting sub-aerial volcanoes?
Hey, Bohdan Burban (just FYI),
How to Make Sulphur Matches (youtube)
Quite a bit of sulphur in volcanoes (sub and not subaerial).
A Few Facts About Volcanic Gases
Symonds, Rose, Bluth, and Gerlach (1994) published a list of compositions of high-temperature volcanic-gas samples. They also have a comprehensive list of published sources for high-quality volcanic-gas data .
•Convergent-plate volcanoes: Etna, Mount St. Helens, Merapi
•Divergent-plate volcanoes: Erta Ale, Surtsey
•Hot-spot volcano: Kilauea
Equilibrium compositions, temperatures, and log fO2 values of high-temperature and low-pressure (1 bar) volcanic gases. Concentrations are in mole %; log fO2 given in log bars.
{See this page for source of quotes and accompanying chart (scroll down to it): http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/151 ‘
Note: I do not vouch for the accuracy of every assertion on that page; it’s sponsor, Oregon State U. is notorious for some blatantly false human CO2 propaganda (for examples, just search WUWT threads)}
H20, CO2, and SO2 are the most common gases in all samples.
Minor gases are H2, H2S, HCl, CO, and S2.
Methane is mentioned once on that long page (that I saw) as a sometimes-present trace gas, apparently without any significance.
I think the real problem here is one of advertising. The general public isn’t interested in actual facts, no what they are ruled by advertising. So you show a fluffy animal in some distress, an unintelligible chart with a guy in a white coat, tell them some [pseudo] science mambo jumbo
( involving some pub chat facts) tell them they have been naughty but if you pay us lots of money we can make it better and job done!
It’s only the down turn in global finances that have made Joe public question where the money is going.
Sorry rant over
Barry;
Sounds like a callus and deliberate act of pollution. Is this a corporate scheme, or do you cite malevolent intent by the general public? I for one cannot afford a methane pump so you must be referring to my septic system. Sorry, can’t buy that guilt trip approach.
lol
Make that callous.
Alright Barry I agree, lets blame it on Heinz beans, the “human” factor.
Thanks for the good article. It seems like nature is always more complicated than we think it is. Good to keep learning, even though we are not in control.
Yes, indeed, Mr. Valencia. Good point. And…. I daresay…. the more facts people learn, the more they realize that there must be (or, at least, once was) an Intelligence in control (smile).
Take care, O Man Who Once Said a Kind Word to Me! #(:))
Indeed Andres, Humanity cannot control itself, much less this planet. Please keep up your optimism, it is contagious.
Howday,
The solar magnetic cycle changes cause there to be an increase or decrease in CH4 to be released from the core and the deep deposits of CH4. It is the CH4 changes that cause earthquakes.
One interesting side effect of the deep CH4 that is released from the core and then pushes up to the surface, is CH4 sudden release which causes some types of earthquakes. Below 60 km the mantel is plastic and cannot therefore be stressed. The very deep earthquakes are caused by the sudden release of the CH4. That explains why massive regions of the ocean floor suddenly fall as occurred in a series of recent Pacific region earthquakes. The same phenomenon explains why there were drops of up to 30 feet of land in the famous Alaskan earthquake of 1964. Supporting mantel cannot disappear to cause very, very, rapid drops in the earth’s crust, CH4 release from the mantel on the other hand will cause sudden drops.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~coleen/earthquake.jpg
The same CH4 release caused the Mississippi, New Madrid earthquake.
http://www.new-madrid.mo.us/index.aspx?nid=132
Best wishes,
William
Uhhh . . . William, the New Madrid Earthquake was in 1812. That pic is 4th Avenue in Anchorage, Alaska, 1964.
Oh, I see you said that. My browser didn’t display that first time thru. Sorry.
No, it was not methane that caused the New Madrid event of 1811, which was a series of tremors, some severe, that lasted for several weeks. The area still shows slight seismic activity, as recorded by seismographs.
mpainter, I have to agree. I thought that deep earthquakes cause very little if any surface damage, as far as I can tell the 9.0 in Japan and the 2004 in the Indonesian area were shallow (~10-15 kms) and caused by slip motions. I am not sure about the 1964 Alaska quake or the 1989 San Fran quake, ( I’ll check on the USGA site).
‘The bad smell is sulfur that is contained in the CH4. ‘
So CH4 + S
Just got a new perspective! Many thanks!
Yeah, it’s bad enough when listening to the CO2 horror stories of our Greenhouse of death, but when Methane is introduced into the hysteria, I’m really ready to “slap a physicist”!
Sometimes theories are counter intuative not because because they are profound but because they are wrong! The rise of Methane by 100 parts per billion in the last 35 years supposedly being able to cause warming of the atmosphere is one of those assertions that are just way too counter intuative to take seriously. Let’s just get some common sense on this one please! 1 molecule of methane absorbing enough energy from heat leaving the earth, before redirecting half of it back to earth to heat the earth enough to raise the temperature of 10,000,000 molecules of mixed air (that has either had its “greenhousyness” calculated or which doesn’t have any ability to absorb radiant heat directly) through conduction by a measurable amount!!!
Use whatever equations you like, I’m not buying it!
Why do all these studies finish with things like: “provide crucial information that can be used in future climate modeling.”
Now were gonna fine-tune the settled science with “crucial information”, seems like a bass ackwards way to do things, but as long as everybody gets paid who cares.
If H2O and CH4 have similar IR properties and CO2 is different; is H the problem child and not C?
Gavin’s quote seems a bit incongruous until you realize that his religious beliefs, which guide his career rule out an Earth older than 1000 years.
For Gavin, Man created the Universe, the Earth, and Climate and all else therein. Man is at the Center of the Universe and All Creation.
Well that’s what NASA Goddard bought.
Har har
Darwin also believed similarly, even after observing faulting rock strata and shelfish sediments high up in mountains. He concluded that the Earth *MUST* be older than the age stated in the Bible (Which he strongly believed in).
“60 percent of the methane in the atmosphere comes from emissions from human activities.”
Really?
Reblogged this on Joe's Notepad and commented:
Anthony Watts presenting the other side of the arctic methane story…
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the authors that methane (natural gas) is formed at any depth below 30 km under the surface of the earth from the materials (including water) available down there, the pressure and heat being sufficient to synthesize it.
As the depth increases, longer chains are formed so that by 100 km the formation of C9H20 is possible. This was theorised and tested in Russia using 100km depth pressures (about 100,000 atmospheres) at about 1550 degrees in a chamber of 0.6 cu cm. Instead of worrying about the seeps, they should be drilling and capturing them and piping them to needy people. It is free and probably inexhaustible.
Where do people think the gas comes from? Old wood??
Wood is one source of methane. The process of decay/decomposition of any type of organic material produces methane. There is sufficient organic material incorporated into sediments to account for the methane found in them.
Do yourself a favor and refrain from repeating the idiotic fantasies about the earth’s mantle being the source of methane found in sedimentary rocks.
There were no “idiotic fantasies” in Crispin’s post.
Do yourself a favor and study the subject before criticizing people who have evidently done so.
========
“….hydrothermal activity at Lost City is driven by chemical reactions between seawater and mantle rocks that make up the underlying basement. […]
The formation of magnetite during the serpentinization process involves the oxidation of ferrous iron (Fe2+) in olivine to form ferric iron (Fe3+) in magnetite and leads to what is called reducing conditions. As a consequence, reduced gas species, such as hydrogen gas (H2), methane (CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), can be produced during serpentinization.
– NOAA
========
I note that you cite the NOAA. Interesting. Why did you not consult the USGS on this? Or some other authority on geology, which the NOAA is _not_.
You seem to lack any founding in Geology. Hydrothermal activity has nothing to do with the mantle. It is confined to the crust. The mention of seawater should have clued you to that fact.
I can tell you most definitely that methane in sediments is organically derived. This is textbook stuff.
Methane in the mantle is idiotic fantasy. For hydrogen in mineral species of the mantle, see amphiboles.For carbon in mantle, see diamonds. For composition of volatiles derived from the mantle, see analysis of oceanic volcanoes such as in Hawaii.
Do yourself a favor and consult those who are knowledgeable on the subject?
Methane from the mantle is a delusion.
► I note that you cite the NOAA. Interesting. Why did you not consult the USGS on this? Or some other authority on geology, which the NOAA is _not_.
I cited the article because it is an unusual example of a non-political article from NOAA, because it made your “idiotic fantasies” claim look silly, because until quite recently it was a rare example amongst articles on the topic that bothered to mention methane production, and–most importantly–because it transgressed the boundaries of mere geology, describing the chemistry, the conditions, the thermal output of the reaction, while also mentioning the organisms that bring “fossil fuels” back to life again in the blink of an eye by feeding off the products.
It’s the grandeur of the holistic totality with its resurrection climax that I found most appealing.
Had I wanted to limit the scope of my understanding of “fossil fuel” production to geologic realities, excluding living things from the equation for some mysterious “fossil” reason that I can’t fathom, I would have instead pointed to the serpentinization on Titan responsible for its methane seas. But then you might have asked, “Oh, why did you not consult an authority on cosmology?”
I note that you don’t cite anyone at all when you make bold claims about someone’s credentials as an ice-core pioneer. And when asked if you can verify your statements, you just keep repeating them without a reference!
Yet here you are demanding that I should use your preferred sources, while you still can’t furnish even one relevant link to your own preferred “authority.”
I also note that your preferred “authority” would have yielded nothing of value.
► “You seem to lack any founding in Geology. Hydrothermal activity has nothing to do with the mantle. It is confined to the crust.”
Actually, I’m founded from geology, and you seem to lack my depth of knowledge and understanding on the subject of methane, so you resort instead to dogmatic assertion and insults. Now, it so happens that those particular hydrothermal vents in question at “Lost City” are only 15 kms from the spreading center of the mid-Atlantic ridge. That’s a big clue that it might in fact have plenty to do with mantle rocks:
=======
“Unlike black smoker hydrothermal vents, LC is situated on exposed mantle rock, allowing for the serpentinization process to abiotically produce of methane and hydrogen gas”
microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Lost_City_Hydrothermal_Field
=======
and:
=======
“Here it is important to keep in mind that while magmatic or mantle-derived CH4 generation is abiotic, not all abiotic CH4 is mantle driven.”
–Natural Gas Seepage: The Earth’s Hyrdocarbon Degassing, Giuseppe Etiope, p.141
(Petroleum geologist, Senior Researcher at National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Rome)
=======
►“I can tell you most definitely that methane in sediments is organically derived. This is textbook stuff.”
I can see that you can’t be bothered to cite any of that “texbook stuff,” or refer to any evidence that might support your dogmatic assertion. Since you are too lazy and condescending to do so, let me try half-heartedly to do exactly that on your behalf, quote:
=======
“Below the seafloor, an unknown but potentially vast biosphere of microbes may be making the methane that percolates upward."
-When Seafloor Meets Ocean, the Chemistry Is Amazing
(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Dept, February 13, 2004)
=======
► “Methane in the mantle is idiotic fantasy. For hydrogen in mineral species of the mantle, see amphiboles. For carbon in mantle, see diamonds. For composition of volatiles derived from the mantle, see analysis of oceanic volcanoes such as in Hawaii.”
Methane in the mantle is a repeatedly demonstrated reality (op.cit x 3). For hydrogen liberated from mineral species in the mantle see i) “serpentinization” and ii) “Hydrogen generation from mantle source rocks in Oman” (Neal & Stanger, 1984). For deep carbon from the mantle in petroleum (rock oil) see “diamondoids.” For composition of volatiles derived from the mantle see (figure 14 in particular) Helium and Hydrogen Soil Gas Anomolies Associated with Deep or Active Faults (Jones & Pirkle, 1981.)
► “Do yourself a favor and consult those who are knowledgeable on the subject?
My webpage on the subject is recommended for study by this expert on the subject:
http://martinhovland.weebly.com/biography.html
Do yourself a favor: click on my name and study the content on my website. You might learn something.
[Long, very detailed reply. Thank you. .mod]
Khwarizmi:
I have a BS Geology and I know whereof I speak. You do not appear to have basic geologic understanding. You give the impression of a pretender.
1. Methane in sediments is organically derived. See any textbook in the subject.
2. Oceanic crust us not mantle. Any textbook on the subject will help you and you badly need help. You are badly confused.
3. Ultramafic rocks may be found in the crust. See kimberlite, fayalite, ultramafic. Hydrothermal processes are confined to the crust; likewise serpetinization. Any basic textbook will confirm this.
4. You ignored analysis of volatiles of oceanic volcanoes, these deriving from the mantle and showing no methane or minute traces (probably sample contamination). This data is conclusive and utterly refutes your idiotic notions of methane coming from the mantle.
My friend, you come on as an uninformed crank spouting about that which you are clueless. I will not be visiting your website, thanks but no thanks.
Well meant advice: refrain from commenting on matters that involve geology.
Furthermore, Khwarizmi,
I perused your NOAA Lost City reference. This article makes it clear that it is oceanic crust that is involved in the study. It uses the word “crust” or ” crustal” several times in the report in describing the geothermal processes.The Atlantic Massif rises to within 700 metres of the surface of the ocean, according to your reference, and in your confusion you imagine this to be the mantle. Never have I encountered such utter confusion as you display in this thread. You need help.
Perhaps we are in a period of decreasing Methane seepage. What then? :
Rising sealevel should tend to stabilize the clathrate desposits with increasing pressure. Only under massive sealevel drop, say at the beginning of glacial periods would I expect the clathrates to become massively destabilized.
I like the idea that methane released from the ocean floor explains the mysterious Bermuda triangle.
The planes flew into a cloud of methane and ignited it.
boats sailed into an area of sea water containing methane bubbles and couldn’t float.
Sorry to cloud the issue with facts but those who advocate denying the reality of man made climate change and its inherent dangers are guilty of willful blindness or worse. They have been duped by the same disinformation strategies used by lobbyists and PR firms promoting the interests of tobacco, lead, asbestos, and pesticide industries who are hard at work doing the same for the fossil fuel industry. So by all means light up a cigar, paint your family bedrooms with lead paint, fill up you pick-up truck with leaded gas, insulate your homes with asbestos and spray your fruit and vegetables with DDT…what could possibly go wrong? Cheers
Yes, “Scott”.
How many people do you demand be killed to prepare and maintain your ideal Garden of Gaea of no fossil fuels, natural insect (lack of) control, no refrigeration, no vaccines, no medicines, no fuel for transportation, farming, shipping, and preservation?
What are YOU doing to live in impoverished isolation huddling below your natural wool blanket in the rat-infested hovel you built by piling driftwood and windfalls together under the forest primeval? It is fossil fuels that INCREASED human life spans from 25 years just 200 years ago to today’s 60-70-80 and 90-year spans. Yes, I have lived in asbestos-insulated homes. I have lived in lead-painted walls – but did not “eat” the paint. My children did not “eat” the paint either. We did not “breathe” asbestos – we knew how to live with it and its benefits. We do not smoke – my father did for many years. I’ll call him tonight and see how his 85 birthday is going to be celebrated. And I’ll eat foods treated with pesticides, flown up from Chilean orchards for our pleasure, but washed in clean water treated with chemicals, pressured by electricity from fossil fuels, piped in steel melted under fossil fuels, rolled in mills power by fossil and nuclear plants, and shipped by fossil fuels rolling on highways built of concrete mined by fossil fuels, burned to carbonates by fossil fuels, stored and refrigerated in vessels and cans and cartons built by fossil fuels.
But 80% of YOUR world cannot enjoy those life-saving benefits due to YOUR fears.
You are propagandizing and exaggerating. YOU are killing millions each year with YOUR demand for deliberate energy poverty and deprivation. Feel better with those real deaths on YOUR head? Or do YOU deny those deaths YOU cause by YOUR religious fear and religious faith as YOU deny science and evidence?
Go ahead. Yes. YOU TOO should starve to death as YOU demand others starve to death in squalid infestations of parasites and vermin. Do don’t demand I starve for your fears as you deny the evidence of science.
Scott, the media used the same line about the dangers of the MMR vaccine.
Children died.
That can go wrong.