"the "CAT" terminology in seismic processing was being accepted by the editors of 'Nature' over a decade ago." Perhaps, I guess I've just never heard anyone use the term in discussions (though I've only been in the field for about 3 years now). So I do concede that "CAT" terminology may be appropriate, but the article uses "CAT scan," which has a distinctly medical connotation.

Who is going to teach these classes? The current generation of teachers would be entirely incapable. For this to happen there needs to be a massive push to hire qualified personnel, but what public school system in the US has the money to do this, especially given our current economic state? my hometown has been hit with budget cuts so high that they can't even afford to turn on the municipal christmas lights in the town center.

The use of the CAT scan analogy is rather poor for several reasons. This study uses a typical ground and sea based seismic survey. There is a new move in the earth sciences to actually use portable MRIs (like this one [magritek - terranova]) to obtain images of the earth, so when I initially skimmed the article, I saw the CAT scan reference so many times that I thought they might be trying something similar.
While seismology and cat scans share the basic purpose of remotely sensing the insides of an object and cat scans would be familiar to many readers, the analogy should have only been used once, in the body of the article. NOT in the title. A "CAT scan" DID NOT reveal "inner workings of volcano island." A seismic survey did.

The general public probably would not be able to get anything out of reading the journals. Instead they rely on:

To tell them what those wacky scientists are up to. What we need are: 1) a better educated general public 2) neutral sources that translate scientific articles into a form that is easily understood by the general public. Unfortunately I don't see #1 happening any time soon, and as for #2, most news sources are either politically motivated or are just after higher ratings, in which case they sensationalize every story as much as possible.

Especially true if global warming turns out to be not such a big deal - I fear scientists are in danger of becoming unfairly discredited. Every lecture I have attended on climate change has stressed that more data is needed before any firm conclusions can be made. There are trends and suggestions, but so few (if any) theories are ever proven as FACT. It is the non-experts who are re-wording the studies so that they read as facts rather than hypotheses.

install computer systems in the world's nuclear submarines which will follow your command when given the correct trigger.

check.

as long as they do so in a responsible manner so that it does not harm anyone else physically. Jumping off a building for example, could hurt others which overdosing would hurt only yourself (and possibly spare the body's discoverer some mental trauma due to any sort of mess). Laws should protect people from physical harm inflicted by other people, but should not protect people from themselves. If you cannot handle the inherent psychological difficulties that come with being born, you should seek help on your own. People can (and will) be assholes, but you're still responsible for your response to other peoples' actions. I signed no form of consent to be born, can I sue my parents for bringing me into a world which causes me pain from time to time? Warning, cold hearted social darwinist statement coming up: The developed countries of the world have overcome the traditional forces of natural selection. Instead we face predators like aids, cancer and, well, ourselves. We no longer have to be physically fit to catch our own food, instead our minds have to be able to rationally process the emotions that we have evolved to possess. NOTE, this is all obviously my opinion, and I recognize that most of you will disagree with me, but let's keep the discussion civil.

to get my prescription for hand grenades filled. while i'm there I might pick up some over the counter RPGs.