Here's a quotation from the BBC web-site about their own program

"State-of-the-art computer graphics integrated with mock-factual sources make for a horrifyingly realistic build-up to the eruption and the climax itself."

Mock-factual sources, eh? Now you know why a I have a bumper-sticker that says "Smoke-free, drug-free, media-free."

I've been the United States Geological Survey's sites about Yellowstone. There is no doubt that there is a hot-spot (or something) under there. That's no surprise. However, the BBC isn't asking itself why, if there's a permanent feature under there, it seems to cause an eruption every 600,000 years. So maybe the 600,000 year "cycle" is baloney. Maybe the hot spot is cooling off or spreading out. Maybe it has gone under thicker, sounder crust and can't do so much damage.

Also, there is no guarantee that a future eruption will happen overnight - that it will be an explosion like Mount St Helens'. It could be more gradual, with many small eruptions occurring over a long period of time. But that idea wouldn't fit in well with TV-people's love for fear, worry and drama, would it?