Boffa Jones Veteran Posted December 31, 2005 Veteran Share Posted December 31, 2005 SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- Fifteen months after Mount St. Helens reawakened, the volcano is continuing to release massive amounts of lava in an unusual geologic display that in some respects confounds scientists. Roughly every three seconds, a large dump truck load's worth of lava -- 10 cubic yards -- oozes into the mountain's crater. And with the sticky molten rock comes a steady drumfire of small earthquakes. The unremitting, monthslong pace is not common, said U.S. Geological Survey geologist Dave Sherrod. Experts say it is unclear what the activity signifies or how long it will continue. "One view of this eruption is that we're at the end of the eruption that began in 1980," Sherrod said. "If it hadn't been so cataclysmic ... it might instead have gone through 30 or 40 years of domebuilding and small explosions." St. Helens' violent May 18, 1980, eruption blasted 3.7 billion cubic yards of ash and debris off the top of the mountain. Fifty-seven people died in the blast, which left a gaping crater in place of the perfect, snowclad cone that had marked the original 9,677-foot peak known as "America's Mount Fuji." St. Helens -- now 8,325 feet -- rumbled for another six years, extruding 97 million cubic yards of lava onto the crater floor in a series of 22 eruptions that built a 876-foot dome. The volcano, located about 100 miles south of Seattle, fell silent in 1986. Then in September 2004, the drumfire of low-level quakes began -- occasionally spiking above magnitude 3, but generally ranging between magnitude 1 and 2. Since then the mountain has squeezed out about 102 million cubic yards of lava. All the recent activity has remained within the crater, though scientists -- keenly aware of the potential damage that silica-laced ash can pose to jet engines -- monitor St. Helens closely for plumes of smoke and ash that can go as high as 30,000 feet. "We haven't had that kind of plume since March 8, which is either a blessing or it leads us into complacency," Sherrod said, adding quickly, "We avoid complacency." It's not entirely clear where the lava is coming from. If it were being generated by the mountain, scientists would expect to see changes in the mountain's shape, its sides compressing as lava is spewed out. But at the current rate of extrusion, "three or four months would have been enough time to exhaust what was standing in the conduit," Sherrod said. That suggests resupply from greater depths, which normally would generate certain gases and deep earthquakes. Neither is being detected. "That's one of the headscratchers, I guess," Sherrod said. SOURCE CNN Hrm, I wonder if a larger eruption will occur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhangm Supervisor Posted December 31, 2005 Supervisor Share Posted December 31, 2005 Objectively, it would be pretty cool if there were another large explosion. Practically, it wouldn't be so great for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shibby Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 hmmm i like reading these sort of things as it gives me insight in to some of natures nasty things. Maybe it could be spoiling for an etruption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I hope this doesnt turn out as bad as it did in the 80s. my mom said they had ash all the way in colorado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quanta Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 The fact is, there is so much we don't understand about our planet. The magma pipe might just drain away in these little spurts, or it may all build up and explode like it did in the '80s. The supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park may go at any time too. Fun trivia: Helen's last eruption blew 1,000 feet off its peak, and obliterated everything in a fifty mile radius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyout Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I would not be worried about Mt. St. Helens....i would be worried about Yellowstone.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningking7 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I would not be worried about Mt. St. Helens....i would be worried about Yellowstone.... What's wrong with Yellowstone right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhangm Supervisor Posted January 9, 2006 Supervisor Share Posted January 9, 2006 What's wrong with Yellowstone right now? There's a supervolcano under Yellowstone, basically a giant "blister" of magma is building up under it. That region is overdue for an eruption, according to some theories and evidence that suggest this supervolcano has a cycle of 70,000-100,000 years between eruptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOC Veteran Posted January 9, 2006 Veteran Share Posted January 9, 2006 What's wrong with Yellowstone right now? To put it simply, when Yellowstone erupts, the entire planet will feel it. Most of the area near Yellowstone will be either destroyed completely, or made uninhabitable for awhile. Surrounding areas in the US will see the ash clouds first, then worldwide. Etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LispyGlitter2 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I'm not too worried about Mount St. Helens erupting again. They've been warning us Seattlites for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epimetheus Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 To put it simply, when Yellowstone erupts, the entire planet will feel it. Most of the area near Yellowstone will be either destroyed completely, or made uninhabitable for awhile. Surrounding areas in the US will see the ash clouds first, then worldwide. Etc etc. Can you say...BOOM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatboytt Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 More like *BO- The light. I see the light. :sleep: Though if St. Helens does constantly rumble out magma like this, won't it mean that the chance for an explosion(w00t) would be pretty unlikely? Seeing as the magma has no chance to build up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shibby Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Who knows. you never know what nature can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 More like *BO- The light. I see the light. :sleep: Though if St. Helens does constantly rumble out magma like this, won't it mean that the chance for an explosion(w00t) would be pretty unlikely? Seeing as the magma has no chance to build up. If the buildup/pressure overwhelms the amount being already released, yea an explosion can happen, think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadwick Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 when you are talking a span of 70,000-100,000 years that most likely means we won't be seeing it happen, and probably not our children, basically there is a 30,000 year range that it should occur in and hte odds are low that we will live to see the lucky year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Des429 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 ^^ someone in like 5,000 years when it erupts is gonna read that and say "god damn" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruBD Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 yea i saw that Yellowstone one in Discovery channel, crazy what would happen if it was to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts