Mt. St. Helens

Janice · #1 Postby **Janice** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:34 pm

Today, CNN has Breaking News that fresh magma is on the move and it is highly possible for an eruption within the next 24 hours. The activity is high. Numerious earthquakes. They are evacuating people now.

#2 Postby **LAwxrgal** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:37 pm

Wow...first all the hurricanes now the volcano wakes up!

Janice · #3 Postby **Janice** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:38 pm

CNN reported that just because it appears calm on the surface does not mean that it is not dangerous and active below. Indications show something is going to happen from what they are seeing from testing what is happening below.

Stormsfury · #4 Postby **Stormsfury** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:53 pm

Level 3 alert was issued earlier today, because of the tremors taking on a more continuous rumble, also known as a harmonic tremor ... the quakes/tremors are the most active and the strongest since the 1980 eruption, although right now, USGS is NOT expecting a 1980 type eruption ...

SF

#5 Postby **LAwxrgal** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:04 pm

They've ordered an evac of the area surrounding Mt. St. Helens...those evac scenes do look familiar eh?

ohiostorm · #6 Postby **ohiostorm** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:07 pm

I think I would be more scared of the volcano. Anyone else?

weatherlover427 · #7 Postby **weatherlover427** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:10 pm

Um, I would. I wouldn't want to be burned and crisped to death. :eek:

frankthetank · #8 Postby **frankthetank** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:28 pm

Any chance that they could be underestimating this thing? Just wondering if we could have a large eruption... I just think forecasting these things is pretty spotty...i guess we'll see!

CaluWxBill · #9 Postby **CaluWxBill** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:42 pm

Joshua21Young wrote:Um, I would. I wouldn't want to be burned and crisped to death.

When in reality, you would.

A) choke to death

or

B) Get buried in a pyroclastic flow and falling debris.

Website · #10 Postby **Brent** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:53 pm

Give me a hurricane over a volcano anyday. Thank God there are no volcanoes anywhere close to here. :eek:

I don't believe Mount Saint Helens has the capability of a 1980-style eruption. Yes a large eruption could occur, but not like 1980. 1,400 feet of the mountain was BLOWN OFF then.

CaluWxBill · #11 Postby **CaluWxBill** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 10:43 pm

Brent wrote:Give me a hurricane over a volcano anyday. Thank God there are no volcanoes anywhere close to here.

I don't believe Mount Saint Helens has the capability of a 1980-style eruption. Yes a large eruption could occur, but not like 1980. 1,400 feet of the mountain was BLOWN OFF then.

The only thing is I am not sure what the support is off the rest of the volcano. without the North side, certainly an entire collapse of the perimiter seems likely if another semi-major eruption occurs.

Stormchaser16 · #12 Postby **Stormchaser16** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:09 am

With magma on the move how are they so sure it will not be near a 1980 style eruption?

Guest · #13 Postby **Guest** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:50 am

if a large amount of lava was released, the lava dome beneath would empty. This would bring the possibility of the entire mountain collapsing, similar to Krakatoa. This however, wouldn't be quite on that scale. NOTE: there is a very slim chance of this happening.

Tornado_Chaser2005 · #14 Postby **Tornado_Chaser2005** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:30 am

Mt Saint Helen's in 1980 did not so called erupted on it's own. An Earthquake of high magnitude made a landslide of the entire North face of the Volcano, causing everything on the northern side to slide down. this uncovered the magma chamber, and it exploded in a volcanic eruption. it you look, only the Northern sides of the volcano surroundings had anything really happen to them. the southern side was completely untouched, even from the ash cloud. This is why the eruption was so great, is because it was the whole north face sliding down, casuing a major slide on northern communities. If this happens again in a landslide event, we will probably see another 1980 type event. But if it erupts on it's own without the help of a landslide, then, it shouldnt measure the 1980 eruption.

Tornado Chaser

Tornado_Chaser2005 · #15 Postby **Tornado_Chaser2005** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 pm

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Portland/vis1loop.html

Mt Saint Helens is letting off steam. The Satellite loop above clearly shows it!

Tornado Chaser

BaltimoreGirl · #16 Postby **BaltimoreGirl** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:19 pm

A friend just sent me this link. I don't know if it's been posted already, but if it has, I apologize. Has a webcam and all sorts of info

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/

#17 Postby **Aslkahuna** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:01 pm

While the MM5.0 earthquake did trigger the debris flow avalanche that resulted in the sudden blast, it was part of the earthquake sequence associated with the impending eruption. Furthermore, it was the movement of magma that resulted in the unstable bulge on the north face that collapsed with the shock. Had that sequence of events not occurred it is likely that something else would have triggered a major event. In that case, it might have been a more vertical blast and quite possible a summit collapse event which would have still triggered pyroclastic flows but not the necessarily the extreme lateral blast. When one looks at Vesuvius and notes the old cone remnants around the current volcanic cone (the old cone being the intact one that erupted in AD79), one cannot help but to notice some similarities with St. Helens in the fact that one whole face of the old cone is missing and appears to have collapsed in that historic eruption.

Steve

Mt. St. Helens

Mt. St. Helens

Mt. St. Helens

Who is online