Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mt. St. Helens' Grumbling May Presage Eruption

Posted by timothy on from the sell-ash-to-easterners dept.

stand writes "The Seattle Times is reporting (press release here) that scientists believe that there is a 'significant chance of a small eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the days or weeks ahead.' There have been a series of earthquakes at the site in the last few days. I think it's about time Washington state took over the natural disaster coverage from Florida, don't you?"

40 comments

  1. hey felt one by Madcapjack · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    hey, felt a 6.0 today, in California. mod me offtopic.

    --
    Logic, macros, and more
    1. Re:hey felt one by jon787 · · Score: 1

      The only things more boring than news about Hurricanes in Florida are:
      * Forest Fires out West
      * Earthquakes in California

      Volcanoes going off are actually interesting.

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
    2. Re:hey felt one by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "hey, felt a 6.0 today, in California. mod me offtopic."

      I would but I'm worried they're connected.

      Stupid 10.4 movie. >:I

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:hey felt one by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 0

      You only felt a 6.0 if you live Parkfield or in Paso Robles. You can't possibly be reading Slashdot near Paso :)

      Now here is the misquote of the day, courtesy of CNN:

      "In nearby Redwood City, the quake delayed the murder trial of Scott Peterson after a juror reported feeling the tremors."

      Wait, what???? Redwood City is not nearby Parkfield at all-- it's 200 miles away-- a 4 hour drive, but it's nice they were able to fit in the Scott Peterson trial in there somewhere.

      I grew up 30 miles from the epicenter (Parkfield),
      I sometimes work in Redwood City and I live in Berkeley. It pains me that CNN looked so hard to find a connection to involve all 3 of these cities...

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    4. Re:hey felt one by shfted! · · Score: 1

      A 6.0 can be felt several hundred miles away, depending on the makeup of the earth between the two points.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    5. Re:hey felt one by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      Volcanoes going off are actually interesting.

      Unless you happen to live in Hawaii, where it's even more common than earthquakes in california.

    6. Re:hey felt one by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's only magnitude 6.0 at the epicenter. Someone who is several hundred miles away can feel it, but it's not a 6.0 .

      I've lived within 20 miles of the San Andreas fault for almost my entire life, and I can tell you that you will never, ever forget experiencing a 6.0 .

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    7. Re:hey felt one by OneOver137 · · Score: 1

      True Story: I almost slept through the Landers quake and shit was falling off the walls! I spent the night at a friend's house and he was trying to wake me up, but I told him, "you're full of shit!" They literally dragged me out of bed and I only came to once I heard the dishes breaking on the kitchen floor. I'll never forget that, and now as adults, he never lets me.

    8. Re:hey felt one by Madcapjack · · Score: 1

      Well, california does have earthquakes every day, it is true. But those are around the 2.9 level...barely noticeable. A 6.0 doesn't happen nearly so often, and a 6 would probably scare the fire out of most people out east, who report a 3 as if it were the second coming. ( :

      --
      Logic, macros, and more
    9. Re:hey felt one by Madcapjack · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was in this computer lab on the top floor, and this big oversized dude stood up and started walking around. At the same time, the earthquake struck- the floor was shaking beneath me, and I almost had thought it was him...

      --
      Logic, macros, and more
    10. Re:hey felt one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a 6 would probably scare the fire out of most people out east, who report a 3 as if it were the second coming."

      The second coming is never as intense as the first.

    11. Re:hey felt one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not always. depends on the position.

    12. Re:hey felt one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So four hurricanes in a month and 25 billion in damages do not excite you? How about the fact that Hurrican season does not end until November 30th, and we have not even hit the traditionally heavy period yet?

      Felt three, Charlie, Frances and Jeanne. The earth may shake for 10 minutes, but try 100+ mph sustaned winds, 120-130 mph gusts, for six hours.

    13. Re:hey felt one by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 1


      but still worth the effort :-]

      --
      http://request-header.info
  2. Washington by Izanagi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No, I think natural disaster coverage now shifts back to California

    --
    SCO (noun.)- A Slimy Corporate Ogre. Often seeks free money.
  3. Just Washington? by El · · Score: 1

    I hate to tell you this, but Mt. Saint Helens is just a few miles from the Oregon border, so any eruption effects southwest Washington and northwest Oregon equally.

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Just Washington? by floamy · · Score: 1

      It's more than just a few miles. It's a few hundred. It's near Cougar. Last time it blew, Portland (right on the border) wasn't affected besides some ash (not hot ash, just ash).

    2. Re:Just Washington? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not going to be an eruption. If there is, it's going to be so fucking insignificant that, if it weren't for DrudgeReport.com, nobody would give a fuck.

      This is all just fucking pointless sensationalism. /bored Portlander

    3. Re:Just Washington? by Txiasaeia · · Score: 2

      You're also forgetting several Canadian provinces, you know, the blacked out part at the top of your USA maps? :) (polite jab at USians, don't hate me - I order all my stuff from the US, I promise! /waves flag)

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    4. Re:Just Washington? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Probably not. It depends on the nature of the eruption and possibly (assuming a large enough eruption) which way the wind is blowing.

      Most likely any eruption from St. Helens would be very small and unlikely to affect much outside the immediate crater. That is, only SW Washington would be affected. If, however, there were an ash eruption, the wind direction would be a critical factor in determining areas affected. The wind usually blows E to W, so it's unlikely that Northern Oregon would be much affected, although NE Oregon might see a little bit of ash. It would take a pretty sizeable volume of ash to make it all the way to Oregon.

      In the event that a reasonable amount of ash-rich runoff made it in to the river systems, then Northern Oregon might be affected to the degree that the ash would affect water quality, ecology, or navigation in the Columbia River.

      It is, however, unlikely that any significant volume of ash would be produced, since that would require a significant amount of magma making its way to the surface, which we'd probably notice pretty readily. At this point we know there's something going on down there, but not enough is happening to think any significant volume of magma is moving (or to even assume any magma is moving at all -- it could just be water).

      So in summary: if anything happens Washington will be affected, but a pretty significant event would be required to affect Oregon. The probabilities are, however, that neither state will be materially affected.

    5. Re:Just Washington? by Nos. · · Score: 1

      Yes, I remember the last eruption here in Saskatchewan. Obviously not as badly as those closer, but I do remember a significant amount of ash coming down from the skys.

    6. Re:Just Washington? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you're UP on the map, and lava flows DOWN.
      You might get a poof of ash, but hold your breath for a few minutes and it'll float back down to Montana.

  4. Controlled eruption? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

    Not to sound like a bad Hollywood plot, but is it even imaginable that there could be a way to incite a controlled eruption? Something analogous to lancing a boyle or something...

    =Smidge=

    1. Re:Controlled eruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest that we sacrifice the current US administration to the volcano gods.

    2. Re:Controlled eruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Humans have only ever induced a single volcanic eruption. If I recall correctly, it was at a steam well in Iceland where the well tube became a conduit that allowed a very tiny amount of tephra to erupt. It damaged part of the pipe.

      To induce an eruption you would need to provide a path to the surface from an a pressurized magma body, and that path would have to be sufficiently robust to not get quickly plugged, or you would need remove enough pressure confining the magma that it could expand in spite of any remaining overburden. I'm not, however, a volcanologist so I don't know in a quantitative sense what kind of path to the magma you'd need to allow it to move or expand rapidly enough through the passage to maintain an eruption or not get plugged. Precisely what you'd need to do would certainly depend on the characteristics of the magma: dissolved volatile content, pressure, temperature, polymerization, and density among others. Again, I'm not a volcanologist.

      There might be problems doing a lot things that would trigger an eruption.

      For example, you might decide to drill a large diameter hole to the magma chamber, but doing so successfully would also destroy your drilling apparatus, never mind that if a magma body could be triggered, it would either probably be too deep to drill to in any reasonable length of time, or if you could drill to it fairly quickly you might be better off to just wait for it to erupt by itself (again, ignoring the problems of you erupting with it). Scientists are, in fact, drilling on various volcanoes around the world. Not to try to initiate an eruption (they've concluded there's very little risk of that occurring), but to understand better the internal structure of a volcano, cooling history, etc. Offhand I can think of drilling projects on Unzen (Japan) and Kilauea (Hawaii), but there are probably others.

      You might take a different approach: if you could create a large enough earthquake you might, under some exceptionally optimistic scenarious, be able trigger an eruption: In the 1980 eruption the immediate trigger was a magnitude 5.1 earthquake below the mountain that triggered the catastrophic collapse of the north face. This removed a large mass of overlying material that was confining the shallow magma chamber, and seconds after sliding away that magma took the opportunity to blast forcefully out the gaping hole that had conveniently been opened for it. Elsewhere volcanism is often linked to structural controls that allow magma to dribble through to the surface, but a fault line that provides a preexisting zone of weakness or geologic control on the general likelihood of volcanism is very different from a fault or earthquake being directly responsible for a particular eruption. If you were trying to cause an eruption you probably couldn't count on a major throughgoing fault, never mind that it would be extremely difficult to cause a magnitude 5+ earthquake on demand. Even if you did manage to find some way to cause a huge earthquake, it's very unlikely that it could open a fissure that would depressurize a magma chamber. (Actually, depressurization might not be necessary -- it might be enough to nucleate a lot of bubbles if the the chamber were already in a critical state, but I don't know how reasonable such an approach would be. I'm pretty sure that at the least it would require a volcano that was just about ready to blow anyway for something like an earthquake to be a catastrophic nucleation trigger. Did I mention I'm not a volcanologist?)

      But hell, if you can create a giant earthquake, why fiddle with trying to cause an eruption too?

      So maybe another approach is called for. Consider reducing the confining pressure on the magma. You might be able to blast off the overburden, but if you have the explosive devices needed to remove a thousand or so vertical feet of rock, why waste time using them on a volcano? Instead of explosives, perhaps you could cause a large steam explosion by injecting large volumes of water in the fractured rock

    3. Re:Controlled eruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At last, a use for ground-penetrating nukes!

  5. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats funny.

    Maybe you should become a supervillian!

  6. No reason to worry by bar-agent · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the article:

    "Such an event could fling ash and rocks thousands of feet into the air but would not be expected to pose hazards beyond the volcano's crater and flanks."

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  7. Dupe by complete+loony · · Score: 1, Informative

    Dupe Dupe Dupe Dupe ... (sung to the theme of Gold Gold Gold Gold ...)

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    1. Re:Dupe by CaptainCheese · · Score: 1

      Uhuh. Uuuum, why is your link also linked in this slashdot article? Could it be that you're karma whoring, or are you simply unobservant?

      I suggest you learn to tell the difference between an update and a dupe.

      --
      -- .sigs are a waste of data...turn them off...
    2. Re:Dupe by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      well IANAS, but it didn't look to me like any new information had been revealed.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  8. Don't trust what they tell you.... by HonkyLips · · Score: 1, Troll

    In Bill Bryson's excellent book, "A short history of nearly everything" (ISBN 076790818X) he gives a fascinating account of the lead up to the last erruption at Mt St Helens which killed over 60 people. If it wasn't for the fact that so many unfortunate people died, the appalling errors of judgement and subsequent decisions made at the time would be really funny (in a Dilbert way). So if you live in the area, I wouldn't trust the "experts". Learn from history.

    --
    Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.
    1. Re:Don't trust what they tell you.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I disagree with your premise. Unfortunate events in the 1980 eruption are not a valid reason not to trust the experts today.

      For one thing, we know a lot more about Mt. St. Helens and Cascade volcanoes today than we did then. By that I mean since the 1980 eruption the behaviors of the mountain have been extremely carefully studied and monitored. Every aspect of the eruption has been reviewed countless times. St. Helens is one of the best studied stratovolcanoes in the world. Scientists have swarmed over every square foot of the mountain, listened to it 24 hours a day with seismographs, and carefully monitored every aspect of its development. We've also applied our knowledge gained from the 1980 event and subsequent eruptions to other volcanoes, and re-applied the additional knowledge back to St. Helens. The range of possible behaviors in an eruption have been much more tightly constrained. With the benefit of today's knowledge the human toll of the eruption would be dramatically diminished.

      Second, just because certain mistakes were made once it does imply they will be made again, let alone that any of the circumstances are similar.

      Third, the potential for a catastrophic eruption is virtually nil, and any misjudgements will almost necessarily be smaller in absolute terms. For example, if someone predicted a steam explosion would spread rock fragments around the crater, but instead fifty cubic meters of ash erupted, the person making the prediction would be totally wrong, but the effect would be negligible. Right now there isn't any reason to think any significant volume of magma is moving through the mountain, and without a lot of magma there's only so much damage you can do. And again, it's very difficult not to notice a large volume of magma moving through the mountain. This time there's no giant bulge on the side of the mountain, etc. There's already been a climactic eruption. It'll be difficult for there to be another similar one since (as already noted) there's no evidence of any magma (which is a prerequisite), and much of the mountain is already gone! It would be like burning down your house: it would be hard to burn it down again the next day.

      If we shouldn't trust the people who have studied the mountain, then whom should we trust? Do you recommend people run screaming through the streets or move to Kansas or something? What do you imagine happening, and what basis do you have to think it might happen?

      The "experts" are indeed experts, and are very dedicated to understanding the mountain and predicting its behavior.

  9. Anticipating the /. Microsoft Slams by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
    I think it's about time Washington state took over the natural disaster coverage from Florida, don't you?

    FYI, Microsoft is an Unnatural Disaster.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  10. I don't knwo where I'm a gonna go.... by crapnutassneck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone else from the area remember the first time? I was 7, playing in my house in Longview, Wa. We heard the news, went out in the backyard and watched the mushroom cloud. Then got inside as about 3 inches of ash piled up on everything. We had to wear little paper masks to go outside....

    --
    .-=Wit is educated insolence=-. -Aristotle
    1. Re:I don't knwo where I'm a gonna go.... by tclark · · Score: 1

      I lived in Lake Stevens, Washington at the time. On the morning of May 18th my dog started barking for no apparent reason. A moment later, we head a very loud boom that sounded like it could have come from our front yard.

      We were not downwind, so we didn't get any significant ash.

    2. Re:I don't knwo where I'm a gonna go.... by crapnutassneck · · Score: 1

      Where is Lake Stevens? Kelso/Longview are about 25mi southwest. If you go south on I5 Kelso is the town that you end up breaking down in and going to the McDondalds or Sharis. The one with the big K on the hill. They actually did a great job of marketing it with a little "interpretive center" in Kelso.

      --
      .-=Wit is educated insolence=-. -Aristotle
    3. Re:I don't knwo where I'm a gonna go.... by tclark · · Score: 1

      Lake Stevens nowhere near there. It's north of Seattle. That's what was so impressive about the sound.

  11. Re: ...when the volcano blow. by BigT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I also was 7 when it blew the first time. I was living in Missoula, MT, about 500 miles away. Being young, I didn't know much about volcanoes and was expecting to see lava come rolling down the valley. I didn't know what to think when it started 'snowing' grey stuff. We also had to wear the masks to go outside to clean it up. We had about an inch of ash.

    --
    Is it weird in here, or is it just me?
  12. It's not a "Dupe" by CaptainCheese · · Score: 1

    well, seeing as the article you link is about what the USGS and the University of Washington said on suday the 26th and the article referenced in the seattle times goes on about what the vulcanologists, geophysicists, seismographs and Mount St Helens did on the 27th, I'd say there was some new information revealed. A classic case of RTFA unfortunately...

    --
    -- .sigs are a waste of data...turn them off...