Mount St. Helens is WA state's No. 1 air polluter

John Patrick Luethe writes "The Seattle Times has run an article on Mount St. Helens' recent massive pollution. The article claims that since the start of the recent volcanic activity starting in early October the volcano has pumped out between 50 and 250 tons of sulfur dioxide each day and has become the states largest polluter."

Comments

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Anonymous Coward]

A major event outside of rare caldera forming eruptions absolutely dwarfs human activity. The earth is big, and has a lot of heat capacity, mechanical energy and internal energy in the form compressed gases. We are very very small and tinker around insignificantly on the very outer layers of its skin. Ants are far bigger actors on a forest than we are on the earth. We're just better at measuring things.

Pollution?

[glapalom]

How can anyone say that Mt. St. Helens actually pollutes? I mean, isn't this just a natural volcanic reaction, and if so, how can a planet pollute itself with it's own elements? Isn't this just part of being on this planet?

Re:Pollution?

[TheNarrator]

You forget that humans did not land here from outer space. We are a product of the earth too. So how can naked apes like us burning fossil fuels, given that we are part of the earth just like the volcano, be any worse than what the volcano does? In the 19th century there were theories called "vitalism" that said that there was something about human life that was so fantastic that it was not understandable to science. The modern environmentalist movement has this same idea, that somehow humans are different from the rest of nature.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[fm6]

By "organic" I assume you mean "crop-based". Except that it takes energy to grow crops. By some calculations, it takes more than you produce.

Perspective

[TheLink]

Sure. The way I see it is: we have brains, the power to change things AND are already changing things whether voluntarily or not. There are 6 billion of us. The animals and plants directly under our control and responsibility number even more.

So, we should be careful to pick the changes we want so that we have a decent time on this world (and possibly other worlds).

Trying to minimize the number of species from going extinct just for the sake of that is silly. Trying to prevent any change to the environment is silly too. But changing or allowing change to the environment without long-term consideration is irresponsible.

If whales etc have to go extinct then it better be a well thought out choice, rather than "oops".

But I sure think we'd be better off if all the bloodsucking mosquitoes go extinct and stay extinct. Sure some animals will suffer and might even go extinct if they (or their prey) don't have enough mosquitoes to eat, but NOT all will. Some will adapt and many wouldn't even notice the difference - after all there ARE other mosquitoes and insects that don't suck blood. Adapt to a human-friendly lifestyle or die (same goes for humans ;) ).

Just like we'd be better off without HIV and Polio, and various _nasty_ parasites. We can live with some of the other parasites or pests (I don't like roaches, but they don't seem as harmful as the bloodsucking types of mosquitoes).

What we need is clear thinking and not irrational screaming of "Murder" etc. Sure, I'm cold and heartless, but if a species has to go extinct or suffer for the greater good of humankind, so be it.

But it better be for the greater good!

Hopefully most people don't believe "As long as things don't get totally messed up in my lifetime it's OK".

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[fluffy666]

Do you have any numbers to back that up? (Answer: No, but that's not going to stop you posting, of course)

Re:Everyone always talks about volcanic CO2 pollut

[jonabbey]

The article actually focuses on Sulfur Dioxide production, not Carbon Dioxide. Volcanos do produce CO2, but the article states that one coal plant in Washington State produces 28 times more CO2 than does Mt. St. Helens.

Not representative

[hak hak]

The tone of most reactions to this article (and to all other recent topics on climate change) seems to be, "Well, apparently natural effects are much more important than human effects, so why bother about the human impact on climate change?"

We should realize that this particular case of natural greenhouse gas emission is not at all representative for the relative importance of human and natural effects. If you restrict to a small enough area and timespan, any effect becomes important. Why say that Mt. St. Helens is WA state's biggest pollutor, and not that volcanic effects dwarf human contributions in the whole US (or the whole world)? Because if you look on a bigger scale than just the area around the volcano, volcanic effects are just not that important. I'm not saying they are unimportant, only that industrial effects are at least as important.

And then I'm not even talking about the extremely short timescale this volcano is active (only for a couple of months, while industrial activity continues 24/7).

By the way, I absolutely do not regard myself as overly green or left-wing. I would like to believe that everything's going to be alright, but the facts are unfortunately too obvious to ignore.