Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Supervolcano Beneath Mt. St. Helens?

Posted by kdawson on from the don't-know-where-i'm-a-gonna-go dept.

We've discussed the supervolcano beneath Yellowstone a few times here (not going to blow, 2004; going to blow, 2008). Now scientists are pondering whether a large area of conductive material beneath Mt. St. Helens might contain enough magma that the area could be classed a supervolcano. The jury is still out on this one. Reader nhytefall sends us a New Scientist progress report. "Magma can be detected with a technique called magnetotellurics, which builds up a picture of what lies underground by measuring fluctuations in electric and magnetic fields at the surface. The fields fluctuate in response to electric currents traveling below the surface, induced by lightning storms and other phenomena. The currents are stronger when magma is present, since it is a better conductor than solid rock. ... [M]easurements revealed a column of conductive material that extends downward from the volcano. About 15 km below the surface, the relatively narrow column appears to connect to a much bigger zone of conductive material. This larger zone was first identified in the 1980s by another magnetotelluric survey, and was found to extend all the way to beneath Mount Rainier 70 km to the north-east, and Mount Adams 50 km to the east. It was thought to be a zone of wet sediment, water being a good electrical conductor. ... [Some researchers] now think the conductive material is more likely to be a semi-molten mixture. Its conductivity is not high enough for it to be pure magma.. so it is more likely to be a mixture of solid and molten rock."

10 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Mount Helen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, most slashdotters would mount anyone with that name.

    1. Re:Mount Helen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Chances are that they'll forget to use sudo the first time...

  2. Don't panic by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 4, Funny

    It connects to Yellowstone, and will soon be a second moon.

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    1. Re:Don't panic by ionix5891 · · Score: 3, Funny

      thats no moon

  3. If the west coast blows up by kbrasee · · Score: 5, Funny

    can I have your stuff?

  4. pffft! It's not "Supervolcano" by Itninja · · Score: 4, Funny

    I did a little reading under Supervolcano on Wikipedia and it says "...supervolcano was not a technical term used in volcanology. The term megacaldera is sometimes used.."

    You got that? It's a Megacaldera guys. Only total n00bz call it a supervolcano! I bet you guys called Yoda a Jedi Knight too....everybody knows he was a Jedi MASTER.

    ....hehe...supervolcano.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:pffft! It's not "Supervolcano" by syousef · · Score: 5, Funny

      "...supervolcano was not a technical term used in volcanology. The term megacaldera is sometimes used.."

      It's a supervolcano if it wears it's underwear on the outside.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:pffft! It's not "Supervolcano" by dimeglio · · Score: 3, Funny

      In my opinion, all volcanoes are all "super." Monsters like Mt. Etna and Vesuvius would be typical in size. Super would be what? The size of Cuba, Iceland, Tasmania - that would be super. How about exovolcanoes (or is it exoplanetary volcanoes)? Do you use the same scale?

      I suppose that since the Mt. St-Helens is in the USA, it must be a super something.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  5. So, to summarize recent science news on Slashdot: by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the supernova don't get us the supervolcano will!

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  6. Re:Gov. Jindal isn't worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Left winger: States a position.
    Right winger: States a differing opinion.
    Left winger: repeats some unverifiable "facts" he read in some pamphlet.
    Right winger: criticize the methodology of the facts. states that they are well known as urban legends even though he didn't even listen to the facts. Then proceed to make up some other facts that make the left winger visibly upset.
    Left winger: Accuses the right winger of making it up, or quoting "Right wing conspiracy talking points".
    Right winger: Provides numerous sources that cite each each pretending the other has collected the hard data.
    Left winger: Calls right winger a racist, hate monger, bigot, homophobe.
    Right winger: Call left winger an appeaser, a traitor and a spawn of Satan.
    Left winger: proceed to form an argument ad consequentium
    Right winger: proceed to form a straw man.
    Left winger: proceed to cite every logical fallacy then states that all right winger arguments are among those fallacies. Fails to understand he also committed those fallacies.
    Right winger and left winger: start insulting each other. Get their adrenaline hate fix for the day.

    fixed