Talk:Mount St. Helens: Difference between revisions

Template:V0.5

Mount St.Helens Fact Sheet

A Suggestion

I would greatly appreciate a new section to your article. The main subject should be volcano protection (How to be protected from Mount Saint Helens...Is it possible to stop Mount Saint Helens fron erupting?...etc.) Emprovision 11:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• How to be protected: Move to South America. How to stop it from erupting: Put a sock in it. Wahkeenah 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A question

Could anyone tell me what record St Helens Holds and why, and What was unique about the eruption and why. Would be appreciated...

Huge123 20:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

From the article, it states that:

The debris avalanche from the 1980 eruption was up to 0.7 cubic miles (2.3 km3) in volume, making it the largest in recorded history.

That's the only "record" that I know of that MSH holds. The article does indicate in the very next sentence that this debris avalanche pales in comparison to ones known to have taken place in geological history. Hope this helps.

Mike 22:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks very much

Huge123 14:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the unique things about the eruption, often overlooked, was how accessible it was for the USGS as well as television media, and that its the only volcanic eruption in the 48 contiguous states in modern history. Much larger eruptions on far-off Pacific Islands didn't hold as much interest in the U.S. as one in our own backyard, and I think because of that, and how much more readily the USGS could get personnel and equipment in to study the 1980 eruption of St. Helens brought a lot of breakthroughs to make it easier for scientists to recognize the warning signs about an imminent eruption in a volcano. --Chibiabos 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why so little people were killed?

why were so little people killed in the 1980 eruption? Huge123 14:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A combination of reasons ... namely, not many people lived within the blast radius. In fact, most who died were timber workers, scientists and tourists. The lahars cause quite a bit of damage, taking out bridges and roadways, but not a lot of people lived close to the Toutle or Cowlitz rivers. The major nearby metropolitan areas -- Portland, Vancouver, Olympia, Tacoma and Seattle -- were out of reach of most of the eruption's effects, with the exception of ash which itself was limited by the fact the region generally has a good onshore flow (wind blowing inland). A brief offshore flow was enough to blow ash westward and utterly choke I-5, but most of the ash travelled eastward. --Chibiabos 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There were other reasons as well. The big eruption was preceded by several smaller eruptions and earthquakes in approximately a monthly cycle, for two or three months. This worried most people causing many to move away and making potential visitors more hesitant to visit the area. I think government officials attempted to evacuate the area, and were fairly effective at first, though as the weeks went by, the more daring returned. Also, I think that was a fairly good snow year, so snow impeded or blocked access to the more remote and dangerous areas. —EncMstr 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why were "so little people" killed? Oy! Anyway, I recall that the government did evacuations, although some (like the irascible Harry R. Truman) refused to leave. People were soon grumbling about the evacuations. Once the eruption occurred, those complaints mysteriously dried up. Wahkeenah 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

2006 activity

There appears to be a new story to add here and at 2004 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens:

• Massive lava 'fin' rises up in Mount St. Helens' crater

There's more info at

• USGS: Mount St. Helens, Washington Eruption 2004 to 2006

but they're awfully vague about everything, referring constantly to "new growths" with little context. I'm not sure what to write, so I'll just leave this note here. Melchoir 01:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Reduced size of sidetrack

I reduced the paragraph-breaking sidetrack about LARGEST eruption, and made it a shorter parantehtical. I found that the talk about Alaska and such made for an awkward segue to the details of the damage, making it sound like the damage was done in the Alaska eruption. Surely those interested in the other eruption can follow the link.

I also removed the word 'initially' with regard to the native American name. We can't know if that was the initial name, but it was the name used at the time Europeans arrived to record it. It is quite possible that the name changed over time or was totally different during earlier waves of migration.

Paulc206 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Carbon contribution?

I came looking for info on how much carbon Helens has been releasing with it's new activity. I ended up googling since nothing was here, one newspaper reported between 500-1000 tons a day (as compared to a typical US family contributing 50 tons a year). That's the amount of 5,000 families... Is there some hard reference that could be added? -RJFerret 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No -- 12.116.162.162 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why no red lava?

Kind of a dumb question, but why wasn't there any red lava when it erupted? The volcanoes in Hawaii spew tons of firey red lava, but this eruption mostly looked like thick black smoke, and mudslides Malamockq 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but I do have an answer to this question. The lava in Hawaii has a very low viscosity (it flows rather freely) and so they produce the now familiar rivers of lava. However, in a volcano like St. Helens the lava is very, very thick and gaseos. It forms plugs and water seeping in from the glaciers meet the hot magma and vaporize into steam, producing the bulge before the eruption and the explosive results of St. Helens and other similar volcanos. -Delphi (sorry I don't have a name here yet)

As I understand it, the reason it has less viscosity in Hawaii is because it has less distance to travel before erupting (and, thus, less time to cool off and is thus hotter) in Hawaii because Hawaii's volcanoes have much lower elevation. --Chibiabos 16:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Temperature due to distance traveled has little to nothing to do with it. Chibiabos had most of the answer. The only thing missed is the reason why the lava at St Helens tends to have a higher viscosity and thus tends to trap gas (all lava has lots of gas in it, but freely flowing lava lets it escape easily); it has a higher silica content. The reason for that is the fact that the magma that produced the lava had to travel through and melt continental crust, which has a higher silica content than the oceanic crust that Hawaii's magma must travel through. In fact, the higher silica content makes continental crust lighter than oceanic crust, making it float and rise a bit higher in it not unlike icebergs.

That all said, the picture is more complicated; there have in fact been many red lava flows at St Helens and other stratovolcanoes. The reason? There is not always enough trapped gas in the lava to cause it to explode and turn the lava into super-heated ash and pumice. In fact, there are even some basaltic lava flows on St Helens and some other stratovolcanoes. Those flows tend to follow large eruptions and tend to be from the bottom of the magma chamber (where the heavier magma tends to settle). Even more odd is the fact that many Cascade volcanoes started life as shield volcanoes (the same kind as seen at Hawaii where almost all lava is non-explosive). --mav 15:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the Hawaii volcanoeos are Hot Spot volcanoes... And what "DELPHIE" said --Mr. Bigely 20:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"Mr. Bigely"

Vandalism?

Below the initial introduction and immediately above the table of contents, I see the characters BPC BABY. I can't find them in the edit box to remove them; they look like "graffiti" to me.

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia edits -- can someone delete the phrase, or explain how to do it? Thanks!

Klickitat indian name for Mount St. Helens

Klickitat indian's called Mount St. Helens Tah-one-lat-clah or "Fire Mountain"

Harris, Stephen L.  Fire mountains of the west : the Cascade and Mono Lake volcanoes / Stephen L. Harris. Missoula, MT : Mountain Press Pub. Co., 2001, c1988. 

ur huge The current text reads... The fair Loowit became Mount St. Helens, known to the Klickitats as Louwala-Clough which means "smoking or fire mountain" in their language (the Sahaptin called the mountain Loowit).[7]

The source cited never states that the Klickitat, specifically, called the mountain Louwala-Clough.

Just doing a random web search, I can tell there are conflicting "names" the Klickitat supposedly called the mountain. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

TomDolan 06:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Tom Dolan

The USGS GNIS page on Mount Saint Helens mentions three "Indian" names: Lawala Clough ("smoking mountain"), Low-We-Not-Thlat ("Throwing up smoke") and Low-We-Lat-Klah ("The Smoking Mountain"). Unfortunately, it doesn't say which Indians, and the citation references seem to be blank. There were Indians speaking many different languages in the area, so the USGS is not very helpful in this regard.

But I can't help but point out that the USGS gives the name of the mountain as "Mount Saint Helens" and doesn't even list "Mount St. Helens" or "Mount St Helens" as variants. Searching for those names results in zero matches. Not that I think this articles name ought to be changed, or even that the USGS is always correct and some kind of final authority, just found it interesting. Pfly 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the Volcanocam site and check the name at the top. http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/

It is the US Forest Service but links to the USGS site. Look at how they spell the name. http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/CurrentActivity/ Dabbler 15:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mt. St. Helens Erupts Again 12/19/06

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237578,00.html ~ UBeR 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The current coordinates are for the center of the lava dome (vent location). The coordinates used to be for the peak of the mountian on the rim of the crater. Which is the appropriate point to reference? (This also bring up the issue of including fractional seconds.) --Burntnickel 18:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be the highest point. That is a location on the south rim of the crater. That way, the elevation and the location refer to the same point on the surface of the earth. To do otherwise, invites confusion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not knowing technically for sure, but thinking logical, I would agree. The coordinates that center on the old peak are probably simply outdated. The mountain's high point is now along the crater rim. Mt. Hood is a somewhat similar situation. It has a "summit ridge", which happens to include the mountain's highest point somewhere along its length, obviously. Wahkeenah 03:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured?

Hi, I understand that the criteria were different back in 2004, but did no one notice the vast lacks of this article in the meantime? There is nothing on ecology, neither before 1980, nor the amazing history of recovery by nature in the almost 30 years since. There is nothing substantial about the National Volcanic Monument, the mismanagement by the USFS, the lack of funds, the turnover of Silver Lake Visitor Center to the state of Washington in 2000 and the impeding closure of Coldwater Ridge Visitor Center in November 2007. Nothing about access for visitors as well. This article is focused on volcanism and geology and ignores everything else. Is there someone interested in expanding it? --h-stt !? 22:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a section on ecology would be useful. However, most of the topics that you are raising more properly belong to Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, which is a distinct article: this article is about the mountain itself, while that one is about the protected area. (Analogous to Mount Rainier and Mount Rainier National Park). Note, however, that you are raising some issues that are easy to slip into POV, so do be careful if you add material to the other article. Thanks! hike395 04:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

relation to global warming???

Hi I think that this topic is somewhat related to the "Carbon Contribution?" but i was wondering how much the volcanic activities by St. Helens and other volcanoes contribute to the junk we put in the atmosphere/stratosphere and how much the volcanoes affect global warming...--12.216.45.238 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the much-larger eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991:

"It injected large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere—more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone destruction increased substantially."

—wwoods 06:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

internal and external foreces

hi yes im doing a school project on mount st. helen and i can't seem to find internal and extenal forces do any of you know some if so email me volleyball_22_2011@hotmail.com ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.72.25 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

stratovolcano?

Mount St. Helens is a dome volcano, not a stratovolcano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.91.187 (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mount St. Helens is indeed a stratovolcano. It does contain a lava dome in the crater, but this is a feature common to most stratovolcanoes. (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/summary_mount_st_helens.html) 142.104.25.71 03:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Stratiformation" and "Spirit Lake Logs"

I'm kind of curious as to why "Stratiformation" and "Spirit Lake logs" are seperate sections. Are they really that significant? I tried looking these up, and I came up with a lot of creationist websites using the Spirit Lake logs as arguments for biblical creation. "Stratiformation" seems to fit suspiciously well into this also (and it was also added by the same person). As well, "stratiformation" isn't even a real geologic term; upon looking it up via google, ONLY this wikipedia page has the term present. I think I'm going to delete these, unless someone can make a better argument for significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.25.71 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion for now. This needs discussion as this is a WP:FA class article, meaning it is supposed to be one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Next time, please wait for others to reply so an actual discussion takes place before a major edit of removing several sections. Fixing a typo=no problem, removing two sections=discuss first.

As to the actual info, I don't know if it should stay or go, I haven't looked into it. But please don't just go by what is available in a Google search. I doubt even 10% of the world's knowledge is available online, and Google can't index all the info that is online (i.e. many paid databases aren't indexed). Aboutmovies 04:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's understandable. I guess I jumped the gun on that one, sorry about that. I look forward to any discussion, however, that (hopefully) this generates. 142.104.25.71 06:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you jumped the gun at all. That information is simply not significant enough to be in this article. Maybe it could go in the Aftermath section of 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, but it would need to be well sourced. I'm deleting it from here now. -- Avenue 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some of it is dubious and it is worthless without sources. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)