It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Major blast on Mount St Helens

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
It seems there was a big bang on Mount St Helens last night . From the site:

"There was an enormous outburst of activity at approximately 22:50 last night. It appears as if a large part of the new "fin" may have collapsed in a spectacular way."

The USGS are only saying that:

"Last night, just before 11 pm PDT, one of the larger earthquakes that typically occur once or twice per day was accompanied by a substantial amount of rockfall. An image taken by a remote camera on the crater rim about 20 minutes after the event shows that glowing hot rock debris had been delivered to the talus aprons that flank the steep north and south margins of the spine."

However, if you look at the size of the outburst on the images, it seems that it was quite a bit larger than than any events we have seen before.




posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
pete334 -

There were some close-up photos of the "fin" and the caldera posted in another thread. I asked a question in that thread, which I do not believe anyone has answered yet.

There were cracks in the vicinity of the "fin" that were venting blue-tinted smoke. Do you happen to know what chemical is responsible for turning this smoke blue?



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
On this site (I just googled blue smoke on volcanoes) it says it may be Sulfur Dioxide. www.geo.mtu.edu...



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Wow things are heating up on the west coast like many of the psychics are predicting. Wonder when the big one will happen? Saw articles about a big quake in L.A. the past few days... why now?



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Saw articles about a big quake in L.A. the past few days

Erm...not sure when you saw the articles, or how current the news was...we haven't had anything higher than a 3 in at least two weeks. I will concede that a 3 in other places will stop traffic...here? We don't even consider it.

Here's a map of current and recent-past (I think two weeks) earthquakes
earthquake.usgs.gov...]USGS Los Angeles Area Seismicity.

And in looking at it, I think that only 20 or so earthquakes on this particular map is relatively normal and/or a bit low. Still, we haven't had any thing that I've felt, heard, heard discussed, or anything like that. So we're doing well down here.

I am terribly fascinated by the slab and it's movement...the photos are amazing, and the situation pretty frightening, now with Marepi erupting (I don't think I've got the name right...). I've always wondered about "reverberation" quakes, meaning the possibility that the energy travels 'round the globe...and I wonder if the eruption today might trigger an eruption on Helens...

Regards-
Aimless

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Aimless Searcher]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aimless Searcher
I am terribly fascinated by the slab and it's movement...the photos are amazing, and the situation pretty frightening, now with Marepi erupting (I don't think I've got the name right...). I've always wondered about "reverberation" quakes, meaning the possibility that the energy travels 'round the globe...and I wonder if the eruption today might trigger an eruption on Helens...


Merapi has definitely decided to start going, but not very much yet. By energy travelling, do you mean like when there is an earthquake in say California (a big one) and the geysers in say, Yellowstone all stop for a while.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   

By energy travelling, do you mean like when there is an earthquake in say California (a big one) and the geysers in say, Yellowstone all stop for a while.

Yes, like that. Except on a much larger scale. The energy released has to go somewhere, right? Depending upon the depth of the quake, the energy has less or more mass to go through. Could it be possible that a quake of some magnitude - ala the Alaskan quake in 65, which was a several minute long temblor measuring something like 8.8, or the 9 down in the Indian Ocean in '04, which caused the tsunami, have an impact on the local - regional volcanos? The pushing of the earth's crust has to create stress in farther away places; perhaps that stress squooshes the liquid core, and it has to release it (forgive me...) like a pimple.

In geologic time, the Indian Ocean quake in '04 in the region of Merapi, and Merapi's eruption was an eyeblink; only 2 years and change. In the 65 quake in Alaska, it was only 15 years before Mt. St. Helens erupted in '80. Again, an incredibly short time between that event, although probably longer than an eyeblink...more like the time it takers to sneeze.

In thinking this through a bit more, there are many different sorts of quakes; the two most prominent are slip faults and thrust faults quake. One displaces horizontally, while the other displaces vertically. I would think the energy released vertically - up and down - might create stress/energy into the magma layers, creating susceptible volcanos to blow.

And further continuing the thought, the slip faults would displace horizontally, thus creating pressure and sending waves along the extending lines, and would explain some connecting eq's such as Iran, and other places which don't have active volcanos.

And lastly, I am no geologist...so all of this may just be a bunch of hooey. Dunno, but it would be an interesting research project. Maybe when the time frees itself up, I can prove/disprove my hypothetical...after all, I'm really speaking off the cuff, and two volcanos with huge eq's nearby (relatively speaking) don't a positive position make.

Regards-
Aimless



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Looks like Mt St Helens is heating up just in time for summer. Should give Seattle a great view in the sunny weather.

More scary to me though is Mt Rainer, the largest mountain on the west coast, is long overdue for a blast and could start to wake up at any time. That, my friends, would be a far greater catastrophe



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Oh never mind I misread the post. I thought it was a video.


Anyone have a live video link?

[edit on 15-5-2006 by ThePieMaN]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Wow things are heating up on the west coast like many of the psychics are predicting.

The psyhics are allways predicting that there will be earthquakes and volcanos.


why now?

Its got to happen sometime.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   



And lastly, I am no geologist...so all of this may just be a bunch of hooey. Dunno, but it would be an interesting research project. Maybe when the time frees itself up, I can prove/disprove my hypothetical...after all, I'm really speaking off the cuff, and two volcanos with huge eq's nearby (relatively speaking) don't a positive position make.

Regards-
Aimless




As a geologist I can tell you that it is not correct, or most of it anyway! No offence.

You don't need the presence of active volcanoes to get earthquakes, the himalya are a prime example.

However large earthquakes can effect the magmatic plumbing system of a region, locally. But not on a global scale, so an earthquake in california will not cause an volcano to erupt somwhere else on the planet.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I think it could be atributed to the passing of the comet? Doesnt that cause many upheavals?

I'm practically drowning here in Massachusetts. Its non stop buckets of rain and i have friends at my sliding door. Frogs.
My one phobia.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Hunter
As a geologist I can tell you that it is not correct, or most of it anyway! No offence.

None taken. I'm no armchair expert even.



You don't need the presence of active volcanoes to get earthquakes, the himalya are a prime example.However large earthquakes can effect the magmatic plumbing system of a region, locally. But not on a global scale, so an earthquake in california will not cause an volcano to erupt somwhere else on the planet.

Right. I don't think volcanos are causative; rather, and I likely miswrote my thoughts, I think because there are so many different sorts of eq's, the possibility that some eq's can trigger "local" volcanos, if there is enough displacement onto a vein of magma.

The numbers of 9+ eqs experienced by the planet aren't too many, over all. I was meadering down the path of thought which said "maybe the 8.5-9's trigger volcanic eruptions in regional volcanos, ala the 65 quake in Alaska:Mt.St. Helens, and the 9+ Indian Ocean quake: Merapi." Not that the Alaska quake in 65: Merapi. Both of those were thrust faults, I think...not slip faults.

In any event, no offense taken whatsoever. I know just enough about the earthquakes in my neck of the woods to stay relatively safe during one, but that's about it in regards to how the earth works...but I'm always willing to learn more.

Regards-
Aimless



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I think it could be atributed to the passing of the comet? Doesnt that cause many upheavals?


Only Superstitiously, I think. A comet is usually far too small to have a big enough gravitational pull to alter anything.

If one were to hit however they might cause an upheaval in the crust, or generate a tsunami if it hit ocean. For the size of the tsunami, it would be 100m or more, like the Cumbre Vieja volcano/landslide would trigger.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Frogs. My one phobia.


I thought your phobia was neo-cons.


I don't think the comet would effect Mt. St Helens, but you never know.
Everything in this universe is so connected ... and in ways that we haven't
even discovered yet.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Flyersfan,

Numero uno: FROGS

Number two fear would be anything after 2001 AB (After Bush)




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogDog


More scary to me though is Mt Rainer, the largest mountain on the west coast, is long overdue for a blast and could start to wake up at any time. That, my friends, would be a far greater catastrophe


Tell me about it, that thing is huge! I remember when I first moved to Seattle years back, I would sit out every day after work, just staring at that mountain. Talk about a catastrophe though, that would be so incredibly nightmarish that I don't wanna think about it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join