It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is Mount St. Helens a Supervolcano? According to findings from New Zealand scientists, Mt. St. Helens could be exactly that. Mt. St. Helens has been known for years as one of many volcanoes that litter Washington State and the "ring of fire" that works its way around the Pacific Ocean.
It's an interesting notion that has been presented by these scientists, which includes the theory that several of the largest volcanoes in the area are actually linked by underground caverns. What that could mean is that they all work together to form one large Supervolcano, and that Mt. St. Helens could be at the center of it all. The thought process behind the article that these New Zealand scientists published in NewScientist, is that three of the major volcanoes in the area are linked by a deep column that leads to a pool of what could be molten rock. That pool of molten rock is theorized to connect Mount St. Helens to Mount Rainier and Mount Adams as well. That would make it one of the largest Supervolvanoes in existence, and hold the potential of a cataclysmic eruption that could be devastating. Such an eruption would be able to blanket the sky with ash and basically lower the temperature of the entire planet over a certain span of time.
There is no difference, to the victim between Scorpion poison and Maries Disease that is caused by the razor sharp dust blown out of the volcano.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
and i QUOTE from your article
"That would make it one of the largest Supervolvanoes in existence,"
That is utterly absurd
Olympus Mons on mars is easily superior.
Originally posted by star in a jar
Just a quick question for anyone who has a quick answer: How long is the estimation when it comes to the ash blocking out the sun? Also, would it be global or cover the Earth in bands of blockage, dictated by global wind currents?
What would be the total area of direct devastation from a supervolcano? I see some sources state that up to 50,000 direct deaths will be attributed to this event, and that's only from the direct disaster.
It wouldn't take that long to cause mass extinctions I suppose.
It could take just a year or two for people to start dying by the masses from starvation as crops wither and die from lack of sunlight.
Humans are not dinosaurs though, and it's likely that a percentage will survive albeit with a lot of difficulty
[edit on 14-6-2009 by star in a jar]
[edit on 14-6-2009 by star in a jar]
Originally posted by rogerstigers
Well, mechanical death (blown glass, heat, etc.) aside, I think humans would fare ok from an event like this in the long run. We have the capability to make grow lights a other things that can help grow plants. Make no mistake, this would be a bottleneck event, though. We migth even fall down to just a handful of genetic lines again as we have in the distant past. But this sort of cleaning of the gene pool is probably a normal occurrance.
The only downside, of course, is that most of our history will be wiped out and 1000s of years from now there will be unbelievable legends of global empires fighting each other with amazing weapons that would burn the skin off of man and harness the power of the sun... oh wait, those legends already exist...
Originally posted by punkinworks09
I was going to mention taupo b ut got side tracked , I would really like to do the taupo offroad race but thats beside the point
taupo erupted around 130 ad and was of good size releasing 150km^3 during a very violent erution that was noticed in rome and china.lake taupo