reply to post by jadedANDcynical
JC, thanks for the consideration
actually, i hadn't thought about the expanding theory until you mentioned it.
i was leaning more toward Macondo and its ongoing issues coupled with the corexit dispersement and all of that finding its way into the LA sediments
for miles inland.
we can't even guess what chemical reactions could be taking place because we are not permitted to know of the compounds injected/dispersed
when i consider the Arkansas quake series with the UNexplained explosions, reports of spontaneous combustions, gas clouds 120 miles away, platform
failures, pipeline bursts and the burning poles in TX ... LA's issue doesn't seem so centralized
to me anymore.
here are a few 'scholarly' writings you may find of interest.
In addition, the segmentation of the transitional crust beneath the northern GoM into a magmatically robust segment beneath the Texas coast and
a stretched margin beneath Louisiana is also consistent with BAB behavior:
- snip -
The Gulf of Mexico (GoM) is a rare example where the origin of a sizable oceanic basin at low latitudes is still unclear. The GoM is a nearly enclosed
basin, encompassing ~1.6 × 106 km2, bounded on the
north by North America, on the west by Mexico, and on the south by the Yucatan Peninsula and Cuba.
We have only indirect information about its early evolution, due to thick sediments, including salt, and the lack of correlatable,
spreading-related magnetic anomalies.
volcanic monitoring has been around for a few hundred years now ... which part are you claiming is "young" ?
tectonics -- now that's the 'young' science.
it's not even 100yrs old yet.
as for MSH ... she was reported as dormant all the way up to her eruption, hence, magma presence has nothing to do with 'dormancy'.
as stated earlier, magma is generated constantly, in many parts of the world.
especially in a BAB (back-arc basin) as is the GOM.
couple that with the Mississippi escarpment and its components/contributions and we have a discussion.
VOLCANO HISTORY: Mount St. Helens
took scientists, not to mention the public, by surprise when it erupted catastrophically in May 1980. It was the deadliest volcanic
event in U.S. history.
now, no offense intended but it was a surprise, to quite a few.
On the basis of its youth and its high frequency of eruptions over the past 4,000 years, Crandell, Mullineaux, and their colleague Meyer Rubin
published in February 1975 that Mount St. Helens was the one volcano in the conterminous United States most likely to reawaken and to erupt
"perhaps before the end of this century." This prophetic conclusion was followed in 1978 by a more detailed report, in which Crandell and
Mullineaux elaborated their earlier conclusion and analyzed, with maps and scenarios, the kinds, magnitudes, and areal extents of potential volcanic
hazards that might be expected from future eruptions of Mount St. Helens. Collectively, these two publications contain one of the most accurate
forecasts of a violent geologic event.
if you really don't want to discuss it, fine, don't.
however, please be respectful of others rather post such a dismissive reply.
some of us are interested in WHAT is going on down there.