Jump to content

Talk:Mount St. Helens/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Goat Rocks

I think there is a confusion here. There are a set of peaks between Mount St. Helens and Mount Rainier called Goat Rocks. But, there was apparently a dome (formed in the 1940s) on MSH directly, also called Goat Rocks [1]. Clearly, this needs to be clarified. I was confused by this for quite a while. hike395 18:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy comments (successfuly promoted)

Mount St. Helens

I added some information about the 1989 and 1990 eruptions. How come nobody seemed to have noticed two relatively major blasts like those. I've seen pictures of the January 1990 eruption and it was massive.

(Uncontested -- July 6)

I think this is a pretty exceptional article. Well written for the most part and well illustrated. The only involvement is have with this article (other than a few sp. fixes) is the addition of Image:NASAMtStHelensaerial.jpg. All images seem to be properly documented. Has just about everything I'd ever really want to know about Mount St. Helens. blankfaze | •• | •• 10:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Complete and deep. 195.167.169.36 11:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. And the separate 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption article seems feature-worthy on its own. Fredrik | talk 11:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, I know! I was half-tempted to nominate them both! But I figured one is good enough for now. blankfaze | •• | •• 11:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Could do with a locator map, such as Image:LocMap CarlsbadCaverns.png. 2) The 1980 explosion is in the "Geologic" history section, when it would fit quite well be in the "Human" history section too; would it be best to have this as a separate section entirely? — Matt 18:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree. I personally think this is a pretty lousy/petty reason to object. This is a pretty high-quality article. Better even than some articles that I've seen passed through here. blankfaze | •• | •• 19:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm the person who wrote the pre-1980 geology history and I put the 1980 eruption text in that section since it is about geology. But even though I'm a main author of this article I must admit that some of the human history and later geology should be disentangled - the events as described in the geology section should concentrate on geology while the same events as described in the history section should concentrate on the human aspects. The human history section could also use some basic expansion as well. So I guess I must also object, but I will try to fix the problems sometime soon. Thanks for all the kind words everybody! :) --mav 03:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • OK - I've moved the human history text from the geology section. Changing my vote to accept but the article could use some more images (esp in history section). --mav 06:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and complete. Second the feature-worthyness of 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption as well. Anárion 08:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. The article states, "Mount St. Helens was named for British diplomat Alleyne Fitzherbert, whose title was Baron St. Helens." I would recommend something like "Mount St. Helens was named for a British diplomat, Alleyne Fitzherbert, Xth Baron St Helens" or "Mount St. Helens was named for Alleyne Fitzherbert, Xth Baron St Helens, a British diplomat." This removes the reference to the "title" of Baron St. Helens (strictly speaking, peerage dignities form a part of the name of their possessors, unlike, say, Mister). 2. Images need information: are they licensed under the GFDL, or are they public domain, or are they (one hopes not) fair use. (I presume that most, being works of the US Govt, public domain works, but the same must be indicated on the image pages.) Furthermore, the first section seems rather cluttered with images. -- Emsworth 02:57, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
OK - all fixed. --mav 05:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt 23:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Before that it was known as Louwala-Clough which means "smoking or fire mountain" in the language of the Klickitats."

Does it really mean that, or does it mean "smoking mountain" or "fire mountain", depending on alternate interpretations of the meaning of the native word? If that's the case, it shouldn't all be quoted like that. Everyking 15:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it means that you could translate the phrase as either 'smoking mountain' or 'fire mountain' and still be substatially correct. How to make that clear, and yet concise? Mark Richards 15:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Notice of Volcanic Unrest

"Mount St. Helens Notice of Volcanic Unrest
September 26, 2004 3
00 P.M., PDT
U.S. Geological Survey Cascades Volcano Observatory, Vancouver, Washington
University of Washington Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences, Seattle, Washington
Seismic activity at Mount St. Helens has changed significantly during the past 24 hours and the changes make us believe that there is an increased likelihood of a hazardous event, which warrants release of this Notice of Volcanic Unrest."
http://www.pnsn.org/NEWS/PRESS_RELEASES/MSH_09_2004.html
—wwoods 08
09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Without Warning"

The article claims "Without warning, a Richter magnitude 5.1 earthquake triggered a massive collapse of the north face of the mountain on 18 May."

Was it really "without warning?" Earthquakes, explosions, ash venting, and growth of the magma bulge continued pretty much right up to the main eruption, and people had been more-or-less evacuated for days. Perhaps "with little warning that the eruption would occur that day" or something a little less severe would be appropriate. Thoughts? Kaszeta 17:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, they thought that the eruptive activity had finished by May 18th, as it had been fairly quiet in the last few days before the main eruption.

The 1980 eruption may rightfully be described as 'minor' compared with other geological events, but I think many geologists (I am not one) would agree it dawned a new era of the science of geology. The buildup, the May 18th blast and subsequent eruptions, I think, gave the U.S. and the world a significant boost in its understanding of volcanic activity. Volcanoes were no longer things that just exploded completely at random with no warning, we learned there are many signs that by themselves are not catastrophic, but do point to a possible impending cataclysmic event.

I would not say "without warning". I was manning a seismic station in the Arctic and saw a *lot* of seismic activity coming from Washington state, for at least two or three months beforehand. They had warned people: stay off that mountain. Leave. They'd evacuated people; they were worried it would blow. (Though I think the scale of it surprised everyone.)

No one should doubt the energy released when it exploded. I was about 300 km away, in Victoria, B.C., when it went off, and I could both hear and *feel* the impact of that mountain exploding. It was like boom! boom! boom! three times, I think. I thought someone on the floor above me was lifting the end of their sofa and dropping it; that's what it sounded and felt like. From 300 km away! So to hear it so clearly, from that distance, and even *feel* it shaking the room...hell of a lot of energy released. I was glad I was nowhere near it when it went off. Without warning: nope! Wrong. They knew there was a lot of seismic activity under that mountain (well in advance of the eruption) - growing seismic activity is an excellent indicator of an impending eruption - so they knew it was a very dangerous mountain, well before it blew. 66.11.164.72 01:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. / Metric units

Why are all measurements given in feet or similar? Hasn't even the US adopted the metric system as the official standard? Shouldn't it then be the other way around -- metric units as primary measurement and possibly feet or whatever in paranthesis?

No, metric is not in daily use in the US. And WP can not mandate the metric system. So, things will have to stay as they are in these pages. Awolf002 19:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In American-centric articles, imperial units take precedence. No, the US has not adopted metric, sorry to disappoint. --Golbez 21:47, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression that legally the US was metric but nobody seems to follow that particular law.... --KayEss 16:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe so; like so many other things done or attempted in the 70s, we've simply forgotten about it. :) And I don't think it was ever codified; attempted by regulatory agencies, perhaps, but done very wrong and abandoned after a time. The science and military communities use metric; Science is obvious, and military probably because of compatibility with foreign services. And it simply makes more sense, I'm sad to say. :P --Golbez 16:55, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
See Metric system in the United States, it appears that the US was an early adopter of the metric system in some areas but it never really caught on in general use. Dabbler 15:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Newbe Q

I'm a newbe to Wikipedia, so I guess that I did something wrong when I added the Bivouac link to the external links section of the Mt St Helens page, since it was promptly removed by Golbez 20:01, 30 Sep 2004. What was the problem? Is it because it's a featured article or was it some edit etiquette that I missed? Couldn't find any guidlines that explained this. In any case, a comment would have been nice, like "irrelevant because of" or something.

/Mike

I clicked the link and it went to the homepage, not to a St. Helens specific page; it said the login had expired. I'm sorry, I'm new to this reverting thing, so I should have given an explanation. On its face, it seemed a bit irrelevant to the topic at hand. Sorry! If you can give a link that will work, then please do, and I'll make sure not to mess with it this time. Hope I didn't screw up your first experience here! --Golbez 06:41, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I added the link again, and it should link directly to the St Helens specific page. However, on rare occasions, it seems that the Bivouac homepage screws up a little and you have to reload the page (or click again). You should not have to be a member to view the mountain specific pages, but could you please do me a favor and check from your computer and se that the link works for you as well? Thanks, /Mike
Same problem; it takes me to ... huh. It said "Your session timed out so we refreshed it and redirected you to the main menu. This check was made at the top of the page. If you just did an update, it succeeded.". But then I hit refresh, and it works. How odd. Ah well, if it works for me, then I've no problem with it. Looks like a useful site, and I apologize again. :/ --Golbez 07:35, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Apparently, it's an Active Server Page that expects you to have a specific cookie when you arrive. If you don't, it redirects you to the main page and gives you the cookie. Subsequent accesses seem to then work (as you have the broswer cookie). It seems to discourage deep linking. Xylaan 20:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll ask the Bivouac people to fix it. /Mike
Mike, I've reverted your last edit (if you're indeed 216.232.135.225) because the link you added to Bivouac already existed in the external links section about 3 entries above. I've tried the link and it works fine for me. On a side note, can I suggest that you create an account? You seem to have made a number of contributions, might as well get credit for them, eh? TimothyPilgrim 19:03, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

October 1 Eruption

For those interested, there are some nice realtime graphics here: [2] [3] TimothyPilgrim 20:27, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia does not accept original research

...but living only a few hours' drive from this active volcano, I believed it was my duty to take my camera & wife up close & take some pictures -- that can be made available under free licensing terms. Since I remember well that it took this mountain several weeks to do actually erupt the first time, I figured that it was worth the effort to take some pictures for reference (e.g., this is what the Toutle River looked like; this is a view of the mountain from this vantage; etc.) Little did I know what I was about to become a reporter (after a manner).

In a nutshell, when we arrived at Castle Lake Viewpoint on SR 504 (after I learned to hate the bridges of this road -- details available offline for the curious), we noticed about 4 television vans had set up camp. After we walked around, & took some pictures of a possibly injured field mouse (part of the non-volcanic images I plan to upload to Wikipedia in the near future), we noticed several more had arrived. Learning that the mountain was now in eminent danger of exploding, the Forest Rangers closed off a 7-mile radius around the mountain, & Johnston Ridge Observatory was inside this area -- which meant all of the television reporters had to pull up stakes & move to the next best location, which was Castle Lake Viewpoint. We had entered a media circus!

Of interest to this article are 2 more images I have uploaded:

These pictures, as well as the image I added to the article, were taken within a few feet of where Debbie Wang was filmed reporting both for ABC News affiliates as well as the BBC. I also got to listen in on Tom Pearson of the USGS give a press conference about the volcano -- my very first one! (I leave these to other Wikipedians to add to this work in the manner they see best.)

If the fates are kind to me, I will have the time tomorrow to reduce in size some 40+ other pictures into small enough sizes for uploading. (Right now, they range in size from 800Kb to 1.2Mb, far too large for me to upload.) -- llywrch 05:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly welcomes original photographs. The prohibition against original research is more about personal theories and conclusions about stuff. Photographs we can usually use (although these aren't terribly useful, sorry to say). --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

'er' or 're'...

But in your country, you also use imperial units... cubic kilometer came up as a red link, and I thought mixing US spelling with international units looked a bit odd - but I'll leave it as is. -- Chuq 08:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aye, a redirect should have existed, and now it does. :) So cubic kilometer now works. Yes, we use imperial units, but when we use metric, we still spell it like Americans. ;) --Golbez 09:29, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

October 2004 eruption photos

Mt. St. Helens as seen by a private pilot during the Oct. 1, 2004 eruption.

I took this one off the page until we could figure out the license. I replaced it with a USGS photo (public domain since it's by the U.S. government).

  • Speaking of Photos, I took the liberty of adjusting the levels of all of the photos. I think they all look much better now. The previous ones were hazy and unsharp and didn't do the mountain justice at all.PiccoloNamek 22:47, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Volcano Sensor Networks

Here is a page on wireless sensor networking on volcanos It was on the main page yesterday (under related links),but I see it was removed by someone...again... But maybe it's just a software quirk. During the same session, sometimes that link magically appears and then disappears without any apparent editing. Go figure.

Anyway, here's A Slideshow shot on September30th.

Are you sure it's disappearing? It's the last link on the page, and sometimes the Categories box "jumps" up an inch or two, obscuring part of the page. That could be what's happening. No clue why it happens. --Golbez 16:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Early October Activity

I've added the times of the steam releases and seismic activity. For those interested my source is here [4]. I also added the year to each date, but I don't know what the convention is. Since it's October 2004 activity, do we really need to add the year after each date? Anyway, I've done so just to keep everything parallel, but it can be undone if need be. I've also removed the names of people who provided public statements only because I didn't think it was necessary. If we include those two guys, what about the myriad of names that will come in the following days when she really blows her lid? Anyway, I'd like to hear some thoughts on that. TimothyPilgrim 12:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Access to S, W, and N; and to the East Side

The paragraph on access seems a little awkward as it discusses access centered on Castlerock and Cowlitz county. It is true that access to the south, west, and north sides do go through Cowlitz. But one of the most important viewpoints, Windy Ridge is approached via Highway 12 (White Pass), then at Randle, Washington south onto Forest Roads 25 and 99. It is from Windy Ridge, actually it seems to me part of the rim of Mt. St. Helens, that you are closest to the mountain unless you go hiking. This access is in Lewis County. But the whole paragraph would read easier if references to counties were left out. They do not seem to add any real information, and as the paragraph stands there is no room to squeeze in a short sentence regarding the approach to the East side. In addition because the discussion is 'county' oriented the description of I-5 is confusing, and not near so helpful as it ought to be. Also, a link to the National Monument Web page and its maps would be helpful. Question: Does Wik. prefer to repeat and copy information, or to give links? Rob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.183.196.66 (talk • contribs) 19:53, January 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mount St. Helen's lies about 40 miles east of Interstate 5, the main north-south freeway of the West Coast, about 45 miles north of Portland OR. The route to the two main visitor centers are reached by Washington State Route 504, locally known as the Spirit Lake Memorial Highway, Exit 49 off I-5 at Castlerock, just north of Longview and Kelso. Further north, at Exit XX, US Highway 12, or the White Pass Highway to Yakima, leads via Forest Roads 25 (at Randle WA) and 99 through the blow down area and up to Windy Ridge, the closest you can get to the mountain, bar hiking. Windy Ridge is just above the XXXXXXXXXX and Spirit Lake.

Although Mount St. Helens is in Skamania County, Washington the best access routes to the mountain run through Cowlitz County, Washington on the west. Washington State Route 504, locally known as the Spirit Lake Memorial Highway, connects with the heavily traveled Interstate 5 at Exit 49, about 34 miles (55 km) to the west of the mountain. That major north-south highway skirts the low-lying cities of Castle Rock, Longview and Kelso along the Cowlitz River and passes through Vancouver, Washington-Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area less than 50 miles (80 km) to the southwest. The community nearest the volcano is Cougar, Washington which is in the Lewis River valley about 11 miles (18 km) south-southwest of the peak. Gifford Pinchot National Forest surrounds Mount St. Helens, but some land owned by Washington is in private hands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.183.196.66 (talk • contribs) 03:54, February 3, 2005 (UTC)

March 2005 eruption

WOW! Talk about sensationalistic CRAP. What moron edited the article to call the little escaping steam (that was visible for about 10 minutes in one part of the sky) a "MAJOR ERUPTION"?! Dude, calm the hell down. It wasn't a big deal. A little "poof" and you all wet your pants. Sensationalistic, overreacting crap like that doesn't help the reputation of Wikipedia. (Anon. entry from User:Cordell)

  • Sensible Wikipedians are closely following news bulletins as they are released. --Wetman 02:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I added that because that's what I heard on the news. I guess the first news reports were false. --kinghajj 18:52, 9 Mar 2005 (PST)

2005 "Eruption" isn't.

The current volcanic activity is not a unique eruption, it is a continuation of the October 1, 2004 eruption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BalooUrsidae (talk • contribs) 02:32, March 9, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of parenthetical statement

The statement in parentheses at the end of this paragraph could be either reworded or moved so that it makes more sense:

The first recorded sighting of Mount St. Helens by Europeans was by Royal Navy Commander George Vancouver and the officers of HMS Discovery on May 19, 1792, while they were surveying the northern Pacific Ocean coast from 1792 to 1794. Vancouver named the mountain for British diplomat Alleyne Fitzherbert, Baron St. Helens on October 20, 1792, as it came into view when the Discovery passed into the mouth of the Columbia River (strictly, the name of the volcano should not be expanded to "Saint Helens").

It took me a while to realize that "expanded" meant when written, not when spoken (if that is in fact what is meant). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.154.111.59 (talk • contribs) 03:32, March 10, 2005 (UTC)

August 2005 Scientific American article

The article should show up eventually at the sciam.com site, but in the meantime, pp 16-18 has some interesting comments. On p. 18, it says the lahar of the 1980 eruption was "the largest landslide in recorded history". Someone should work this bit into the text.--FourthAve 14:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I just put that bit in there on October 27 and 28, 2005. Look in the general description and the 1980 Eruption sections of the article. "Debris avalanche" is the term I chose to use, partly because it's apparently used most commonly by scientists to describe landslides or flank collapses on volcanoes. NorthernFire 04:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Human history: Paul Kane

The statements

British lieutenant Henry J. Warre sketched the eruption in 1845 and the same year Canadian painter Paul Kane created watercolors of some of the outbursts. Both men's work showed erupting material from a vent about a third of the way down from the summit on the mountain's west or northwest side (possibly at Goat Rocks).

are not entirely correct. Kane did his two watercolour sketches on May 26, 1847; both showing a gently smoking Mt. St. Helens. He made one sketch when he was at the mouth of the Lewis River (which he called "Kattlepoutal River"). In his book Wanderings of an Artist: Among the Indians of North America, The Radisson Socienty of Canada Ltd, Toronto, 1925, reprinted by Dover Publications, 1996 (ISBN 0-486-29031-X), Kane (or his ghostwriter) writes on p. 137:

"There was not a cloud visible in the sky when I commenced my sketch, and not a breath of air was perceptible; suddenly a stream of white smoke shot up from the crater of the mountain, and hovered a short time over the summit; it then settled down like cap. This shape it retained for about an hour and a half, and then gradually disappeared.
"About three years before this the mountain was in a violent state of eruption for three or four days, and threw up burning stones and lava to an immense height, which ran in burning torrents down its snow-clad sides."

Once back in Toronto, Kane produced an oil painting of Mt. St. Helens erupting that, contrary to his field sketches, shows a fiery eruption. Kane is known to have embellished his oil canvasses considerably, departing from the accuracy of his field sketches in favour of more dramatic scenes. Since I don't know anything about this British lieutenant Warre, I don't feel like changing these sentences myself. Maybe whoever wrote that would be so kind to correct them? Lupo 16:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it myself. Lupo 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Should Not Be Forgotten?

The line "This disaster should not be forgotten. Mt. Saint Helens is still an active volcano and can errupt at any time." appears twice in this article (October 1, 2004-present eruption and below the External links section). While I agree that this is sound advice, I'm not so sure that its "Wiki" Bugturd 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic. Lupo 07:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Featured Article

Congratulations everyone, but if you thought the vandalism was bad now, just you wait till February 9th. Dabbler 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Copper Deposits

There have been a number of news stories in the Fall of 2005 and the Winter of 2006 about the possibility of mining copper off the flanks of Mt. St. Helens. Although there's nothing unusual about finding a vein of copper here and there, it is the magnitude of the discovery that suggests a major lode of copper veins has finally been found, and something can finally be made of the wasteland that Mt. St. Helens, on erupting, left behind. Can somebody upload some pictures of how denuded the landscape was, after that first big eruption? Although mountains of bureaucratic red tape may dissuade the mining corporation from digging there, maybe somebody should add a story about the copper in the area? Electricity is fairly plentiful in the area; it's used for reducing copper ore to copper metal. After US Congress declared its 5 mile safety zone around the crater, businesses had to move out, and people lost work-related income. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.31 (talk • contribs) 05:17, February 9, 2006 (UTC)

I thought Mt. Saint Helens was declared a national volcanic monument that prohibits mining, forestry, etc., so it can be preserved and used as a study ground for natural reclamation? As I understand it, unlike other natural disasters (tsunami, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, etc.), a volcanic eruption of this type is unique in that it not only strips (/vaporizes) the flora, it also blasted all the soil, making nature have to start all over again just to get sparse islands of vegetation. Research into this is important, I think, to help us understand the natural costs of artificial disasters such as nuclear blasts, man-caused desertification and polluted soil. Allowing one mine on the mountain risks corrupting the delicate natural process and would waste the research being done. --Chibiabos 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Location of Mount St Helens

Congratulations to all involved with the article - very comprehensive.

I wasn't able to easily find the one piece of info that I was looking for... I wanted to know where it is. The existing map may be good for those who know the local coast outlines but to an Aussie it was not much use. I had a good idea and I do have some understanding of US lands but without some cities marked, I was still not able to work it out.

I think most people would agree that cities are the basic technique that most people use to orient themselves on a map. Can we have some cities please?

I'm not able to fix the problem so I hope someone else can. If there is a clearer map elsewhere that I missed - my apologies to you all!

Don

--203.214.120.80 05:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In the info box on the right click on the coordinates, they bring up maps to the location. Not a very ovbious place. -Ravedave 06:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

At least one glacier survived

When Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980, it destroyed the glaciers that were on its north face. Can anybody add a paragraph to the main article listing the glaciers that were destroyed, and which ones survived?

For instance, Ptarmigan Glacier on the southeastern flank survived. Even though the eruption showered hot ash and sand all over the area, it persisted just fine. Just about every weekend through the summer, dozens of campers drop by to climb it. A landing exists at the foot of Ptarmigan Glacier, and people go there to park their RVs (Recreational vehicles). The road leading up to the landing follows a series of crests until it levels off. The glacier itself assumes a gentle slope, and easy to hike. (It's not one of those nightmarish Mt. Everest type glaciers.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.31 (talk • contribs) 07:17, February 9, 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I moved all the text under the 2004-present activity subhead into the 2004 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens article, where going into detail is appropriate. The text that's there now is still longer than that for the 1980 eruption, so anybody who wants to trim it down is welcome. I think the main points that need to remain are that there's a dome growing with a whaleback feature, and a couple of steam/ash blowouts, but all the detail about volume, size, and rates (which are actually changing as we speak) is really best addressed in the subarticle, not here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Phallus Image

There's a big picture of a penis in this article. It's not in the source of the article. Would remove it otherwise. --84.68.23.24 18:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, someone deal with this immediately- I can't be pulling this up on a work computer!!! I can't find the reversion to do this--Adam (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Only Active?

Is this correct? I have often read that Yellowstone is that largest active volcano in the world. This articlefrom the USGS lists many active volcanoes in the continental US. --Counsel 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mauna Loa is the largest volcano in the world. Yellowstone is a caldera which is a volcanic feature caused by the collapse of the volcano. The Yellowstone caldera is a result of a hot spot and I don't know if it can be considered a single volcano, although recent geologic history has shown that it can produce a massive eruption. (The Hawai'ian hot spot is currently under the big island and just beyond it, but it has several active volcanoes). Lord help us if there is ever a Supervolcanic eruption again.--Adam (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely NOT correct. Mt. Augustine near Ketchikan has been making the news up here in Alaska with its recent eruptions. Here's a Reuters story on it, also info at the Alaska Volcano Observatory. Deirdre 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article saying that this is the only active volcano in the United States. The state of Washington even has several others in the Cascade Range--Adam (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was pulled a little earlier today.--Counsel 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone had messed up the page... probably a vandal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.238.82 (talk • contribs) 21:56, February 9, 2006 (UTC)

What Does This Mean?

In the second paragraph of the article are these three sentences:

Like most other volcanoes in the Cascade Range, St. Helens is a great cone of rubble consisting of lava rock interlayered with ash, pumice and other deposits. Volcanic cones of this interval domes of dacite lava have erupted. The largest of the dacite domes formed the previous summit; another formed Goat Rocks dome on the northern flank. These were destroyed in St. Helens' 1980 eruption.

The bolded sentence makes no sense, and I can't figure out what it is supposed to mean. It looks like something got removed from the middle of it... --Mike 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I dug back through the history and found where it went wrong -- some toad vandalized the article in some apparently random spots. Here's the fix:

Mount St. Helens includes layers of basalt and andesite through which several domes of dacite lava have erupted. The largest of the dacite domes formed the previous summit; another formed Goat Rocks dome on the northern flank. These were destroyed in St. Helens' 1980 eruption.

That was sure interesting... --Mike 03:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_St._Helens/Archive_1&oldid=789540182"