Talk:Mount St. Helens/Archive 1

message: 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 . Clearly, this needs to be clarified. I was confused by this for quite a while. hike395 18:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goat Rocks 

message: ===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)
replies: text: OK - all fixed. --mav 05:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Featured Article candidacy comments (successfuly promoted)

message: 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)
replies: text: OK - all fixed. --mav 05:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: [[Mount St. Helens]]

message: ;"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)
thread_title: Notice of Volcanic Unrest

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Without Warning" 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I know Wikipedia does not accept original research 

message: 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)
thread_title: March 2005 eruption

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  August 2005 ''Scientific American'' article 

message: 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 (), 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)
replies: text: Fixed it myself. Lupo 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human history: Paul Kane 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not encyclopedic. Lupo 07:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Not Be Forgotten? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copper Deposits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Location of Mount St Helens 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Phallus Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Only Active? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What Does This Mean?