HIGHLY unlikely at this point. Unlike the 2 months leading up to 5/18, the gas emissions have been very, very low, and the slow emission of this gas means that little to no pressure is building up below the dome that has been growing.
Contrast that with April and May of 1980, when the "bulge" on the NE side of the mountain was growing at a rate of 8-9 feet PER DAY. Ultimately, a 5.1 earthquake shook the bulge just enough to trigger the landslide at 8:32am, and the rest is history. This type of dome growth is not happening now, nor has it been happening since the mountain reawoke in late Sept.
Quoting Jetjack74 (Thread starter): NEW YORK — Mt. St. Helens awoke Tuesday afternoon with a mild eruption, spewing a plume of steam and ash into the Washington State sky.
The event was most probably was caused by growth of the new lava dome inside the crater, experts said
The national media, not surprisingly, got it wrong. There was no ash emission during this event. It was simply a matter of hot air from the lava dome mixing with cold air, causing the visible water vapor.
Maybe the NY media was mistaking a hot air and gas emission with a speech Sen. Clinton or Sen. Schumer was giving that day....
St. Helens doesn't worry me a bit. Rainier on the other hand is a very different story. It's significantly older than St. Helens, and all it would take is a collapse of one part of the mountain to cause a substantial natural disaster in the immediate vicinity. It wouldn't even have to erupt the way St. Helens did to cause damage on a massive scale. Because it's much older, over time the chemical processes inside have eroded the rock to the point where the rock is more like the consistency of clay, making it much more unstable. If a large enough earthquake, say a 6.0 or more, could unleash a massive collapse and lahar into the valleys below. Add in the glaciers and snow, and you have a recipe for massive disaster. I wouldn't want to be within 75 miles when that mountain decides to "do something".
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7386 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 hours ago) and read 2485 times:
Quoting N174UA (Reply 4): Because it's much older, over time the chemical processes inside have eroded the rock to the point where the rock is more like the consistency of clay, making it much more unstable.
It would be alot more devestating since it's rivers feed directly to Orting, Enumclaw and all the way u to Kent, and Renton. The mudslides would bury the surounding town. Seattle would be brought to a halt.
N174UA From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5): It would be alot more devestating since it's rivers feed directly to Orting, Enumclaw and all the way u to Kent, and Renton. The mudslides would bury the surounding town. Seattle would be brought to a halt.
Kent, Renton, Enumclaw, Auburn, among others....all built on prehistoric mudflows from Mt. Rainier. If it's happened before, it can happen again, yet overpriced homes continue to be built in these areas....