I saw a story that Mt. Sain Helens is undergiong a series of earthquakes, and there is concern of another explosion. AP story here.
I wonder if some kind of penetrator bomb could be used in a manner like “lancing a boil”, essentially to create an escape path so the pressures don’t become so enormous. Do we know enough, or do we have the imaging technology, to determine a point where one could be dropped effectively? Also, with GOS guided bombs, we ought to be able to drop a bunch of them on nearly the same point, and dig down really deep.
I don’t know enough about the science to guess whether this is more appropriately a GQ thread, but as I’ve never heard of it being tried, IMHO seems a better venue.
Mount St. Helens is in a remote area of southwestern Washington State, within the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The seismic activity has increased within the last 24 hours to warrant the USGS to issue a “Notice of Volcanic Unrest.”
That said, the use of a GPS-guide bomb (or series of bombs) to alliviate any stress would probably do little good. Beside what purpose would it serve other than unnecessarily destroy ongoing research, damage the local ecosystem, and make a compleste mess of a pristine natural area just to satisfy uneducated egos?
The 1980 eruption and after events through 1986 (or so) did quite a bit to bring about major changes in volcanic research, emergency notification and preventative measures. While the 1980 eruption did produce the largest landslide in recorded human history, the actual eruption was quite insignificant on a worldwide scale.
Come Monday, you should see a stepped up interest in Mount St. Helens within the scientific community. I would urge you to bookmark the the USGS link above for the most accurate information. There is already quite a bit of inaccurate information already out on the news wires since this current event began last Thursday. I can assure you there will be more informade made available online, including the return of the Mount St. Helens VolcanoCam.
BTW, I was there last Thursday when the event began. We were like kids in a chocolate shop watching the seismograph in front of us record microquake after microquake. You can see real-time seismographic data by going to the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network web page. Scroll down and look for the links to the following two seismographs:
SEP EHZ UW : St. Helens - Dome Station
HSR EHZ UW : St. Helens - south-ridge
Start by checking the links beginning on 09/23/2004 and follow to right now. You will see a lull in the action on Saturday, followed by a serious upswing in microquake intensity beginning today.
Well then what about a volcano nearer to populated areas, where the risks of large numbers of casualties is higher? Vesuvius? Fuji? You pick one, and assume that a big bulge (or some other more appropriate indicator) caused vulcanologists(sp?) to be concerned over a big blast.
It has been theorized that a nuke tipped bunker buster could be used to make a volcano erupt.
There’s a lot of problems with trying to do something like what you’re proposing. Is the volcano going to erupt, or is this just normal earth movement that happens from time to time? Also, how thick is the cap over the magma? Too thick, and you won’t accomplish anything. Finally, you run the risk of turning a “minor burp” by the volcano into a full scale eruption.
Try Mt. Hood (Portland, Oregon, metro area) or Mt. Rainier (Seattle-Tacoma).
The potential problem for both is not a volcanic blast or three, but the lahars generated by the eruption. Lahar is an Indonesian word for a rapidly flowing mixture of rock debris and water that originates on the slopes of a volcano. Lahars are also referred to as volcanic mudflows or debris flows. They form in a variety of ways, chiefly by the rapid melting of snow and ice by pyroclastic flows, intense rainfall on loose volcanic rock deposits, breakout of a lake dammed by volcanic deposits, and as a consequence of debris avalanches.
An eruption of Mt. Hood would probably not be a significant threat to Portland. Discounting the ash clouds (there goes your airplane flying for a while), but the lahars from a Mt. Hood eruption would flow through relatively benign areas. Of course, those folks living along the Sandy River might have a serious problem or two, but any significant loss of life with an eruption to Mt. Hood would be, IMHO, highly unlikely.
OTOH, an eruption of Mt. Rainier is significantly more dangerous. Again, not the actual eruption(s) but the lahars. Mt. Rainier is saddled with significant glacial ice. The rapid melting of that ice would develop huge lahars. On top of that, a significant number of lahars would flow west to the Tacoma-Seattle metro area. Think of 100 mph hot mud flows to ruin your day.
So when one of these puppies is ready to blow, how thick is the earth layer above the molten stuff? And is it conceivable that by poking a hole at the lowest possible elevation, you could reduce the impact of slides, flows, etc?
I recall there have been some (pretty uniformly unsuccessful) attempts to direct lave flow away from populated areas. But if anything might have an influence, being able to modify the flow’s starting point might have the most effect.
Plus I am all for bombing the Pacific Northwest. They’ve been getting uppity, and they have all those survivalist types. I say let’s see how good their bunkers really are. So long as nothing threatens the northern California dope harvest, I say send 'em all to hell.
I was up on Mount St. Helens a couple of years ago with the McGill University geology department. It’s very strange to think of it erupting again. I mean, it was so nice and solid and mountain-y when I was up there!
Duckster, you take care up there!
So if the “bunker buster” won’t be of any help, is there anything that can be done, for, say, Seattle, if Mt. Rainier shows signs of impending eruption? Would blowing up the side of the mountain facing away from civilization help at all by diverting lahar flow, or would the elevations of the area just suck it all back there anyway?
Forgive me if I’m off in my geology or my geography, I’m not a geologist and I’m not from the area!
No, no, you are mixing apples and oranges here. Lahars are not lava flows. According to the USGS,
“Eruptions of Cascade volcanoes tend to be much more explosive than those of, for example, the well-known Hawaiian volcanoes. This explosive tendency is related to the chemical composition of magma that feeds the volcanoes and to the amount of gas contained in the magma. Magma from the more explosive volcanoes contains relatively large amounts of gas and silicon and produces rocks such as andesite, dacite, or rhyolite. Magma from the less explosive volcanoes contains smaller concentrations of gas and silicon and produces basalt as well as andesite. Some Cascade volcanoes, including Mount St. Helens, have had nonexplosive eruptions of andesite and basalt, as well as explosive eruptions, in the past.”
When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, it was triggered by an earthquake and that earthquake caused “the Bulge” to collapse. Once the Bulge collapsed, the summit had no support and collapsed. In turn with no summit, the gas was released resulting in the eruption.
The summit elevation is for the highest point on Mount St. Helens. You forget that it is a volcano. It has a crater and within the crater is a lava dome. So if you are going to hit it with an ICBM, you really need to know the height of the dome within the crater, and not the highest point of the volcano itself.
