St. Helens alert

[C J Campbell]

The prediction now is for a much bigger eruption than originally expected. I
would strongly discourage sightseeing trips in the area.

One of the things that really bothers me is the crowds of people that have
come to see the mountain. They are sitting in the middle of literally miles
of downed trees: trees that have all fallen in a direction away from the
mountain. Hardly a blade of grass grows there almost 25 years after the
blast. Yet they think they are far enough away to be safe. They don't seem
to get a clue from the total devastation that surrounds them.

I know scientists don't expect another eruption like 1980. Well, they didn't
expect it in 1980, either.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[BTIZ]

News Media Op...
Darwin at Work..


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> The prediction now is for a much bigger eruption than originally expected.
> I
> would strongly discourage sightseeing trips in the area.
>
> One of the things that really bothers me is the crowds of people that have
> come to see the mountain. They are sitting in the middle of literally
> miles
> of downed trees: trees that have all fallen in a direction away from the
> mountain. Hardly a blade of grass grows there almost 25 years after the
> blast. Yet they think they are far enough away to be safe. They don't seem
> to get a clue from the total devastation that surrounds them.
>
> I know scientists don't expect another eruption like 1980. Well, they
> didn't
> expect it in 1980, either.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[dancingstar]

C J Campbell wrote:
> The prediction now is for a much bigger eruption than originally expected. I
> would strongly discourage sightseeing trips in the area.
>


I flew over there today. FSS had nothing on it. Why are there no notams
or Airmets on Mt.St.Helens ??

Antonio

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> The prediction now is for a much bigger eruption than originally expected.
> I
> would strongly discourage sightseeing trips in the area.
>
> One of the things that really bothers me is the crowds of people that have
> come to see the mountain. They are sitting in the middle of literally
> miles
> of downed trees: trees that have all fallen in a direction away from the
> mountain. Hardly a blade of grass grows there almost 25 years after the
> blast. Yet they think they are far enough away to be safe. They don't seem
> to get a clue from the total devastation that surrounds them.
>
> I know scientists don't expect another eruption like 1980. Well, they
> didn't
> expect it in 1980, either.

They didn't expect it? Is that why they did a full-scale evacuation?

I'm a little confused...can you be more specific? I can easily believe that
the 1980 eruption was even larger than expected, but as far as I know, they
DID expect a very large eruption, one much larger than what they are
currently expecting.

What size eruption are you claiming they expected in 1980? Either in
absolute terms, or relative to the current predictions would be fine for
clarification.

There's much less "mountain" blocking the flow of magma, and so any eruption
is necessarily going to be much smaller than what occurred in 1980. There's
plenty of areas that were devastated in 1980 that won't be touched this time
around.

They've evacuated folks from the visitor's center that's only 5 miles from
the dome, but left the one that's almost 8 miles from the dome open. That
gives an indication of how large an eruption is expected, and it's clear the
expected eruption is MUCH smaller than even what was expected in 1980, even
if that eruption turned out to be larger than expected (and I'm not aware of
any significant difference between the 1980 prediction and what ultimately
happened...maybe for my education you could provide documentation describing
that difference?).

All that said, I certainly agree with the overall gist of your message,
summarized in your first sentence: sightseeing trips in the area are almost
certainly unwise, until whatever eruption is expected does actually happen
and all the rocks have stopped falling. :)

Pete

[NW_PILOT]

I was with in 3 miles today trying to keep track of 4 choppers was a fun
trip on the way out she vented a little steam was cool but I know if she
went off it would be the end so why not right have fun ill be going back
till they restrict us. Only thing I did not like was the Haze at 9,000' MSL


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> The prediction now is for a much bigger eruption than originally expected.
I
> would strongly discourage sightseeing trips in the area.
>
> One of the things that really bothers me is the crowds of people that have
> come to see the mountain. They are sitting in the middle of literally
miles
> of downed trees: trees that have all fallen in a direction away from the
> mountain. Hardly a blade of grass grows there almost 25 years after the
> blast. Yet they think they are far enough away to be safe. They don't seem
> to get a clue from the total devastation that surrounds them.
>
> I know scientists don't expect another eruption like 1980. Well, they
didn't
> expect it in 1980, either.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> They didn't expect it? Is that why they did a full-scale evacuation?
>
> I'm a little confused...can you be more specific? I can easily believe
that
> the 1980 eruption was even larger than expected, but as far as I know,
they
> DID expect a very large eruption, one much larger than what they are
> currently expecting.

I would expect you to be both confused and just as contrary as usual. I can
at least count on you to keep life from getting dull. In any event, there
was no full-scale evacuation, nor did they predict an explosion at all. They
were concerned about slides and avalanches, and by the time of the eruption
they were letting all kinds of people back into the area to retrieve
possessions and such. In case you have forgotten, 57 people died in the
explosion. Although hundreds of airplanes were reported flying in the
evacuation zones, the FAA investigated only seven reports.

In 1980 St. Helens began a series of eruptions that attracted people from
all over. The Park area was much smaller in those days and there was no good
way of keeping people out. People were 'advised' to leave the area, but some
sightseers and residents, like Harry Truman, stayed. The news media reported
the eruptions extensively, attracting even more people. In any event,
'evacuations,' such as they were, were ordered at the start of the
eruptions, were incomplete. Ostensibly, the area of evacuation was for 15
miles from the mountain. The reason given for the evacuations was that they
were concerned about the potential for avalanches. There was a 'Red Zone,'
where the threat of avalanche was considered severe, and a 'Blue Zone,'
where flooding might be expected. The evacuations were poorly handled, with
deputies manning the roadblocks sometimes just going home. At one point, a
man from Skykomish actually managed to evade the roadblocks in April and
climbed to the summit. At that time, 109 airplanes were reported to be
within the evacuation zone. The evacuation zone was actually reduced in size
in April because merchants were threatening to sue for lost business.

St. Helens is very similar in geological structure to Novarupta in Katmai,
which gave birth to The Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes in Alaska. I felt at
the time that if the harmonic tremors on St. Helens stopped abruptly, then
pressure would build inside the volcano and there would be a huge explosion
within a few weeks. However, none of the scientists studying the volcano
seemed concerned about that and I figured that they knew what they were
talking about. All of the scientific concern was focused on mud flows and
avalanches. No one talked about a major explosion. You can see all this in
the St. Helens diary at http://makeashorterlink.com/?U29731F69 maintained by
USGS.

The flow of magma and the harmonic tremors did suddenly stop on May 8.
Scientists and the news media speculated that "the show is over" and that
there might be more small eruptions in the next few years but that the main
event was over. They talked about letting reducing the size of the
evacuation area and, for all I know, they did. The evacuation areas were
constantly being reconfigured at the request of local property owners who
were demanding access to their summer cabins on Spirit Lake and elsewhere,
but scientists continued to be concerned about the possibility of avalanche.
Jack Hyde, a geologist at Tacoma Community College, said that he thought the
avalanche might be followed by an explosion, but that was discounted. They
were actually escorting property owners in and out of Spirit Lake right up
to the day before the explosion. Another trip was planned for the morning of
May 18.

The explosion of 1980 was only 1/30 the size of that at Novarupta, but
devastated an area up to 20 miles from the mountain. Flying over it today
still reveals an awesome demonstration of the power of that blast. Trees are
flattened in all directions leading from the mountain.

I should mention that Hollywood made an atrocious movie (which I have not
seen) about St. Helens which I understand portrayed scientist David Johnston
as a renegade who predicted the explosion when no one would listen to him
and who had an affair with a local waitress. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Johnston, by all accounts, worked well with his colleagues and
was happily married. His measurements with lasers enabled him to predict on
April 28 that the north flank would have to collapse and no one disputed
that. Still, he never predicted that the mountain would blow up, certainly
with the force that it did, or he would have been much further away.
Johnston was courageous but he was nobody's fool.

People simply do not understand the power and danger of these volcanoes. At
least scientists studying the volcano today are better equipped and funded
and have not discounted the possibility of another explosion. Personally, I
would feel better if they got everybody out of there and kept them out.

The USGS site has this quote from May 5, 1980:

One of the reasons some people do not understand why scientists and
officials have remained cautious may be their familiarity with famous
Hawaiian volcanoes. Their frequent eruptions and familiar lava flows have
contributed to the popular belief that all volcanoes have fluid, channelized
lava flows. One logger was quoted: "We're logging 10 miles away from the
peak...I don't see any hazard. I just came back from Hawaii, where they run
tourist buses right up to the edge of a venting volcano."

[john smith]

Let em go, CJ.
They are Darwin Award candidates.

C J Campbell wrote:
> The prediction now is for a much bigger eruption than originally expected. I
> would strongly discourage sightseeing trips in the area.
>
> One of the things that really bothers me is the crowds of people that have
> come to see the mountain. They are sitting in the middle of literally miles
> of downed trees: trees that have all fallen in a direction away from the
> mountain. Hardly a blade of grass grows there almost 25 years after the
> blast. Yet they think they are far enough away to be safe. They don't seem
> to get a clue from the total devastation that surrounds them.
>
> I know scientists don't expect another eruption like 1980. Well, they didn't
> expect it in 1980, either.
>

[Rutger]

.... a situation where the Earth might actually rise up to smite thee,
regardless of how well thou maintainest thy airspeed.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> I would expect you to be both confused and just as contrary as usual. I
> can
> at least count on you to keep life from getting dull. In any event, there
> was no full-scale evacuation, nor did they predict an explosion at all.
> They
> were concerned about slides and avalanches, and by the time of the
> eruption
> they were letting all kinds of people back into the area to retrieve
> possessions and such.

Ahh yes, the old Usenet standby: the ad hominem attack.

Anyway, if what you write were true, I would have expected you to provide
links to actual information discussing that. From the vague, top-level link
you provided, all I could find was confirmation that the bulk of the
fatalities were either scientists studying the volcano, in a known high-risk
occupation, and civilians who refused to accept the warnings given them.
Not only had the area been evacuated, but as you even admit, people who were
allowed back into the evacuated area were required to sign waivers and
otherwise indicate that they understood the extreme hazard involved. "All
kinds of people" is hardly an objective way to describe that activity.

The "documentation" you provided simply contradicts what you claim to be
true.

It's plenty clear that in 1980, a much more significant event than is
expected today was expected, and occurred. It's also plenty clear that
scientists today have a pretty good understanding of what is likely to
happen and what is not. I'm not going to go flying around the mountain, but
to claim that the mountain could have a major eruption when nothing of the
sort is predicted is pretty silly.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I would expect you to be both confused and just as contrary as usual. I
> > can
> > at least count on you to keep life from getting dull. In any event,
there
> > was no full-scale evacuation, nor did they predict an explosion at all.
> > They
> > were concerned about slides and avalanches, and by the time of the
> > eruption
> > they were letting all kinds of people back into the area to retrieve
> > possessions and such.
>
> Ahh yes, the old Usenet standby: the ad hominem attack.
>
> Anyway, if what you write were true, I would have expected you to provide
> links to actual information discussing that. From the vague, top-level
link
> you provided, all I could find was confirmation that the bulk of the
> fatalities were either scientists studying the volcano, in a known
high-risk
> occupation, and civilians who refused to accept the warnings given them.
> Not only had the area been evacuated, but as you even admit, people who
were
> allowed back into the evacuated area were required to sign waivers and
> otherwise indicate that they understood the extreme hazard involved. "All
> kinds of people" is hardly an objective way to describe that activity.
>
> The "documentation" you provided simply contradicts what you claim to be
> true.
>
> It's plenty clear that in 1980, a much more significant event than is
> expected today was expected, and occurred. It's also plenty clear that
> scientists today have a pretty good understanding of what is likely to
> happen and what is not. I'm not going to go flying around the mountain,
but
> to claim that the mountain could have a major eruption when nothing of the
> sort is predicted is pretty silly.

Well, it sounds like you have made up your mind, despite what the USGS
account I gave you says. The account says that only one scientist, a
geologist at a community college, was concerned about an explosion. The
account says that the major concern was avalanches and flooding. The account
relates the entire history of the 'evacuation' and the restricted areas and
who was allowed into them. The account specifically says that roadblocks
were frequently unmanned, that emergency services did not seem to take even
the threat of avalanche and flooding seriously enough to fund and man the
roadblocks, and that even the FAA was rather perfunctory in its
investigation of pilots who violated the airspace over the mountain. It is
obvious to me that you are determined to argue with me no matter what I say,
so I guess we are done discussing the matter.

[Dave S]

Lets hope they don't take anyone else WITH them during the qualifying
trials for a DA

Dave

john smith wrote:
> Let em go, CJ.
> They are Darwin Award candidates.
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> The prediction now is for a much bigger eruption than originally
>> expected. I
>> would strongly discourage sightseeing trips in the area.
>>
>> One of the things that really bothers me is the crowds of people that
>> have
>> come to see the mountain. They are sitting in the middle of literally
>> miles
>> of downed trees: trees that have all fallen in a direction away from the
>> mountain. Hardly a blade of grass grows there almost 25 years after the
>> blast. Yet they think they are far enough away to be safe. They don't
>> seem
>> to get a clue from the total devastation that surrounds them.
>>
>> I know scientists don't expect another eruption like 1980. Well, they
>> didn't
>> expect it in 1980, either.
>>
>

[J.M. Farrington]

I'm not going to go flying around the mountain, but
> to claim that the mountain could have a major eruption when nothing of the
> sort is predicted is pretty silly.
>
> Pete
The spirit of Harry Truman is alive and well.

John

[John Harlow]

Rutger wrote:
> ... a situation where the Earth might actually rise up to smite thee,
> regardless of how well thou maintainest thy airspeed.

hehe...

[gatt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
< Hardly a blade of grass grows there almost 25 years after the
> blast. Yet they think they are far enough away to be safe. They don't seem
> to get a clue from the total devastation that surrounds them.
>
> I know scientists don't expect another eruption like 1980. Well, they
didn't
> expect it in 1980, either.

It's just that there's a few hundred million tons less of mountain to erupt
now. You could put the entire population of the world in the 1980 crater
and not fill it up.

You wanna see something sad? Go to the visitor's observatory (when it
opens) They've got a great demo of how the mountain erupts, buries the
countryside in hundreds of feet of molten ash, and then how the forest
rebuilds itself and life goes on in a miraculously short time; then they
tell you not to walk off the trail or pick up rocks because the ecosystem is
fragile. Another sign says 'If Mt.St Helens would have wanted you to
take souvenirs, she would have given them to you.' OK...I remember wearing
a dusk mask for a week while my parents put pantyhose over the car's air
filter. I'll take that as permission, thanks.

-c

[gatt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

> They didn't expect it? Is that why they did a full-scale evacuation?

The red zone is for the loading and unloading...

Fact is, by May, 1980 Mt. St. Helens had erupted many times, far more
dramatically than anything we've seen here yet.

-c

[gatt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

> I would expect you to be both confused and just as contrary as usual. I
can
> at least count on you to keep life from getting dull. In any event, there
> was no full-scale evacuation, nor did they predict an explosion at all.

WRONG! If you're gonna belittle someone, CJ, you should present the facts
straight:

There was a very large RED ZONE evacuation before May 18 that people such as
Harry Truman chose to ignore when they went up to encourage him to leave.

>Although hundreds of airplanes were reported flying in the evacuation
zones, the FAA ?>investigated only seven reports.

What? There were "hundreds of airplanes in the evacuation zones" I thought
you said there were no evactuations. In fact, if there were hundreds of
airplanes there, perhaps you can tell us how many "Darwin Awards" were
awarded to pilots blown out of the sky.

-c

[gatt]

"john smith" > wrote in message

> Let em go, CJ.
> They are Darwin Award candidates.

Aren't we all?

-c

[gatt]

"Dave S" > wrote in message

> Lets hope they don't take anyone else WITH them during the qualifying
> trials for a DA

You guys keep sucking that media hype right up. "Whoa, this is blahblahblah
reporting. The mountain is DANGEROUS! STAY AWAY FROM THE MOUNTAIN! Let's
go now to our live NewsCrew helicopter hovering over the crater...."

Better send up a NOTAM to watch out for Rodan.

It's erupting right now. But, guess what? Unless you're -right- in front
of the crater, it's pretty obvious when it's venting. Know what you do
then? Turn around and file a PIREP.

I flew around it yesterday. Know what? I saw MORE STEAM COMING OUT OF THE
LAVA DOME WHEN I HIKED IT LAST YEAR AND STARED DOWN AT IT FROM THE RIM than
I did this yesterday.

Mt. St Helens is binary. It's either erupting or its not. If it's
erupting, stay away from it. If it's not, it's not. The only hazard is if
it starts to erupt while you're downrange or you're dumb enough to fly into
the eruption.

-c

[Teacherjh]

>>
and then how the forest
rebuilds itself and life goes on in a miraculously short time; then they
tell you not to walk off the trail or pick up rocks because the ecosystem is
fragile.
<<

That's actually not so crazy as it sounds. Remember, tourists have a big
impact on an ecology, just because there are so many of them.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>>>
> and then how the forest
> rebuilds itself and life goes on in a miraculously short time; then they
> tell you not to walk off the trail or pick up rocks because the ecosystem
> is
> fragile.
> <<
>
> That's actually not so crazy as it sounds. Remember, tourists have a big
> impact on an ecology, just because there are so many of them.

And besides, the ecology never gets a chance to recover from the tourists.
The eruption happens, wipes everything out, and then things can gradually
come back. But to do so, they need to be left alone. Unlike the damage
from the eruption, damage from tourists happens every day, and the ecology
never gets a break.

Reminds me of our visit to Death Valley, where we stopped to look at some
salt pools, the edges of which teemed with very tiny microscopic life.
Signs everywhere implored the tourists to stay on the path, and to not walk
up to the pools, since a single step can wipe out millions of the creatures
and render the area under the footprint sterile for years, maybe even
decades.

More tourists completely ignored the signs than made any attempt to comply
with them. And yes, you could see the left-over footprints everywhere. :(

Pete

thats probably what someone said in 1980 also


"J.M. Farrington" > wrote in message
news:1u_7d.104687$wV.94425@attbi_s54...
>
> I'm not going to go flying around the mountain, but
> > to claim that the mountain could have a major eruption when nothing of
the
> > sort is predicted is pretty silly.
> >
> > Pete
> The spirit of Harry Truman is alive and well.
>
> John
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
. ..
>> The spirit of Harry Truman is alive and well.
>
> thats probably what someone said in 1980 also

In 1980, not only was the spirit of Harry Truman alive, Harry Truman himself
was.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> The spirit of Harry Truman is alive and well.
> >
> > thats probably what someone said in 1980 also
>
> In 1980, not only was the spirit of Harry Truman alive, Harry Truman himself
> was.
>
>

We are referring to Harry Truman, the old geezer who lived on the side
of Mt. St Helens -- NOT former President Harry Truman.

[Peter Duniho]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> We are referring to Harry Truman, the old geezer who lived on the side
> of Mt. St Helens -- NOT former President Harry Truman.

I know. Perhaps I should have been more specific: rather than simply "In
1980", I should have written "In 1980 prior to May 18th".

[C J Campbell]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>
> > I would expect you to be both confused and just as contrary as usual. I
> can
> > at least count on you to keep life from getting dull. In any event,
there
> > was no full-scale evacuation, nor did they predict an explosion at all.
>
> WRONG! If you're gonna belittle someone, CJ, you should present the facts
> straight:
>

Obviously you read neither my posts nor the USGS diary. If you are going to
flame someone, flame them for something they actually said.

[C J Campbell]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>
> > I would expect you to be both confused and just as contrary as usual. I
> can
> > at least count on you to keep life from getting dull. In any event,
there
> > was no full-scale evacuation, nor did they predict an explosion at all.
>
> WRONG! If you're gonna belittle someone, CJ, you should present the facts
> straight:
>

Obviously you read neither my posts nor the USGS diary. If you are going to
flame someone, flame them for something they actually said.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> > and then how the forest
> > rebuilds itself and life goes on in a miraculously short time; then they
> > tell you not to walk off the trail or pick up rocks because the
ecosystem
> > is
> > fragile.
> > <<
> >
> > That's actually not so crazy as it sounds. Remember, tourists have a
big
> > impact on an ecology, just because there are so many of them.
>
> And besides, the ecology never gets a chance to recover from the tourists.
> The eruption happens, wipes everything out, and then things can gradually
> come back. But to do so, they need to be left alone. Unlike the damage
> from the eruption, damage from tourists happens every day, and the ecology
> never gets a break.
>
> Reminds me of our visit to Death Valley, where we stopped to look at some
> salt pools, the edges of which teemed with very tiny microscopic life.
> Signs everywhere implored the tourists to stay on the path, and to not
walk
> up to the pools, since a single step can wipe out millions of the
creatures
> and render the area under the footprint sterile for years, maybe even
> decades.
>
> More tourists completely ignored the signs than made any attempt to comply
> with them. And yes, you could see the left-over footprints everywhere.
:(

It is just as bad at Yellowstone.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> > and then how the forest
> > rebuilds itself and life goes on in a miraculously short time; then they
> > tell you not to walk off the trail or pick up rocks because the
ecosystem
> > is
> > fragile.
> > <<
> >
> > That's actually not so crazy as it sounds. Remember, tourists have a
big
> > impact on an ecology, just because there are so many of them.
>
> And besides, the ecology never gets a chance to recover from the tourists.
> The eruption happens, wipes everything out, and then things can gradually
> come back. But to do so, they need to be left alone. Unlike the damage
> from the eruption, damage from tourists happens every day, and the ecology
> never gets a break.
>
> Reminds me of our visit to Death Valley, where we stopped to look at some
> salt pools, the edges of which teemed with very tiny microscopic life.
> Signs everywhere implored the tourists to stay on the path, and to not
walk
> up to the pools, since a single step can wipe out millions of the
creatures
> and render the area under the footprint sterile for years, maybe even
> decades.
>
> More tourists completely ignored the signs than made any attempt to comply
> with them. And yes, you could see the left-over footprints everywhere.
:(

It is just as bad at Yellowstone.