Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Mapping a Monster Volcano 105

Posted by timothy
from the shhh-it's-sleeping dept.
bmahersciwriter (2955569) writes In one of the biggest-ever seismology deployments at an active volcano, researchers are peppering Mount St Helens in Washington state with equipment to study the intricate system of chambers and pipes that fed the most devastating eruption in U.S. history. This month, they plan to set off 24 explosions — each equivalent to a magnitude-2 earthquake — around around the slumbering beast in an effort to map the its interior with unprecedented depth and clarity.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mapping a Monster Volcano

Comments Filter:
  • Monster Volcano? (Score:5, Informative)

    by rossdee (243626) on Tuesday July 08, 2014 @01:47PM (#47408583)

    Mt St Helens isnt that big as far as volcanos go. The main reason so much was damaged in 1980 was because it blew out sideways

    Compared to others in recent geologic history it was just a fart.
    (compare with Krakatoa 1883, or Santorini 11610 BC, or the various Taupo eruptions)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2014 @01:56PM (#47408671)

    I'd much rather see the explosions given in megatons.

    ~15 kg of TNT worth of energy, so about 0.000 000 015 megatons. Although surface explosions, and even buried ones, couple their energy poorly to seismic waves, so they will actually be using 1000-2000 lb of explosives (according to their public information sheet on their website, doesn't say what kind of explosive). So alternatively about 0.000 001 megatons.

  • by sjbe (173966) on Tuesday July 08, 2014 @04:04PM (#47409829)

    Sure, that's cool. Have you? Or are you taking it on faith?

    Boy did you miss the point. The point is that I COULD. That is hugely different than simply taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning. What makes processes like science or open source software so powerful is not that I have to check everything myself to trust it. What makes them powerful is that I always have the opportunity to check for myself. If you cannot see the difference then there is not much I can help you with here.

    BS. Most of religion centers on claims about the right way to live - perhaps to have a happy life, or a successful community, or so on.

    Religions are based on nothing of the sort. Most religions are a philosophical interpretations of collection of fables detailing things that cannot be proven to reassure and generally to gain power over those who are insecure and afraid. All that nonsense about the "right way to live" is simply trying to put a digestible coating on a pile of unprovable nonsense. Telling people "god said to do it" is much easier to explain than actually making a rational argument about why killing other people is a bad idea.

    Very testable claims.

    Really? Prove to me that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Prove to me that there was a garden of Eden. Prove to me that Jesus or Mohammed actually said any of the things they are reputed to have said. Prove to me that there is a diety of any sort. The bible, the koran, etc upon which the major religions are based are based on nothing testable at all. They are stories told to prey upon vulnerable people's insecurities so that others may gain influence and power. Organized religion gives "answers" that cannot possibly be true or proven or known.

    Only in quantum mechanics do I feel I'm still taking too much on faith, as the math there is just so much damn work to even understand the most basic results.

    So because you are inadequate to the task of understanding quantum mechanics it becomes faith? Perhaps you feel the need to drag things you don't understand down to your level so you don't feel so bad about yourself. The observations are there to be made and whether you understand them or not is irrelevant to their existence. You not understanding doesn't make it faith. It simply means you don't know and there is no shame in admitting that.

    Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. I suspect you've spent as little time studying religion as you have studying science

    You know nothing of my background so you can keep your insults to yourself. I've plenty of background in both - enough that I find your assertion rather bemusing.

    I have no patience for those who blindly follow religious dogma out of insecurity and then try to drag rational discourse down to the same level. If you want to believe in absurd things you have no basis for then by all means have at it. But don't expect me to follow along or condone your lunacy for even a moment.

If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, then a consensus forecast is a camel's behind. -- Edgar R. Fiedler

Working...