Talk:1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens/Archive 1

Problem with times
The article states at the beginning of the "Buildup to Disaster" section that all times are given as Pacific Standard Time, but the time of the May 18 eruption was actually 8:32am Pacific Daylight Time. Times in March are probably PST; times in May are PDT.

careen or career in the heading
I've always gotten these confused. Last check, careen had to do with pulling wooden ships onto the beach and overhauling their hulls. Career as a verb, is the one meant here? Right? ww 18:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Maveric149 asked me to check my American English dictionary, which I had done before I changed it. Careen means violent side-to-side motion, rocking of ships, or laying of ships on their side for repair as ww says.  Career means rushing forward at a great rate.  In US English careen is also used synonymously with career (frowned on by guardian-of-the-language types, accepted by less stern dictionaries); in UK English it isn't.  It would be perverse to insist on using a word in a sense that's used only in US English when there's a perfectly good word that reads much better in other forms of the language as well, so I've changed it back to career. Worldtraveller 07:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The primary meaning of career is something very different. The secondary meaning you mention is very seldom used in American English, thus I removed it again. --mav
 * Is career in that sense is any more obscure than careen, which you previously wanted to insist on? Anyway, 'flow' just doesn't come close to describing it, so I've changed it to 'rush'. Worldtraveller 13:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Larhars do careen back and forth as they rush downstream. But rush is better overall, so I've kept that. --mav

tourism and souvenir industry
Someone should add info about the fact that the site of the Mt St Helens eruption is not a huge tourist attraction. I remember going as a child and they sold CRAPLOADS of memorabilia related to the eruption. I bought a clear plastic pen that had ashes from the volcano stuff inside. Pacian 13:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * not a huge tourist attraction? Bwah?
 * It could be mentioned that the tchotchke industry continues, especially in central Washington, to this day. Seattle P-I, Eruption started a flow of souvenirs that's still molten-hot today  Noteworthy: the Original Mount St. Helens Volcanic Ash Glass company.  If you stop for gas along I-90 in Washington I don't think you can miss their wares.  However, the rest of the article is very scientific and informative; don't know how/whether the trinket trade really fits in. Bsktcase 16:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that would be much more appropriate for Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument of the main St. Helens article since this article is about the eruption and the immediate aftermath (which as far as tourism is concerned was a real damper for many months). It was only after 1980 that any significant tourism started to happen. --mav

Large image
I agree with the user that the image breaks up the article too much and looks very awkward at the top. While it is a fantastic picture, the cost to the article layout is too great to place it right after the intro. - Taxman 23:35, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC) I don't think that image is a centrepiece as Maveric149 states: while it's undoubtedly a great image, it isn't crucial to understanding the eruption. Placed where it is, it clutters up the top badly, and I think it discourages people from reading the rest of the article. I think it rounds off the article nicely where I put it at the bottom. Will consider re-reverting, unless there are strong objections and good reasons to keep it where it is. Worldtraveller 06:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes it is - read the caption. It shows what happened to the volcano. Consider this a strong objection. --mav 16:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Telling me to read the caption enlightens nobody as to why you feel the image must be placed exactly where it currently is, and why it should not be moved to a place where it sits better with the text. Your screen grab shows the top of the article looking quite nice, then the top of a large block of shapes where there's no article text, which is exactly the problem as I see it. Worldtraveller 23:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * ?? And without the large image there would be still be a large blank spot between the TOC and the image to the right of that. The large image provides a visual overview of the whole event and helps to draw readers into the article. Its placement at the top of the article is therefore very appropriate. --mav
 * This argument is already pointless, as you're clearly too dogmatically attached to the picture being where it is to see that there are many advantages to it going further down the page. Perhaps you take offence at somebody moving an image that you created and that you really like.  Do remember that We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia, and consider the thought that perhaps you lack the required objectivity to see what's best for this article.  I'm going to move the image again because believe me, the top of the article really does not look very nice at the moment with that image directly above the contents box.  The bottom of the article seems good because it's a final photo showing the end result of the eruption.  It rounds off the article excellently.Worldtraveller 07:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Again it is an overview photo that tells the reader at a glance what happened. It also helps to draw them into the article. Thus its placement at the top. You have not taken part in adding anything substantive to this article while I am the one who wrote/adapted almost all of it. So it is rather absurd and insulting for you to state that I don't know what is best for the article. This is also a featured article which gained its featured status with the photo at the top (which will be a featured image soon). I have not seen any comments in those discussions about how the photo placement is wrong. --mav 17:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It does not help to draw people into the article. That's why I moved it.  It did not help to draw me into the article - far from it, it made it looked cluttered and disorganised and put me off reading the rest of it.  If you think that you alone know the best place for that image, then unfortunately you're missing the entire point of Wikipedia.  If you think that because I didn't start the article I somehow am not qualified to edit it, you're missing the whole point of Wikipedia.  If you think a featured article simply can't get any better, you're missing the point yet again (and the article was featured without the image, actually).
 * Basically if you're determined to ignore anyone else's opinion and keep the article looking cluttered and messy, then of course you're welcome to do that. Or, you could read that line about not trying to own your contributions again and try to accept that other people are indeed able to see better than you what works and what doesn't, even if (gasp!) they didn't start the article in question.  In the meantime please feel free to have a look at some of the articles I've started and adjust as you see fit, I quite like it when people do that.
 * Strongly prefer the picture at the bottom for all the reasons previously stated. It is awkward at the top but makes an ideal conclusion at the bottom.
 * mav: "You have not taken part in adding anything substantive to this article while I am the one who wrote/adapted almost all of it. So it is rather absurd and insulting for you to state that I don't know what is best for the article."
 * Seems to me you are proving Worldtraveller's point:
 * Wt: "Perhaps you take offence at somebody moving an image that you created and that you really like. Do remember that We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia..."
 * This seems to have become a personal crusade, possibly on both sides. Mav, I think the image is superb, but you don't own this article and you are out of line to suggest that your opinion counts more than Wt's, mine or anybody else's.  I prefer the image at the bottom; however, I am much more tired of the argument and the revert war.  I hope other readers will sound off on this issue, either way, so we can get it resolved once and for all and leave the image alone thereafter.  Bsktcase 21:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The lead section is exactly for leading people into an article. Overview photos help with that. Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area (another featured article), Geology of the Bryce Canyon area (FA as well), and Geology of the Grand Canyon area (will be FA-quality as soon as I add some more photos and do a bit of clean-up) all have a similar set-up. My point about mentioning the FA status of this and other similarly-formated pages is that nobody mentioned any formatting issues for these articles during that process. And if the placement were really that bad in these articles then somebody would have mentioned it then. And I don't feel that I own this or any other article, but I do feel that since I wrote this article I do know a bit about the topic and thus have a better grasp on what is important to present to the reader and where. Neither of you have demonstrated that. --mav 13:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * OK - I moved some images around. The big photo isn't so big anymore and should not break up the article. But it is still at top where I steadfastly maintain it should stay. --mav 13:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * OK - I moved some images around. The big photo isn't so big anymore and should not break up the article. But it is still at top where I steadfastly maintain it should stay. --mav 13:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mav: You seem to have overlooked one crucial point: having a large image on the page makes it near-inaccessible for anyone on a modem. I'm on broadband, and, when I clicked on the image to view it, it was taking minutes to download! It seems fine as it is now (although the multiple images – and the screenshot on this page – will still cripple the article for modem users, I suspect.) [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 08:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That is what thumbnails are for; the image on this page is less than 12 KB in size. I can easily make a 600px wide version of the linked image and link that instead of the 2000px version (which could be under a [full size] media link both from the caption and on the image description page - most browsers will size such an image to the full width of whatever the browser window is at). --mav

Maveric149, you're quite misguided. First, no-one has to prove their editing credentials. Your opinion does not have any greater weight than anyone else's, for this or any other article. Second, no matter how much you know about Mount St. Helens, it doesn't follow that you know what people want to see in an article about it, and it doesn't give you the right to exercise a veto over where the images go. To clarify an issue you are mistaken on, this article was featured before the image was put at the top. Therefore, your claim that it's fine because no-one raised it when it was nominated for featured is irrelevant. In any case, you seem to be labouring under the misconception that a featured article cannot be improved. Also, how is the image an overview? It only shows one stage in the process, the final stage. It's a view over the mountain, not an overview of the 1980 eruption. If anything, the image looks worse how you have it now. The top of the article still looks very messy and haphazardly constructed. The image when shrunk to its current size looks quite bad as the sky banding between stitched images is prominent. To do the image full justice (and I will re-iterate, it's a very impressive image) I think it should be centered and approximately page width. The only place this works is at the bottom, where because it shows the end result of everything, the image rounds off the article excellently. Given that there are three people who think the image is best at the bottom and only one who thinks it's best at the top, it seems clear that it should go at the bottom. Unless I see other people in favour of the top placement, I'll move it down again. If you want to keep reverting changes that don't fit in with your vision of how this article should be, then of course you can, but I think you would do well to really think about why people want to change these things. Don't see it as a personal attack, it's no such thing. The article just looks better with the image at the bottom. Peace, comrade. Worldtraveller 13:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Have you read the first part of this article? It is a summary of the whole thing (see Lead section. Thus your logic about having an image of the result at the bottom of the article does not fly. The lead section is the only part of the article that the great majority of people who visit this page will read. Thus having such an important image up front and not hidden away will serve the largest number of people. And I plan to fix the sky vs ground issue (you are the first to say you noticed it, BTW). However making the image larger will only make that more noticeable. The image as is does not impede the article in any way - it just fills white space that would be there anyway. The original issue was that the start of the body of the article was pushed down due to the fact that the image was between the text of the lead section and the TOC. That is no longer the case (as I said the image now fills what would have been white space) and that is what the others commented on. And the fact you do know so much less about this topic is relevant since you don't know what is most important to display and where. That doesn't mean you are not allowed to improve this article, but it does mean you should show some respect for those who do know more. Let's see what the others have to say about the new image placement. I do feel that I have addressed their major concerns. --mav
 * You're trying to be offensively arrogant, but you don't even know how to spell lahar. You have much to learn about how to earn respect.
 * I still see only one person in support of the image at the top, and four people in support of the image at the bottom. Your attempts to own every aspect of this article are unhealthy and stifling, and if a majority opposes you, you should respect that.  If other people agree that the image is now OK at the top, then it should stay, but if they don't, then it should be moved. Worldtraveller 22:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Worldtraveller: I'm a little confused by the arithmetic. There's me who think's it's ok as a thumb by the TOC, and you, Taxman and Bsktcase who think it better at the bottom. Who's the fourth?  (Still means I'm outvoted, though.  :-  [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 23:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is very advanced arithmetic - trust me, I've got a PhD. OK, my mistake, typing faster than my brain was working: three votes for the bottom, and two for the top if you include maveric149 is my final estimate of the scores, values quoted to +/-2 :) Worldtraveller 23:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * LOL. Just kidding.  I wasn't exactly explicit. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 00:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If I misspelled larhar then it was a typo; your mention of such a mistake is a cheap shot. I still haven’t heard what others have to say about the compromise I developed. The previous comments about the old set-up are no longer current since I have tried to address the major part of those concerns with the compromise. --mav



why were so little people killed
Why were so little people killed in this 1980 eruption? Huge123 14:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC) so few people were killed because there was a fair amount of time to evacuate residents and hikers. Also it is not a very heavily populated area, and there were not many people to evacuate. Mac Domhnaill 02:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions...
Excellent article, editors, no wonder it's a Featured Article! I have just passed this article for inclusion in Version 0.5 as part of the Featured Article review. While this article is in very good shape, I do notice a few things that could be done to improve it.
 * Use more sources. While a book source is undoubtedly a good one, people like internet sources so that if they want to read more, they have more information right at their fingertips.
 * Use inline citations. They allow people to easily learn more about a certain fact in the article.  For a book source, mention the page(s) as well.
 * Consider using larger images when the image includes text, for easier interpretation by the reader. (Example: The map of ash distribution here)


 * Speaking of that ash distribution map, looking at it I get the idea that the ash cloud respected the U.S./Canadian border! Either that or there's some subtle geopolitical bias here. --Smithfarm 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask the same question!Boris Crépeau (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiroshima Yield
"In all, St. Helens released an amount of energy equivalent to 500 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs (approximately 350 megatons)" The information on the hiroshima yield is definitely wrong: Hiroshima was only 13 KT, and 500 times that would only be 6.5 MT. So one way or another the energy is wrong. 74.99.88.43 05:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think 74.99.88.43 is right. Also, on the Krakatau page describing the 1883 eruption it says the "yield" was around 250 megatons. If this page is correct than Krakatau must've been MUCH more than 250 Mt. Anynobody 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor clarification needed
On May 7, eruptions similar to those in March and April resumed, and over the next several days the bulge grew to huge proportions. All activity to this point was confined to the 350-year-old summit dome and did not involve any new magma. A total of about 10,000 earthquakes were recorded prior to the May 18 event I'd like to see some clarification on what "huge proportions" means, and also the time period 'prior' to the eruption. 'Prior' to the eruption can be the last 40 000 years! :) Naysie 02:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the USGS the bulge reached about 100m out from the flank of the volcano. It grew at a rate in excess of 1m per day.The Geologist (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Climatic effects
Weren't there global climatic effects of all that ash in the atmosphere. I remember that we had a lousy summer in the UK (OK, not unique) but there's at least a popular belief that there were such effects. Maybe worth at least a negative mention? Cutler 16:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any global effects other than a few weeks of better than normal sunsets due to the increased ash in the air. Contrast that to Pinatubo's eruption which is known to have caused a 2 to 3 year minor drop in global temperature. --mav 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have checked with the UK Meteorological Office and they an find no pertubation - upset, to the climate, let alone the UK weather.The Geologist (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mt. St Helens
What time did it happen ? When did it happen ? Why did it happen ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.21.127 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It erupted at about 8:32. It happened because there was an earthquake. It first had a landslide from the bulge collapsing, then the lateral explosion that caused the pyroclastic flow, then the vertical blast of rock, ash, and smoke.

Dates Are Messed Up
Behold File:Sthelens1.jpg and File:St Helens April 10, 1980.jpg. The first picture should be BEFORE the eruption yet if the dates below are real, then that picture was supposedly taken AFTER. What's messed up here? - Warthog Demon  04:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Effects in Canada
From the map it is easy to extrapolate that large regions of Canada also received significant deposits of ash. Is there useful data available from Canadian authorities that might help to "complete the picture"? Thanks. - knoodelhed 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioning this would be ideal. It is noteworthy that there's some ash deposits in Canada that were erupted from other Cascade volcanoes. There's at least 3 different ash deposits from 3 different volcanoes: the eruption from Mount Mazama 7,000 years ago, an eruption from Mount St. Helens 3,400 years ago, and other is from Mount Meager which took place in southwestern British Columbia 2,350 years ago (the Bridge River Ash). Black Tusk 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I hope I didnt piss anybody off.
Before I proceed further, someone tell me if my edit on the main page was out of line. I'd hate to step on anyone else's toes and get kicked out of here after only a few days.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed
It states that the volcanic ash did reach 11 states. Proof should be presented. I'll add [citation needed]. Dust429 (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Images needed
I think some images could be added for comparison of the volcano before and after its eruption.Dust429 (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Megaton TNT equivalent
Hi. This article would benefit from a "megatons of TNT" estimate. However, a quick Google search reveals varying figures for the estimate, including 7 megatons, 10 megatons, 20 megatons, and 24 megatons. Most of those sources are not reliable, so please pick a reliable source like USGS and come up with a good estimate to place in the article. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 13:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC) i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.219.78 (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC) That whole paragraph is cited by the Institute for Creation Research, not exactly the most reputable group, especially given that the USGS makes it's own estimates available. 67.169.145.35 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They now sell ashes at the mt. saint helens store —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.193.50 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

magma injected with syringe?
"an injection of magma at shallow depth"

This destription creates a big puzzle in the mind of anyone who is not geology-enabled. Sounds like the jolly green giant used a syringe to inject some magma. Can we use a phrasing that properly addresses the reader's expectation of magma oozing up through the rocks? Rtdrury (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that is the correct description. To inject means to put something from one thing into another, where it is a syringe or rising magma. If you wish to visit scientific information then learn the scientific language. Would you go on holiday to France and expect the French to speak English? I know many do but if you go and learn French and speak to the French in their own language you will earn a lot of respect. I am not picking on the French I could have said Spanish, Russian, Japanese etc.The Geologist (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

National Geographic
I think this documentary is useful http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfHdhxjJhIw&feature=channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.75.4 (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Earthquakes - swarm vs storms
Buildup to the eruption, para 3, line 3: "This was followed by more earthquake storms and a series of steam explosions that sent ash 10,000 to 11,000 feet (3,000 to 3,400 m) above their vent." The citation says it was from 1988, yet "earthquake storms" was not coined until at least 2000. If the Wikipedia article holds true, then this eruption article is inaccurate - "This is similar to the idea of aftershocks, with the exception that they take place years apart." (Quoted from the earthquake storm article). The seismographic data took place over the course of a few days - March 25 to, at best, March 29. If it really was a storm, then the earthquake storm article is in need of serious revision. Alternately, "storm" was used inaccurately in place of "swarm", which had already been used in para 1: "A gradually building earthquake swarm saturated area seismographs...".

Forgive me for being confused as to which is truly meant, but there seems to be a vast difference between earthquake swarms and earthquake storms. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, fixed!. Mikenorton (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please - are you SURE the citation (Harris, Fire Mountains of the West (1988), page 202) does NOT use "earthquake swarm"? Because if it does, it is not this article that is inaccurate, but the article "earthquake storm". I do not have the the book/article for proper verifying. 14:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.215.133 (talk)


 * I also do not have the book but, if I search on 'earthquake swarm fire mountain' in google books result No.2 gives a quote from page 202 of Harris showing the use of swarm referring to earthquakes, if on the other hand I search on 'earthquake storm fire mountain' I get nothing from Harris at all. Not 100% proof I'll grant, but beyond all reasonable doubt I reckon. Mikenorton (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We do not use the term "Earthquake storms" but the term "earthquake SWARMS." The term "storm" as used in this context appears to have originated from ignorant journalists reporting in the media or pseudo scientists.The Geologist (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Assuming"
I removed the sentence "At that rate, assuming additional destructive eruptions do not occur, St. Helens' summit would be restored to its previous height sometime in the mid to late 22nd century" because it doesn't have a reference or enough context to be encyclopedic. I don't know if the arithmetic is valid (e.g. a constant eruption rate in volume wouldn't lead to a linear growth in the height of the cone), but even if the calculation is correct, there's no context to suggest whether the assumptions are reasonable or not. I'm not a geologist, but I'm fairly sure that it could not regrow so dramatically in just 200-300 years. Unless the claim has appeared elsewhere and can be cited, it fails WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Zaian (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Before eruption: 9,677 feet (2,950 m) After eruption: 8,363 feet (2,549 m) Total removed: 1,314 feet (401 m) which means that it would have to build vertically at a rate in excess of 2 metre, year after year to reach its pre-1980 eruption altitude. As a volcanologist I am not aware of any volcano laying down over 2m thick layers of viscous lava on an annual basis. If anyone knows different I will be pleased to learn about it.The Geologist (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Unnamed flow
I read in a book that some people in the were caught in some type of flow that had very strong winds and little bits of ash. It said that if it had been a pyroclastic flow, the people would have been killed instantly. Is there a name for this type of flow? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Who was the man who walked out?
I remember seeing a video on TV many years ago, taken by a man who was near the mountain but (obviously) not in the path of the blast. He had a luggable video recorder and camera with him and walked out of the area to safety, recording as he went. Mostly the video was black due to the ash cloud blocking the sun. He kept talking most of the way, did a lot of coughing and gasping for breath too. I know it was said who he was but it's been 30 years (I was a week from turning nine then) and I don't remember his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * His name was Dave Crockett. There's an interview with him about the eruption here. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Evacuation
This article has no coverage on the evacuation of surrounding areas...not even a brief mention. This is a serious omission! I dug up this article which should help ; unfortunately I have no time to write right now. - Running On Brains (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good find! Mention added next to governor state of emergency sentence. Article already mentioned mounting public pressure to re-enter the danger zone. Now article mentions the original exclusion. --mav (reviews needed) 23:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

KOMO TV's Dave Crockett
We should add KOMO TV's Dave Crockett's story somewhere within the article, as well as the fact that the eruption's first few moments were also caught on videotape. *EDIT* Erm, whoops, Forgot to sign! Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Photographic and video record
Lack of citations for such a long period of time... Should it be removed?--128.119.111.122 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it isn't specifically referenced, the material in the section is supported by various items in the Notes, References and External links sections, so no, it shouldn't be removed. –  j ak s mata  18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mushroom cloud picture


I think this picture would be a useful addition to the article. It shows the full profile of the initial mushroom cloud. Within a couple of months I may be able to upload a high resolution version made from a dozen different negatives stitched seamlessly together. This crude version is all I have for now. (Another composite from these same negatives was printed in a National Geographic book in the 1980s.) The photographer has agreed to make the negatives available for reprocessing with modern digital technology. It should make a spectatular image; in the meantime this low-resolution image is uniquely informative.

I have also posted this notice in the discussion for the Mount St. Helens article.

HowardMorland (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It approximates to the same cloud that Pliny the Younger described regarding the AD79 eruption of Vesuvius. If you look at pictures of the Mediterranean Pine it has a similar profile.The Geologist (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.kgw.com/news/pdf/helens_deathlist.pdf
 * In 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens on 2011-05-25 04:55:19, 404 Not Found
 * In 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens on 2011-06-07 01:55:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0327/032754.html
 * In 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens on 2011-05-25 04:55:19, 404 Not Found
 * In 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens on 2011-06-07 01:55:36, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)