The Most Dangerous Volcanoes in the United States
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июн 2024
- Which volcano in the United States is the most potentially dangerous? Surprisingly, it is NOT Mount St. Helens. This video will discuss which 5 volcanoes out of the 160 in the country are the most potentially dangerous and why this is the case.
Thumbnail Photo Credit: Cascades Volcano Observatory, U.S. Geological Survey, Public Domain, www.usgs.gov/media/images/mou.... This image was cropped, overlaid with text, and overlaid with GeologyHub made graphics (the image border & the GeologyHub logo).
If you would like to support this channel, consider using one of the following links:
(Patreon: / geologyhub )
(RUclips membership: / @geologyhub )
(Gemstone & Mineral Etsy store: prospectingarizona.etsy.com)
(GeologyHub Merch Etsy store: geologyhub.etsy.com)
Google Earth imagery used in this video: ©Google & Data Providers
This video is protected under "fair use". If you see an image and/or video which is your own in this video, and/or think my discussion of a scientific paper (and/or discussion/mentioning of the data/information within a scientific paper) does not fall under the fair use doctrine, and wish for it to be censored or removed, contact me by email at geologyhubyt@gmail.com and I will make the necessary changes.
Various licenses used in sections of this video (not the entire video, this video as a whole does not completely fall under one of these licenses) and/or in this video's thumbnail image (and this list does not include every license used in this video and/or thumbnail image):
Public Domain: creativecommons.org/publicdom...
Sources/Citations:
[1] U.S. Geological Survey
[2] J. Ewert, A. Diefenbach, D. Ramsey, "2018 Update to the U.S. Geological Survey National Volcanic Threat Assessment", U.S. Geological Survey, Accessed October 22, 2022. pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2018/5140/s...
[3] Donald A. Swanson, Timothy R. Rose, Adonara E. Mucek, Michael O. Garcia, Richard S. Fiske, Larry G. Mastin; Cycles of explosive and effusive eruptions at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai‘i. Geology 2014;; 42 (7): 631-634. doi: doi.org/10.1130/G35701.1
[4] USGS Denver Library Photographic Collection
[5] VEIs, dates/years, composition, tephra layer name, DRE estimates, and bulk tephra volume estimates for volcanic eruptions shown in this video which were assigned a VEI 4 or larger are sourced from the LaMEVE database (British Geological Survey © UKRI), www2.bgs.ac.uk/vogripa/view/c..., Used with Permission
[6] Source of Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) methodology and criteria: Newhall, C. G., and Self, S. (1982), The volcanic explosivity index (VEI) an estimate of explosive magnitude for historical volcanism, J. Geophys. Res., 87(C2), 1231-1238, doi:10.1029/JC087iC02p01231. Accessed / Read by / geologyhub on Oct 5th, 2022.
[7] Alaska Volcano Observatory
0:00 Most Dangerous US Volcanoes
0:58 Kilauea
2:51 Mt. St. Helens
3:31 Mt. Rainier
4:36 Redoubt Volcano
5:09 Mt. Shasta
My first guess would be Mount Rainer, due to its proximity to heavily populated areas and the fact that it is highly prone to devastating lahars.
By the time it explodes most of the area would be destroyed by the next time Cascadia quakes apart.
You’re exactly correct. Mt. Rainier sits right between Seattle and Tacoma. Landslides, lahars, and mudflows would likely devastate most of these cities. All the other volcanoes are located in fairly remote areas, many of which can be evacuated. We can’t evacuate Seattle and Tacoma.
I doubt the order here. I suspect it is a definition issue. Accounting for only volcanic activity perhaps this is fair. But accounting for non volcanic activity triggered lahars, it is hard to see how any other volcano in the states comes close.
@@Ifyoucanreadthisgooglebroke Mt Rainier is the single most topographical dominant stratovolcano in North America it also has an actual glacier on top. Any volcanic activity that heats up the mountain is going to cause catastrophic damage even if it doesn’t actually blow.
@@cohoanglervancouverwa6755 Not quite right, Mt. Rainier is southeast of Tacoma. Seattle is a bit further away to the north and is outside of Rainier's lahar zone. But there is still a significant population outside the city limits of these two large cities that is within the lahar zone. There is still ash fall to worry about, along with simply how swamped with evacuees the smaller surrounding communities (the ones outside the lahar zone) would be.
Glad mt shasta made it in here. I want to know more about the landslide that happened there, given in ur past videos you said there was hunkered terrain or debris from a landslide
See this older video I made on the subject and the many “mystery mounds” it created. Link: ruclips.net/video/mqUVn6D9yqs/видео.htmlsi=lbAXHmwNQwQeGRl0
I live close enough to Shasta that I can see it, on a clear day, from Mt. Ashland.
When the Cascadia subduction zone fault ruptures, could it trigger an increase in volcanic activity from Mt. Shasta or Mt. St. Helens?
@@GeologyHubnice that mount saint helens made the list too. Because there is a possibility that with the lava dome it could explode like it did back in 1980 or bigger
Thanks as always, Geology Hub! Thanks for the clarification about Kilauea's 1790 eruption and how many people it killed.
This is a very insightful list, containing very fascinating volcanoes.
Yes, you totally fooled me with Kilauea. Yikes! The good news is that current monitoring procedures most likely make unlikely such loss of life as occurred in 1790.
@@kskssxoxskskss2189 Over on the USGS channel there was a recent (i.e. earlier this year) published footage for the centennial of a major explosive eruption from 1924 that was captured on film (with several confirmed fatalities though no where near the level of its 1790 eruption). Obviously given the date it is black and white silent film but you can see the destructive pyroclastic flows from its last several hundred year long violent pyroclastic dominated phase of activity.
If it weren't for the Osceola mudlfow, we (possibly) would have had the tallest mountain in the lower 48! And a much more visually worthy candidate for that title, in my entirely biased opinion.
Visually worthy is still not the tallest. It is true that people have to be told which of many peaks is actually Mt. Whitney. I have never seen anyone guess correctly as two very tall peaks are closer to where people see it. It does not stand out. It is the highest peek of a series but that series is in the background of all the photos from the Bishop area and even most of the closer images.
Yup... I'm not sure if I'll make it up to the ice caves on Rainier.. I love walking across the old peak.. even when The Mountain isn't out.
Again, it must be noted that the Western Continental USA (excluding Hawaii and Alaska of course), has scores of active (yet dormant) volcanoes, yet they almost never erupt.
I'm 52, but Mount saint Helens is still the only one to do so.
Mount Lassen erupted around 1914 -1917
You should have said in your lifetime. It's the only one e to do so in my lifetime, too.
Very interesting. I was sure Rainier was going to be #1 simply because it will affect highly populated areas, but I was not considering the eruptive history of the various volcanoes and the fact that the type of eruptions they produce does change over time. I did recently learn that Kilauea sometimes produces explosive eruptions, I was still surprised that it was #1. Thank you for a very informative video.
Not gonna lie, I was half expecting to see that chipmunk causing a landslide
TBH, I wasn't surprised that Kilauea was considered the most dangerous volcano. As well as the stated factors, The fact is that, despite its frequent eruptions, people are building houses on old lava flows in active rift zones... and getting very surprised when those rift zones spring to volcanic life, like LERZ in 2018. There is also the deadly assumption that because its effusive, it's not that dangerous...a case of familiarity breeding potentially lethal contempt!
Sometimes, our hubris as a species is hilarious
Familiarity breeds contempt…
Not to mention theres a side of it thats sliding down every year
The fact that its underestimated certainly adds to the danger. A dangerous volcano given lots of respect is much less of a problem than people being nonchalant about a less dangerous one.
If people got surprised by 2018, imagine how shocking an explosive blast would be! It seems like even when the very dangerous water lake was present, only geology nerds were really discussing it.
I wouldn't have put kileuea #1, but your reasoning makes sense, the rest are not surprising
Can you do a video on why the cascades aren’t don’t erupt as much of the rest of the ring of fire?
If I remember correctly, it has to do with certain eruptive cycle behaviors, as Cascades did have long dormancy period that lasted more than several million years. (That was during Columbia Basalt Group activity time, although).
Depending on volcanoes, some volcanoes can really have long dormancy periods before going active again, like Mt Hood, as she had around 15,000 to 20,000 years of dormancy before resuming its eruptive cycle in 1700's to 1800s.
Plus, it takes long while for any new melt from subduction zones to come up, as we're talking about hundreds of kilometers below the surface, it has to travel that much distance to get to the chambers or surface. That can take centuries to thousands of years to do as magma aren't speedsters, they like to take their time.
For any Cascades stuff Nick Zetner has an amazing series of geological lectures that covers the cascades and Basalt floods and the Mesula flood events..amazing in my opinion(humble that it is)!
Part of that, because of "Subduction Zone" Activity; would suggest Indonesia, is #1; followed by The Phillipines, and Japan; followed by Southern Mexico, through Northern Columbia; followed by the Aleutian Trench Subduction Zone, and related Activity, in Southern Alaska, The Aleutian Island, and Kuril Island, Archipelagos, and The Kamchatka Peninsula. This is a very active Area, but because it is sparsely populated; it doesn't get, much attention.
I did say "what???" When you announced Kilauea. My guess was Rainier (in my backyard) for the lahars.
The volcano in the yard is kinda epic. It looked good from point defiance yesterday..
I should head out to eatonville/alder for a hike before it gets too busy.
@@JasonWorks-rf1yt 100%. I've lived in her sight my whole life and every time I see her, my breath still hitches in my throat. Kinda had not choice but to go into planetary sciences.
The most dangerous volcano is the one no one knows about
no, it isn't
How do you know if you don't know about it?
Also, how nice of you to have a name that results in no tag when people reply to your comments. 😂
@@BackYardScience2000 his statement was just wrong. Just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it will be the most dangerous.
Also, i have no idea how my username disappeared. RUclips doing youtube things, i guess
There’s one in my area that is listed as high risk, but most people around here think it’s extinct, if they even know it’s there.
Most people don’t know that Mount Saint Helens ash fall actually saved probably 40 or 50 carpenters, labored and ironworkers when one of the ash falls closed down construction on the Satsop Nuclear Power Station. The ash landed on the site and the crews were sent home until they could get the work areas cleaned up. That particular day, the contractor I was working for, Chicago Bridge and Iron Inc., had their giant self erecting tower crane collapse and fall into an area where those workers had been working. They would have either been seriously injured or killed by the crane parts and debris that impacted the area. I was working on the other side of the containment vessel and was shaken up by the accident! Amazingly, nobody was killed. I think 3 guys were injured, none seriously. The crane was the tallest equipment working on the site at the time of the accident.
Are you sure the ash fall didn't cause/contribute to the crabe collapse?
@@samsonsoturian6013 I’m absolutely sure. The crane collapse was blamed on operator error. The crane operator had a load on the unit- a man basket with 2 or 3 boilermakers coming down from the top of the containment vessel. Supposedly the operator decided to perform an emergency stop on the load as it was being lowered to the ground. The sudden stop caused the main lift cables to snap and the brake fail on the drum. A series of mechanical failures caused the cables that lifted the boom to fail causing the boom to drop out of control and collapse on the top and side of the #3 reactor containment vessel. When that fell, the entire tower then collapsed, dropping the entire crane structure over the #3 containment vessel was associated structures just outside of the reactor building. I remember seeing a full sized pickup truck was sliced in half by the guy wires that whipped out of control during the crash. I was working 150 feet high, in between the concrete containment walls and the steel interior vessel walls- on scaffolding. It was quite the exciting ride as scaffolding collapsed and 2x12 scaffolding planks were snapped in half and fell 150 feet to the bottom of the reactor building. Lots of screaming and yelling by our crew- everyone was amazed that nobody was killed! I was witness to 2 other crane collapse accidents in my time working in construction. Every time it was exciting as hell. And NOT in a good way!!!
Thanks for all the hard work on these videos
Thanks, GH, straight to the point with the volcanoes as always.
Technically, when the Kilauea eruption happened in 1790, Hawaii was not yet a state. (1959)
Isn't hawaii in the United states?
@rorygay3529 it is now, but at the time it was an independent Polynesian kingdom
. The title of the video is volcanoes in the united state. It doesn't matter the history.
I would have guessed Mt Rainier as the most dangerous volcano.
Stunningly beautiful though! So is Mt Baker!
I love this channel! Great video! Very informative!
Thank you, GH. Interesting as always!
Love your show! Thank you for all your hard work! 😁
Just asking, is that oil facility really located on the best place possible?
Obviously not. I think that's what he was getting at when he said, "Thankfully no ecological catastrophe has occurred"
Yeah that is like, a mind numbingly stupid place to put an oil storage facility. How the hell did that even occur in the first place????? In similar lahar prone zones in Iceland, they are basically entirely devoid of infrastructure and settlement.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing! 😊
you should make this a series for countries or regions
GH, you are my favorite teacher! Thank you, have a great week! ❤
In the Pnw it's Mt Rainier
I agree with you
Yup.
Except for its low eruptive rate. Rainier hasn't had a magmatic eruption since 1450 and a major eruption since 250 BCE.
5000 Years ago, Mt. Mazama (Crater Lake), went off, "big time". Since no records were kept, it is impossible to know how many people would have been killed, in that eruption, plus the area was sparsely settled; but it is still, the largest eruption, on the North American Continent, in recent geologic time. Only Tambora, was estimated to have been bigger. Perhaps, for that reason; both South Sister, and Mount Shasta, need closer watching.
1:00 = good to see Dotsero, Colorado, on the map; it erupted 4,000 years ago.
Curious about Mt. Hood
Me too
Good point!
Nice, can you do this same format for other countries?
I live just up the hill for Orting Washington. We do take it serious, but IMHO not enough. There are a lot of new developments on the old lahar flows.
i personally (might be wrong) think that mt hood should be in the top 5 do to its lahar risk going into portland ans other big/medium sized cities plus its explosive past and current activites
you should do occasional videos where you talk in depth about specific recent eruptions of volcanoes, for example the 1883 eruption of krakatoa, 1886 or tarawera, or the 1912 eruption of novarupta.
Before watching, I have to vote for Rainier. The fact that Tacoma is built on Rainier mudflows says it all. And, while the city I'm in (Yakima) is not in the path of any Cascade mudflows, this place did get the full Nuclear Winter treatment the last time St Helens went off, with like a foot of ash. Rainier is totally capable of doing that 2x or 5x bigger.
most dangerous is subjective... most dangerous in terms of what is has done or what it could do is also subjective. Rainier's issue is the shear amount of people that live in it's shadow. Glacier Peak, in Washington State, could also be a major issue, if it i erupted.
Don’t forget, Konocti has neighborhoods right up to its flanks.
I would argue against Kilauea being number one for the fact that it is the most studied volcano on the planet. The folks at the park are excessively careful with conditions. If the eruption in the 1700s happened today, they would have cleared the park before it happened.
The deadliest Volcanic eruption on US Soil was the 1911 eruption of the Taal Volcano, which killed ~1500.
i would've guessed Mt. Rainier was the first, considering how close it is to the Seattle metro area.
Seattle the Naples of the US. Rainier isn’t the biggest threat they are near. It’s just the most obvious one.
@@TheSjuris except it’s only one volcano not 4
@@Vesuviusisking substitute volcano with one of the worst earthquake zones. Right in the middle is Seattle.
Are the effusive/explosive cycles of Mauna Loa related to the rate of movement of the Pacific plate at all?
Top of the list should be Mt Rainier. There is a reason it's on the decade list. The potential life/property loss from lahars and landslides is just too great.
Thanks.
Having lived on Mt Shasta, I wanna say Shasta!
There is an opinion that Mt. Rainier may not explosively erupt but instead use its magma to melt all the ice to cause lahars. Lahars would do so much damage that whole towns (Orting & Sumner come to mind) would be wiped off the map by 30-foot-high cement rivers!
We who live within sight of Mt Rainier admire its beauty while aware that it could kill us.
What about the super volcano beneath Yellowstone Park??
Number one by a mile.
It will destroy the USA.
Hello GeologyHub, I saw a 1-mile-wide crater-like depression north of Mono Lake at 38°13'02.2"N 119°08'54.5"W. Do you know if this is related to volcanism in any way?
Aside from Mt. St. Helens my guess would be Mt. Rainier and with the lahar's more devastating so it gets my vote for
MOST dangerous. It has been active at least four times in the last 4000 years. Kilauea is very well monitored and people
can get away if the worst would happen . I'm doubtful if those around Mt. Rainier will flee in an evacuation fast enough
after heeding all the warning signs.
That would explain why the real estate that I need to build a radio repeater site is so darn cheap for me there on the Big Island of Hawai’i. 🤙🏻
Kilauea took that right on the spot. I thought it’ll be either Rainier or St.Helens that was on top of the list, but nope 😮.
My initial thought was in fact Kileaua however it came to my that the potential fallout from an explosion eruption could be the disruption of the Helena Slump and the potential for landslides and an ensuing tsunami which could effect multiple continents. I’m not a geologist so not sure if this is an accurate school of thought
Where do you thing mount hood would be ranked?
I'm not sure how Novarupta doesn't get mentioned. It would be locally or regionally bad if any of the volcanoes he mentioned where to erupt, however if Novarupta goes off again like it did in 1912 the Northern hemisphere would be in for some trouble.
Perhaps it's the likelihood of an eruption?
Does the risk associated with non volcanic activity triggered lahars factor into this? I'd have really thought Tahoma would take it here, but it seems the lower eruptive rate holds it down. Yet that lower eruptive rate doesn't limit the lahar potential. The nightmare scenario in some of those Washington cities that have popped up in those flat river valleys that are Tahoma's lahar zones is precisely the non volcanic lahar, since there could be comparatively little or no warning.
I'm trying to imagine what the magnitude of volcanic activity will look like when the Northwest "big one" hits. I've heard that pretty much all of the major volcanoes, and possible new vents would erupt. And I'm also trying to imagine just what the index of ash will be, if not the pyroclastic flows and lahars alone. It may not happen in our lifetime, but I *do* imagine there will be signs leading up to it. And several powerful aftershocks, too!
I spent half my day looking at Mount Rainier from the Osceola mud flow left overs... #3?
I agree with Mt Rainer but I would place Mt Spur above Mt Redoubt and I would have even more concern with Mt Wrangle.
no mention of Mt Lassen?
Agree. Though I feel Shasta and Lassen are neck and neck.🤷🏼♂️
Hey @GeologyHub I don't know if you have answered this before, but I have a question about super volcanoes, but more specifically about Yellowstone. I have seen that some super volcanoes or allegedly super volcanoes like Campi Flegrei even if it is gonna erupt, it doesn't mean it's gonna be a super eruption. But when you look about Yellowstone the information or the common knowledge is that every time Yellowstone erupts is always a super eruption, is this assumption true? or there is a possibility that if Yellostone erupts it could be a less explosive/more normal eruption?
check his Yellowstone volcano video
The vast majority of Yellowstone eruptions are lava flows, not massive caldera-forming eruptions. There have been a few dozen lava flows since the last big explosion. Last lava flow was about 70,000 years ago.
Is there any movement in the magma chamber under Brussels
Interesting, ranking Shasta over Lassen, since Lassen erupted in the early 1900s.🤔
I don't recall your covering the difference between a pyroclastic flow and a pyroclastic surge.
How bad is Mt. Baker? Also, where's the nearest volcano to Wisconsin?
for ancient volcanics, Northern Minnesota, up by Superior and Duluth. For modern, Yellowstone. Source - Former MN resident and Non-Professional Volcanologist.
You already gave the answer but I was thinking more like in Eastern or Southern states because never spoken about🤔
I thought Shasta when I read the name because if it had a sizeable eruption in which lahars flowed westward it would cut off a major artery in the west - the interstate 5 freeway. My other thought was Mount McLoughlin in southern Oregon. This is more of a selfish pick in that if it had a similar eruption to its neighbor, Mount Mazama(now Crater Lake) there is a very high chance my family and I would be toast.
I don't believe it but what you said is true it really saprized me I was like what a jentel volcano like Kilauea but it does have the potential to explode
Its also how much damage can the volcano do to the plates on causing the most violent earthquakes.
Plates moving create volcanoes, not the other way around
I have seen this danger index before but what I don't get is in the review of each volcano you mention its past eruptions. If going of past events then why is Crater Lake aka Mt Mazama not considered? Doesn't it have the largest eruption in the lower 48 not considered a super volcano? Is the fact that it completely blew its top the reason it isn't considered as big of threat as the ones listed here? I assume the time past since that happened is a big factor in it but my expertise is in a completely different field.
It’s only had one major eruption in the Holocene period
@@Vesuviusisking @Aryon1969 Mazama has had several VEI 5s and 6s in the Holocene Epoch, including a set of two within a few hundred years of the VEI 7 Eruption that formed the caldera. As well as the fact that after a caldera-forming eruption a volcano takes several thousand years respite with minor eruptive activity forming new vents, such as Wizard Island. A good example would be Mt. Tambora since its 1812-1816 eruption.
@@sevdarastrix6413 I’ve only heard of it’s vei 7 eruption I’m sorry about my comment
They are all way too quiet. All these eruptions and volcanic activities around the world and the Cascades are just like "meh"
Just curious, but I'm going to guess that valles caldera (Jemez {hey-mez} mountains) isn't listed? Is it because of not many people near by? Or is it that the last explosive was over 600k years ago?
I live near Jemez mountains and an up in the caldera quite often. If going by historic periodicity it is technically due according to the information up at the monument. As the time between major eruptions has been getting less. The tallest peak is a resurgent dome.
I'm asking as I'm curious about the reason why it wasn't somewhere near the list. Do I think it's going to erupt in the next few thousand years, probably not.
I live within 3 km of a volcano… one that has been extinct for some 300m years.. I think, off the top of my head I have 12-14 odd extinct volcanoes within 15 miles from where I live.. thank goodness the only danger emanating from their summits are the highly
dangerous sheep and odd ‘Heelin’ Coo’ (Highland Cow)
I m in Washington State we have awesome volcanoes here
Irrational volcanos of emotion have to rank pretty high.
hub hasn't met my Aunt Ernie, now that's a dangerous volcano
@ 0:02 Mnt Hood due to it's proxinity to a densely populated region...WTF @1:11 and who knew that the railroad mountain (Mt Saint Helens) was the second most...By the way, you can find information about it's previous railroad owners when you google it. After the 1980 eruption, the Burlington Northern(BN) (Now BNSF) gave ownership of it the government. The mountain first came under ownership of either the Northern Pacific Railway, or Great Northern railway, of these merged with the other, the Colorado, Spokane & Southern, and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy to form the BN, and funnily enough, a railroad tycoon owned all four of those railroads...which means, no matter what, ONE guy despite which company owned it, owned a dangerous volcano...yes I kinda nerded out there...sorry 'bout that.
I got the top three correct, even if I didn't get the order correct, so I'm taking that one.
Yellow stone should have been on the list
The risk of an eruption from Yellowstone is extremely low. Many geologists believe it's unlikely to ever erupt again. The big danger there is earthquakes triggering landslides.
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 that’s actually a W
@@Vesuviusisking What's actually a W?
I disagree with that notion, as Yellowstone is no longer threat to us anymore since Yellowstone is dying off and its magma is shrinking further as it cools down. There's very, very low chance of eruption in future, as last eruption was major rhyolitic flow in 57,000 years ago.
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 that Yellowstone won’t blow
Did they identify the offshore volcano that created the drowned forests in Washington state? A tsunami coming ashore would devastate the coastline of Vancouver, Canada and US Pacific states.
That would be due to the 1700 Cascadia megathrust earthquake, not a volcanic eruption.
It Hast'a Be Shasta. Thank you.
Geology Hub, what are you talking about?
What in the world ? ? . . . Peaceful Kilauea ? ?
Why does it feel like US mainland volcanoes never erupt and like Lewatobi or Marapi or any of the indonesian volcanoes be erupting all the time
Indonesia has a quarter of the world's active volcanoes, and they are powered by a very active bit of plate tectonics. US mainland not so many, not so much.
Isn't the hot spot moving south or plate moving northwest over hot spot which will reduce activity of Kilauea over time ?
My bet is on Mt Rainier as doing the most damage to humans and their pitiful possessions.
Kilauea, as any hawaii'an volcano will eventually fizzle out and get replaced by a new volcano due to plate movement, yes--that wont happen in the near future tho. Also worth noting that the hawaii'an mantleplume is in a period of increased melt productivity compared to its eruptive history millions of years ago.
"Over time," yes. But the lifespan of volcanoes compared with that of humans is so much longer that for us living people, nothing will change. Nothing will change even for the next hundreds of years.
Or, going back in time, it is very likely that the geological situation in Hawaii was already the same as it is now, when the first people settled on Hawaii hundreds of years ago.
The next volcano to the east of Hawaii has already formed and is producing submarine eruptions. It will take a long time to build up to the surface and make an island.
The most dangerous volcano were the friends we made along the way.
5:12 lol there's a place called 'weed' over there... that's funny.
If Baker in my user image erupted the lava would run down two river valleys and surround our property on its way to the ocean. The ash would most likely fall to the east. It would make for an interesting adventure or obituary . My preparedness plan involves being far enough from the ocean to avoid a tsunami, home sturdy enough for earthquake, far enough away from the volcano, manage the farm to keep it wildfire resistant and elevated enough to not flood …and I think we are good as we can be for natural disasters 😆.
Mostly Alaska and Hawaii volcanoes. But, you miss a couple - Yellowstone and Long Valley supervolcanoes!
How about their frequency of eruption?
@@georgobergfell long valley caldera should be there
Definitely long valley should be there. No one wants to talk about long valley. I wonder why?
Yellowstone is unlikely to erupt anytime soon, and Long Valley is not a supervolcano by definition. a Supervolcano must have produced 1000 km3 in a single eruptive event, Long Valley produced approximately 200 km3.
@@sevdarastrix6413that figure is for the long valley caldera by itself
But the long valley caldera sits on top of a larger and older super volcano
You keep mispronouncing Mt Shasta. The first A in it sounds like the A in apple.
Considerable improvement on Ruíz though.
There's not much ice left on Shasta.
When I climbed Shasta in 2006, there was about 5000 vertical ft in ice on the north side. On the south side, you are right, note much. It was striking how different the north ans south were.
I would say that kilauea is the second most dangerous volcano in the united states. The first is long valley. Why? Because its a super volcano that can easily destroy not only California but half the united states if it were to erupt.
When was the last time it erupted?
Long Valley is NOT a supervolcano by definition, and is not currently approaching an eruption despite media reports, The recent scientific studies actually say the magma chamber is cooling, not heating up.
@@jamesfowley4114 long valley itself hasnt erupted in 10k+ years. Mammoth Mountain, Mono-Inyo and Mono Lake are all separate systems.
@@sevdarastrix6413 Actually, you got wrong system for that, as that is Yellowstone that is cooling down.
@@sevdarastrix6413 Actually, again, wrong. Mammoth Mountain and Mono-Inyo is most recent eruptions for LVC and it is not separate system as it relies on LVC's main magma body. LVC's main body is still very active and is not shrinking down as Mammoth Mountain received a recent magma intrusion in 1980s but failed to breach the surface.
As a matter of geography more than geology, Hawaii was neither a state nor a territory at the time of the eruption you cite from the late 18th century, so it should not qualify under your definition for this. However, I’m going with Mt. Rainier as the one I consider to be the most potentially dangerous in terms of human impact. Clearly the Yellowstone supervolcano has greater potential for widespread impact, but the vast timescales involved in its apparent eruptive history are outside human experience and realistic comprehension. It’s far too speculative for my comfort, though that’s hardly the best word to choose under the circumstances.
Eh, it’s the same reason I would include tseax cone’s deadly 1700 eruption in Canada’s list of volcanoes when it technically occurred within an indigenous nation at the time. Its best to list these regardless of land status or politics at the time as volcanoes can about neither.
@GeologyHub True enough. It was not meant as criticism in any way. It's just that your use of the name United States creates a definition (for the sake of familiarity?) that doesn't apply to the specifics. As I said, it's an issue of geography, not geology. You're the expert. I'm just a low rank amateur rock collector who really enjoys your work.
As a National Park Ranger who specializes in geology and worked at Yellowstone over 10 years ago, I agree with you. I worked with Hank Hessler and he told me that if Yellowstone were to erupt it would likely be lava flowing at the Norris Geyser Basin. Would have to close the Park and monitor but a super eruption is extremely unlikely.
Keep collecting them rocks.. 👍🏻
01:46 The statement that it was the deadliest eruption "In US history" is incorrect. Hawaii didn't become a US territory until 1900 and wasn't a US state until 1959; it wasn't a US Territory in 1790. That's like saying the deadliest explosion in US history was the chicxulub meteor event. It's disingenuous to argue that something which happened to another country before the US even knew of it's existence 'happened to that country' just because hundreds of years later they became a state. .
You could say the same for some of dates he gave for last eruptions too. The US didn't exist thousands of years ago, the land and Volcanos in many cases however still did.
How is Yellowstone not on this list?
Many geologists believe that it's very unlikely to ever erupt again.
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 So it’s extinct then.
@@jacobvoracek2349 I think the rule may be that it's only extinct if it hasn't erupted in 100,000 years. But there's clearly still all those geysers, hot springs, etc, still going. So technically, it's dormant. It's still possible that it could come up with a small eruption, but nothing like the massive ones of the past. I'm not an expert, so see what the USGS has to say, and believe them more than me.
gee.
I wonder what prompted one of our zombie fuel cartels to
construct an oil storage facility along a riverbed, subject to lahars,
that leads to the ocean near an active volcano?
(answer: profit)
The most Dangerous volcano Is the One we made along the way
🤣🤣 the confusion to this??? YUP YOU GOT YOUR FANBASE SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS…..😂 but yes, I get how you rate these
Squirrel!
A book from Michael Crichton was just released. Interesting so far. Completely unrealistic but its fiction
In 1790, Hawaii wasn't in the United States. In fact, Hawaii wasn't even a unified kingdom until after 1790.
What's your point? He mentions the 3600BCE Mt Rainier lahar, but Mt Rainier wasn't in the United States in 3600BCE.
And the Confederacy was an independent nation, but we still count their deaths as American
Brilliant place for oil storage. Wtf
This list makes no sense whatsoever. Mount Rainier has the potential to wipe out over a trillion dollars worth of property and infrastructure, not to mention tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of lives. I'm not saying it would (God forbid), but the potential is there. The others don't even come close. I lived close to Saint Helens for over 20 years and the thought of it erupting never scared me like the thought of Mount Rainier erupting did. There are towns and major cities all over the place around Rainier.
Hawaii wasn't a state in 1790, though, but I get where you are headed with this.
That should still disqualify Kilauea in regards to that eruption since that happened over 150 years before Hawaii became a state