3 ms·
Add onto this that many or most of the mountains in the area are active volcanoes that are overdue for an eruption, and the Seattle area could be in for a real
by Pfhreak 5y ago
Add onto this that many or most of the mountains in the area are active volcanoes that are overdue for an eruption, and the Seattle area could be in for a real bad time over the next 250 years.
The projections of a moderate eruption of Mount Rainier (aka Tahoma/Tacoma) include flows reaching all the way to Renton/South Seattle.
- doktorhladnjak 5y ago“Most” of the mountains are not active volcanos. There are only 4 in Washington: Baker, Rainier, St Helens, Adams but hundreds of other mountains. Rainier is really the only one that poses serious danger to a populated area. Tacoma in particular will be destroyed by lahars alone in a large eruption
- jandrewrogers 5y agoThere are (at least) five major active volcanoes in Washington. You are forgetting Glacier Peak, an active volcano that is as close to Seattle as Rainier, but not as visible due to its lower elevation.
- hodgesrm 5y agoI have not seen anything that indicates Rainier or other volcanos are "overdue" for an eruption. Rainier, like others, goes through periods of greater or lesser activity. It's hard to predict the size of any particular eruption, as we saw at Mt St. Helens in 1980. The biggest risk from Rainier currently is lahars, aka mudflows. You don't need an eruption for those. The last big one was Kautz Creek in 1947. If you live in one of the valleys around Rainier there's a reasonable chance of seeing a lahar in your lifetime. (Hopefully from somewhere out of harm's way.)