The Icelandic explosion grounded many flights and affected the human community. Whereas, the Mt. St. Helens explosion mostly affected the wildlife community in the lake and the surrounding forest. They are the same because they affected the animal kingdom that still includes us no matter how ignorant we are about it.
The eruption of mt. St. Helens was caused by an earthquake which caused the mountain to collapse on one side and erupting of that same size whereas the iceland volcano was melting ice and shooting steam in the air. The were similar because they are both unpredictable and they are both near cities with a decent population.
The Mt. St. Helens eruption was a massive eruption nearly destroying the entire volcano and generating a great amount of pyroclastic flow. The Iceland volcanic eruption spewed tons and tons of ash into the atmosphere that later drifted over nearly the entire European continent, grounding thousands of fights, both commercial and otherwise.
Mt. St. Helens would be the most deadly. It exploded, covering everything within a large radius in ash. Also, the pyroclastic flow has caused all life to seize, but later on, nature returned due to a few animals and a plant. The eruption in Iceland is less severe, since the volcano didn't really cause too much death. It only spews ash at this moment, but it covers a huge area, and it is becoming a larger problem. It is causing some illnesses, and it is also stopping flights in and out of Europe. Soon enough, the ash may even cover all of Europe. There is still wildlife, and it is not as extreme due to the fact that there was not as much gas as Mt. St. Helens had. They are both very severe though. One affected the wildlife, and the other affected the humans.
Also, the Icelandic volcano largely affected the human community while the Mt. St. Helens eruption mainly affected the wildlife community. They both, in their own way, caused a tremendous amount of chaos and destruction.
Both Mt. St. Helen's and Eya are volcanoes that caused a disaster. They both spewed tons and tons of ash into the atmosphere that effected the whole area the ash drifted to. I think helens had more of an effect on the environment that Eya did. There were no deaths caused by Eya. Helens effected more animals than humans, and Eya effected not but in a less extreme.
The Icelandic eruption made it harder for people to travel or just live, (live like do their normal routine not survive)Where Mt. Saint Helen was destroying everything in its path. I think Mt. Saint Helen was more violent. But they both disturbed life around the area, it was a major natural disturbance.
The Iceland eruptions had some similarities and differences to the Mt. St. Helens explosion. To start, the similarites are that they were both eruptions that effected the whole ecosystem not just one population of animals or human beings. Another similarity is that they both caused massive distruction. Some differences of the two explosions are that the Iceland explosions was not as big of an explosion. It was a couple of smaller explosion. The second difference is that the Iceland explosions effect the land and the air whereas the Mt. St. Helens explosion effect mostly the land and everything in the path of its pyroclastic flow.
Bothof the volcanic eruptions were massive and caused an incredible amount of damage. Mount St. Helens was a huge volcano, but the one in Iceland, was relatively small. Although the Iceland volcano was not very large, it disrupted air travel and caused many people to have to stay in Iceland because it was too dangerous for plains to take off. The plumes of ash that shot out of both volcanoes was one similarity between them. The ash on Mount St. Helens covered the environment below it while the mountain in Iceland shot into the atmosphere and covered the ground. The Iceland volcano erupted in phases and. Its second phase was rated a 4 on the VEI scale as compared to Mount St. Helens which was rated 5. They were both powerful eruptions and impacted the environment.
Mount Saint Helens almost completely destroyed the life around it, even places that were considered "safe". However, the Icelandic volcano grounded flights and affected the humans and animals living there. However, I feel Mount Saint Helens was a worse eruption that the Icelandic eruption because I don't think the Icelandic one didn't do nearly as much damage as Mount Saint Helens.
When Eyjafjallajokull erupted, it affected mostly humans because it grounded planes and caused heavy air pollution around the world. Also, it did not do much damage to the surrounding wildlife. When Mount St. Helens erupted, it devastated the wildlife but did not really affect humans. The eruption of Mount St. Helens changed the shape of the mountain, but when Eyjafjallajokull it did not. The two mountains are similar though because they are unpredictable.
The Iceland Eruption caused weeks of flooding and the Mt. St. Helen Eruption did not. Both of them began with an increase in seismic activity, and then a caldera sank in resulting in an enormous explosion. There were more differences than this, though. For one thing, the Mt St Helen Explosion was slightly bigger, covered more area, and was more inland. Also, the iceland eruption took place more recently.
After reading a couple sites about the Icelandic volcano, I think that there are some similarities with the Icelandic volcano and Mt St Helens. For one thing, they both gave off warnings with small quakes and after a period of time, a side off the mountain collapsed. The difference is that Mt St Helens immediately made us evacuate the area while the Icelandic volcano just keeps people held there because of the stop of air traffic.
Mt. St. helens was so violent it blew off the side of it and spread ashes every where and destroyed everything in a 5 to 10 mile radius. The one in iceland mostly spread ash every where and stopped all flights stranding people and the lava melted the ice causing the water levels to rise.
They both disrupted the air traffic because of all the ash that wen thousands of feet in the air. I personally think that the Mt St. Helens eruption was a little more extreme because of how powerful the blast really was, it just destroyed the top of the mountain. I'm not saying that the Iceland volcano wasn't bad because it was. It disrupted air traffic in Europe. The ash cloud spread very far and even to England. So both volcanos had their effects on different places and different surroundings, but both were destructive to either the wildlife and the humans. Mt St. Helens was much more destructive to the wildlife, while the Iceland one was more destructive to humans although it did not kill anyone, but it did destroy many establishments.
Mount St Helens was more deadly and damaging than Eyjafjallajokul. News reports say that Eyjafjallajokul was mild compared to other eruptions in history. Although it is melted the ice caps because they are absorbing more sunlight, raising rivers to danger levels. It sent thick clouds of ash and debris into the air. Mount St Helens was more damaging to the environment, covering the ground in ash and molten lava. Eyjafjallajokul grounded many flights and was more damaging to the air. Mount St Helens was more damaging to the environment and overall in my opinion.
The eruption in Iceland was small than Mt. St. Helens. The icelandic volcano was a 2 on the VEI scale while Mt. St. Helens was a 4. While the explosion was smaller, the ash was spread all over Europe and many flights to and from place all over the continent were cancelled. Mt. St. Helens was not quite as near to human life, and it destroyed mainly animals and plants more than the very few humans it did manage to kill.
Eyjafallajökull exploded in Iceland, and it effected humans a lot, because air travel was delayed, and most of Europe had ash in the air. Mt. St. Helens effected the wildlife more, and the environment. Within a 14 mile radius everything was covered in ash and lava.
Comparisons between Mt. St. Helens and Eyjafjallajokull are that neither actually erupted red lava that many of us think of when we think of a volcano. They both just made a lot of noise and produced a lot of volcanic ash and worried many nearby citizens and people around the world. Differences between the two were location, Mt. St. Helens is located in Skamania County, Washington and Eyjafjallajokull is situated in North Skogar.
The Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption was chiefly concentrated on the biotic features in the area as well as the abiotic features. Since there was no human metropolises in close proximity, the nature in the region was suffocated and flattened leaving behind barren land. The damage that was done recovered in less than a decade, but not without interruptions and irregular activity. Whereas, in the Eyjafjallajokull explosion, ice caps and air travel was extremely disrupted. The aftermath of the outburst effected not only the atmosphere, but caused the airlines to loose approximately $250 million a day. The ash clouds from both volcanoes envelope the terrain around them and also in other parts of the world by wind currents.
The Mt St Helen and Eyjafjallajokull eruptions both impacted the environment. Mt St Helen did more damage to the environment and animals, and Eyjafjallajokull affected the air and ice caps more. Mt St Helen and Eyjafjallajokull were both composite volcanoes or stratovolcanoes which means that they have bigger explosions.
Mount Helens- last this scale volcano since 1800 , this was more violent and unexpected but not many people got hurt due to the number of residents living near the volcano. Iceland- first major eruption in Iceland since 1821,people were warned especially the near by residents at the foot of the volcano, there were floods and lave because of the volcanic glacier so the floods came of the melting glacier and the lava melted it, more airlines shut down. Both- side collapsing,both were volcanos. Iceland eruption to me seems to be effecting more people with the airline and I believe that eruption was worse.
The volcano in Iceland recently erupted, in a sequence of volcanic explosions. There were 3 phrases of the eruption, all occurring in 2010. The difference between Mount St. Helena and the volcano in Iceland is the aftermath. Mount St. Helene was deadlier, destroying the surrounding environments and everything in its path. The Iceland volcano effected the economy and the human environment. They both are similar is type of volcano and eruption. When they both erupted, both collapsed on one side of the mountain.
the Mt. saint helens eruption took out thousands of archers of wildlife and forest area. the volcanos in iceland have been erupting since last school year, and are actively affecting air control, wildlife, and the human population.
The Icelandic eruption spread across Europe, creating more delays and frustration, but Mt. St. Helens was more concentrated and destructive. The iceland volcano affected a greater radius, but the 1980 eruption affected the area more.
The Mt. St. Helens eruptions was a lot more deadly than the one in iceland because it wiped out everything within 200 Sq. miles. They were both the same type of eruption and volcano and they both altered the shape of the volcano.
Mt. St. Helen was more destructive to the environment. The weird Iceland volcano whose name cannot be spelt or pronounced by anyone who is not Icelandic affected humanity's pockets more. They both were natural disasters with wide ramifacations.
Mount St. Helens affected a smaller area and didn't erupt as long as the one in Iceland. The Iceland Volcano, has been erupting since March, and has affected air traffic all across Europe and some Asia. Mount St. Helens is a deadlier volcano than Iceland's volcano. St. Helens is way more explosive. At one point in the future St. Helens could end up affecting all of America and maybe most of the globe if it erupted again. Mt. St. Helens instead affected wildlife. These two are no super-volcanoes, but they could affect a large area if the eruption is big enough.
The volcanic eruption in Iceland and Mt. St. Helens both were volcanos and one side of the volcano collapsed on both. They are different because Mt. St. Helens effected more of the wildlife and lakes around the volcano where as the Iceland volcano effected more of the human environment and ice caps. Although Iceland eruption effected the wildlife too, Mt. St. Helens did more damage.
The Icelandic eruption was caused by two small eruptions that sent up huge amounts of ash that slowed down Europe's air traffic. The air traffic disruption was the slowest since WWII.
Mount St. Helens was caused by a plate moving under another and then causing pressure forcing the magma to push up and erupt. The north side of the mountain fell off and caused a huge landslide, and the ash and other debris destroyed 200 square miles of landscape.
The volcano in iceland was a series of explosions as compared to the single eruption of Mount St. Helens. There were three eruption phases. The Mount St. Helens eruption was more unexpected than the ones in iceland. The ones in Iceland affected the air by spreading ashes all over. The Mount St. Helens eruption effected the ecosystem with its pyroclastic flow.
The Iceland volcano is devastating like Mt. Saint Helens, but they are going to feel the wrath of the volcano after the eruption when Mt. Saint Helens was felt as the volcano exploded. The Iceland volcano was said that the mud slides would be a big part of the volcanos destruction when Mt. Saint Helens explosion was most of the destruction. But they are the same because they both disrupt the air travel. Also they both had violent eruptions after a long slumber.
The eruption of Mount Saint Helens is only slightly like the Icelandic eruption. Mount Saint Helens erupted in one super explosion, whereas the Iceland volcano continued spewing long after the initial explosion. However, they did both severely damage the ecosystem, whether around them or across the world. Mount Saint Helens severely damaged its surroundings, but it also spewed ash into the atmosphere. The volcano in Iceland erupted many times within a year, and while some areas around the volcano were damaged through violent eruptions, other eruptions polluted the atmosphere so severely that planes heading in the path of the ash clouds had to be grounded. While both volcanoes are violent, they do their damage in different ways.
With the recent eruption, it effected humanity much more than anything else, by delaying flights, destroying ice caps, and coughing up tons of ash up into the air. On the other hand, Mt. Saint Helens exploded in a much more nature bound area, which covered everything anywhere even remotely close to the mountain in a nice thick coat of ash from the pyroclastic flow shot from the volcano.
Although both major geologic events, the eruptions of Mt. St. Helens and Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland were different in a few ways. The Icelandic explosion directly effected the human population more than St. Helens, because it was located much closer to civilization. (If not Iceland, than the ash penetrated populated areas such as the UK and France.) Also, the mountain in Washington had a destructive pyroclastic flow, while Eyjafjallajökull threw enormous amounts of ash into the air. Therefore, the 1980 eruption was more physically destructive to the earth, while this year's explosion was more disruptive to the flying industry of Europe. There are a few similarities, however. Both mountains are stratovolcanoes. In addition, neither volcano is located near a large populated community of people. (Mostly farmers lived in the range of Eyjafjallajökull.)
The Mt. St. Helens eruption was very explosive and shot ash and smoke thousands of feet in the air. An earthquake caused the eruption, and the explosion took out one of the sides of the volcano. The Iceland eruption was also very explosive, but it continued for a very significantly long time. It made airlines cancel for two days by continuing to pour black ash and smoke out of the volcano. The difference was the aftermath was different. St. Helens caused a large area to be covered in debris and smoke. It was basically a wasteland for almost three years. The Iceland eruption caused the glacier it was sitting on to melt, causing a major flood. This flood made citizens evacuate and Iceland was haveing a flood.
Mt. St Helen exploded in one circular spot. Iceland's volcano exploded in a ridge along some of the mountains. Mt. St. Helens poisoned a lake nearby. Iceland's volcano poisoned a whole sea.
Differneces: Mount Saint Helens-- This erruption was unexpected and explosive though was not as deadly for there were few residents nearby. This explosion, though leaving a desiccated land in its wake, recovered in less than a decade having caused only damage to the surrounding area and areas blanketed in ash. Iceland-- this eruption was caused by seismic activity and was a small explosion, rating a 1 on the Volcanic Index. The main killer in this explosion was that it caused glaciers and ice caps to melt and cause severe floods and mud flows. The time for this ecosystem to Exocet from it is undeterminable for the floods have wrecked havoc through Iceland and it is hard to say when nature shall recover.
Similarities: Both created a huge ash cloud, though Iceland's was bigger, higher, and blcoked more air traffic.
Mt. St. Helens and Eyjafjallajökull (also known as E15) are both stratovolcanoes in a cold region. They both emitted lots of ash into the air and land surrounding it, but Mt. St. Helens affected mostly the land, killing most life while E 15 clouded the air, denying birds and airplane the freedom of the sky. While Mt. St. Helens' pyroclastic flow was safely contained in a relatively small area, E 15 was spread around northwest Europe.
The Eyjafjallajokull eruption was actually somewhat expected. There was seismic activity without any actual eruptions in 2009, and a civil protection officer called a woman who lived at the foot of the volcano about twenty minutes before the volcano exploded and told her to evacuate her family- meaning it wasn't sudden. Mt. St. Helens was the exact opposite, as it exploded without warning. Neither explosion had lava, however. Both explosions were just soot and billowing smoke, and a few pyroclastic flows.
It's seems as if the damage caused by the Iceland Volcano was much more far spread then that of Mount St. Helens. Mt. St. Helens also seemed tto be in a much more secluded are and affected much more wildlife, compared to the volcano in Iceland, where it caused many more inconvieniences for humans. Many flights around the world had to be cancelled due to the air pollution caused by the Iceland Volcano.
Mt. St. Helens was similar to the Iceland eruption in that a side of the mountain feel in both times. There was also a lot of dust, ash, and a very large general pyroclastic flow both times, though they affected things in different ways. With Mt. St. Helens, the cloud buried the surrounding area and wiped out almost all life and basically destroyed the forests and Spirit Lake nearby. In Iceland, on the other hand, the debris mostly affected humans. The cloud messed up air traffic, stranding people in foreign lands and forcing people to delay or cancel vacations and other trips. This explosion was also a good bit smaller than that at Mt. St. Helens.
Eyjafjallajökull eruption was much more noticeably and more widespread than Mt. St. Helens. But Mt. St. Helens did more damage to the ecosystem because it was in a much more populated (with animals, not humans) area and the eruption cleared the area of almost all life. Eyjafjallajökull effected humans more, with 800 people being evacuated and airways in Europe being stopped. This more effected humans and economics. But what happened was that both had their side kind of cave in, adn they were both non-lava explosions, it was a pyroclastic flow eruption. They both spewed gases and ash into the air.
Add on to original post: Both eruptions were explosive composite volcano eruptions, which shot smoke thousands of feet into the air. Also, both volcano's sides got destroyed from the eruptions, which is kind of cool how it was so similar.
Mt St Helens was no doubt the bigger explosion however the eruption of icelandic volcano trigger a huge flood. Therefor the volcano in Iceland has had a bigger impact on humanity while Mt St helens had a bigger impact on the environment.
Although Mt. St. Helens' eruption was rated higher on the volcanic intensity scale, the Icelandic volcano certainly effected humanity on a much larger scale. However, mt st helens' eruption killed 57 people, and killed thousands of animals, so its impact on the local environment terrible, especially when you compare E15 glacier land near it, which has very little life. Also, E15's eruption was slow and predictable and led to an explosive eruption, while Mt St. Helens' was extremely unexpected and rapidly affected the environment.
The Icelandic explosion grounded many flights and affected the human community. Whereas, the Mt. St. Helens explosion mostly affected the wildlife community in the lake and the surrounding forest. They are the same because they affected the animal kingdom that still includes us no matter how ignorant we are about it.
ReplyDeleteThe eruption of mt. St. Helens was caused by an earthquake which caused the mountain to collapse on one side and erupting of that same size whereas the iceland volcano was melting ice and shooting steam in the air. The were similar because they are both unpredictable and they are both near cities with a decent population.
ReplyDeleteAlso mt st helens affected more wildlife and iceland volcano affected humanity more.
ReplyDeleteThe Mt. St. Helens eruption was a massive eruption nearly destroying the entire volcano and generating a great amount of pyroclastic flow. The Iceland volcanic eruption spewed tons and tons of ash into the atmosphere that later drifted over nearly the entire European continent, grounding thousands of fights, both commercial and otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMt. St. Helens would be the most deadly. It exploded, covering everything within a large radius in ash. Also, the pyroclastic flow has caused all life to seize, but later on, nature returned due to a few animals and a plant. The eruption in Iceland is less severe, since the volcano didn't really cause too much death. It only spews ash at this moment, but it covers a huge area, and it is becoming a larger problem. It is causing some illnesses, and it is also stopping flights in and out of Europe. Soon enough, the ash may even cover all of Europe. There is still wildlife, and it is not as extreme due to the fact that there was not as much gas as Mt. St. Helens had. They are both very severe though. One affected the wildlife, and the other affected the humans.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Icelandic volcano largely affected the human community while the Mt. St. Helens eruption mainly affected the wildlife community. They both, in their own way, caused a tremendous amount of chaos and destruction.
ReplyDeleteBoth Mt. St. Helen's and Eya are volcanoes that caused a disaster. They both spewed tons and tons of ash into the atmosphere that effected the whole area the ash drifted to. I think helens had more of an effect on the environment that Eya did. There were no deaths caused by Eya. Helens effected more animals than humans, and Eya effected not but in a less extreme.
ReplyDeleteThe Icelandic eruption made it harder for people to travel or just live, (live like do their normal routine not survive)Where Mt. Saint Helen was destroying everything in its path. I think Mt. Saint Helen was more violent. But they both disturbed life around the area, it was a major natural disturbance.
ReplyDeleteThe Iceland eruptions had some similarities and differences to the Mt. St. Helens explosion. To start, the similarites are that they were both eruptions that effected the whole ecosystem not just one population of animals or human beings. Another similarity is that they both caused massive distruction. Some differences of the two explosions are that the Iceland explosions was not as big of an explosion. It was a couple of smaller explosion. The second difference is that the Iceland explosions effect the land and the air whereas the Mt. St. Helens explosion effect mostly the land and everything in the path of its pyroclastic flow.
ReplyDeleteBothof the volcanic eruptions were massive and caused an incredible amount of damage. Mount St. Helens was a huge volcano, but the one in Iceland, was relatively small. Although the Iceland volcano was not very large, it disrupted air travel and caused many people to have to stay in Iceland because it was too dangerous for plains to take off. The plumes of ash that shot out of both volcanoes was one similarity between them. The ash on Mount St. Helens covered the environment below it while the mountain in Iceland shot into the atmosphere and covered the ground. The Iceland volcano erupted in phases and. Its second phase was rated a 4 on the VEI scale as compared to Mount St. Helens which was rated 5. They were both powerful eruptions and impacted the environment.
ReplyDeleteMount Saint Helens almost completely destroyed the life around it, even places that were considered "safe". However, the Icelandic volcano grounded flights and affected the humans and animals living there. However, I feel Mount Saint Helens was a worse eruption that the Icelandic eruption because I don't think the Icelandic one didn't do nearly as much damage as Mount Saint Helens.
ReplyDeleteWhen Eyjafjallajokull erupted, it affected mostly humans because it grounded planes and caused heavy air pollution around the world. Also, it did not do much damage to the surrounding wildlife. When Mount St. Helens erupted, it devastated the wildlife but did not really affect humans. The eruption of Mount St. Helens changed the shape of the mountain, but when Eyjafjallajokull it did not. The two mountains are similar though because they are unpredictable.
ReplyDeleteThe Iceland Eruption caused weeks of flooding and the Mt. St. Helen Eruption did not. Both of them began with an increase in seismic activity, and then a caldera sank in resulting in an enormous explosion. There were more differences than this, though. For one thing, the Mt St Helen Explosion was slightly bigger, covered more area, and was more inland. Also, the iceland eruption took place more recently.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading a couple sites about the Icelandic volcano, I think that there are some similarities with the Icelandic volcano and Mt St Helens. For one thing, they both gave off warnings with small quakes and after a period of time, a side off the mountain collapsed. The difference is that Mt St Helens immediately made us evacuate the area while the Icelandic volcano just keeps people held there because of the stop of air traffic.
ReplyDeleteMt. St. helens was so violent it blew off the side of it and spread ashes every where and destroyed everything in a 5 to 10 mile radius. The one in iceland mostly spread ash every where and stopped all flights stranding people and the lava melted the ice causing the water levels to rise.
ReplyDeleteThey both disrupted the air traffic because of all the ash that wen thousands of feet in the air. I personally think that the Mt St. Helens eruption was a little more extreme because of how powerful the blast really was, it just destroyed the top of the mountain. I'm not saying that the Iceland volcano wasn't bad because it was. It disrupted air traffic in Europe. The ash cloud spread very far and even to England. So both volcanos had their effects on different places and different surroundings, but both were destructive to either the wildlife and the humans. Mt St. Helens was much more destructive to the wildlife, while the Iceland one was more destructive to humans although it did not kill anyone, but it did destroy many establishments.
ReplyDeleteMount St Helens was more deadly and damaging than Eyjafjallajokul. News reports say that Eyjafjallajokul was mild compared to other eruptions in history. Although it is melted the ice caps because they are absorbing more sunlight, raising rivers to danger levels. It sent thick clouds of ash and debris into the air. Mount St Helens was more damaging to the environment, covering the ground in ash and molten lava. Eyjafjallajokul grounded many flights and was more damaging to the air. Mount St Helens was more damaging to the environment and overall in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe eruption in Iceland was small than Mt. St. Helens. The icelandic volcano was a 2 on the VEI scale while Mt. St. Helens was a 4. While the explosion was smaller, the ash was spread all over Europe and many flights to and from place all over the continent were cancelled. Mt. St. Helens was not quite as near to human life, and it destroyed mainly animals and plants more than the very few humans it did manage to kill.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Mt St. Helen one was in a more nature populated area and affected the enviornment more.
ReplyDeleteEyjafallajökull exploded in Iceland, and it effected humans a lot, because air travel was delayed, and most of Europe had ash in the air. Mt. St. Helens effected the wildlife more, and the environment. Within a 14 mile radius everything was covered in ash and lava.
ReplyDeleteComparisons between Mt. St. Helens and Eyjafjallajokull are that neither actually erupted red lava that many of us think of when we think of a volcano. They both just made a lot of noise and produced a lot of volcanic ash and worried many nearby citizens and people around the world. Differences between the two were location, Mt. St. Helens is located in Skamania County, Washington and Eyjafjallajokull is situated in North Skogar.
ReplyDeleteThe Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption was chiefly concentrated on the biotic features in the area as well as the abiotic features. Since there was no human metropolises in close proximity, the nature in the region was suffocated and flattened leaving behind barren land. The damage that was done recovered in less than a decade, but not without interruptions and irregular activity. Whereas, in the Eyjafjallajokull explosion, ice caps and air travel was extremely disrupted. The aftermath of the outburst effected not only the atmosphere, but caused the airlines to loose approximately $250 million a day. The ash clouds from both volcanoes envelope the terrain around them and also in other parts of the world by wind currents.
ReplyDeleteThe Mt St Helen and Eyjafjallajokull eruptions both impacted the environment. Mt St Helen did more damage to the environment and animals, and Eyjafjallajokull affected the air and ice caps more. Mt St Helen and Eyjafjallajokull were both composite volcanoes or stratovolcanoes which means that they have bigger explosions.
ReplyDeleteMount Helens- last this scale volcano since 1800 , this was more
ReplyDeleteviolent and unexpected but not many people got hurt due to the number
of residents living near the volcano. Iceland- first major eruption in
Iceland since 1821,people were warned especially the near by residents
at the foot of the volcano, there were floods and lave because of the
volcanic glacier so the floods came of the melting glacier and the
lava melted it, more airlines shut down. Both- side collapsing,both
were volcanos. Iceland eruption to me seems to be effecting more
people with the airline and I believe that eruption was worse.
The volcano in Iceland recently erupted, in a sequence of volcanic explosions. There were 3 phrases of the eruption, all occurring in 2010. The difference between Mount St. Helena and the volcano in Iceland is the aftermath. Mount St. Helene was deadlier, destroying the surrounding environments and everything in its path. The Iceland volcano effected the economy and the human environment. They both are similar is type of volcano and eruption. When they both erupted, both collapsed on one side of the mountain.
ReplyDeletethe Mt. saint helens eruption took out thousands of archers of wildlife and forest area.
ReplyDeletethe volcanos in iceland have been erupting since last school year, and are actively affecting air control, wildlife, and the human population.
The Icelandic eruption spread across Europe, creating more delays and frustration, but Mt. St. Helens was more concentrated and destructive. The iceland volcano affected a greater radius, but the 1980 eruption affected the area more.
ReplyDeleteThe Mt. St. Helens eruptions was a lot more deadly than the one in iceland because it wiped out everything within 200 Sq. miles. They were both the same type of eruption and volcano and they both altered the shape of the volcano.
ReplyDeleteMt. St. Helen was more destructive to the environment. The weird Iceland volcano whose name cannot be spelt or pronounced by anyone who is not Icelandic affected humanity's pockets more. They both were natural disasters with wide ramifacations.
ReplyDeleteMount St. Helens affected a smaller area and didn't erupt as long as the one in Iceland. The Iceland Volcano, has been erupting since March, and has affected air traffic all across Europe and some Asia. Mount St. Helens is a deadlier volcano than Iceland's volcano. St. Helens is way more explosive. At one point in the future St. Helens could end up affecting all of America and maybe most of the globe if it erupted again. Mt. St. Helens instead affected wildlife. These two are no super-volcanoes, but they could affect a large area if the eruption is big enough.
ReplyDeleteThe volcanic eruption in Iceland and Mt. St. Helens both were volcanos and one side of the volcano collapsed on both. They are different because Mt. St. Helens effected more of the wildlife and lakes around the volcano where as the Iceland volcano effected more of the human environment and ice caps. Although Iceland eruption effected the wildlife too, Mt. St. Helens did more damage.
ReplyDeleteThe Icelandic eruption was caused by two small eruptions that sent up huge amounts of ash that slowed down Europe's air traffic. The air traffic disruption was the slowest since WWII.
ReplyDeleteMount St. Helens was caused by a plate moving under another and then causing pressure forcing the magma to push up and erupt. The north side of the mountain fell off and caused a huge landslide, and the ash and other debris destroyed 200 square miles of landscape.
The volcano in iceland was a series of explosions as compared to the single eruption of Mount St. Helens. There were three eruption phases. The Mount St. Helens eruption was more unexpected than the ones in iceland. The ones in Iceland affected the air by spreading ashes all over. The Mount St. Helens eruption effected the ecosystem with its pyroclastic flow.
ReplyDeleteThe Iceland volcano is devastating like Mt. Saint Helens, but they are going to feel the wrath of the volcano after the eruption when Mt. Saint Helens was felt as the volcano exploded. The Iceland volcano was said that the mud slides would be a big part of the volcanos destruction when Mt. Saint Helens explosion was most of the destruction. But they are the same because they both disrupt the air travel. Also they both had violent eruptions after a long slumber.
ReplyDeleteThe eruption of Mount Saint Helens is only slightly like the Icelandic eruption. Mount Saint Helens erupted in one super explosion, whereas the Iceland volcano continued spewing long after the initial explosion. However, they did both severely damage the ecosystem, whether around them or across the world. Mount Saint Helens severely damaged its surroundings, but it also spewed ash into the atmosphere. The volcano in Iceland erupted many times within a year, and while some areas around the volcano were damaged through violent eruptions, other eruptions polluted the atmosphere so severely that planes heading in the path of the ash clouds had to be grounded. While both volcanoes are violent, they do their damage in different ways.
ReplyDeleteWith the recent eruption, it effected humanity much more than anything else, by delaying flights, destroying ice caps, and coughing up tons of ash up into the air. On the other hand, Mt. Saint Helens exploded in a much more nature bound area, which covered everything anywhere even remotely close to the mountain in a nice thick coat of ash from the pyroclastic flow shot from the volcano.
ReplyDeleteAlthough both major geologic events, the eruptions of Mt. St. Helens and Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland were different in a few ways. The Icelandic explosion directly effected the human population more than St. Helens, because it was located much closer to civilization. (If not Iceland, than the ash penetrated populated areas such as the UK and France.) Also, the mountain in Washington had a destructive pyroclastic flow, while Eyjafjallajökull threw enormous amounts of ash into the air. Therefore, the 1980 eruption was more physically destructive to the earth, while this year's explosion was more disruptive to the flying industry of Europe. There are a few similarities, however. Both mountains are stratovolcanoes. In addition, neither volcano is located near a large populated community of people. (Mostly farmers lived in the range of Eyjafjallajökull.)
ReplyDeleteThe Mt. St. Helens eruption was very explosive and shot ash and smoke thousands of feet in the air. An earthquake caused the eruption, and the explosion took out one of the sides of the volcano. The Iceland eruption was also very explosive, but it continued for a very significantly long time. It made airlines cancel for two days by continuing to pour black ash and smoke out of the volcano.
ReplyDeleteThe difference was the aftermath was different. St. Helens caused a large area to be covered in debris and smoke. It was basically a wasteland for almost three years. The Iceland eruption caused the glacier it was sitting on to melt, causing a major flood. This flood made citizens evacuate and Iceland was haveing a flood.
Mt. St Helen exploded in one circular spot. Iceland's volcano exploded in a ridge along some of the mountains. Mt. St. Helens poisoned a lake nearby. Iceland's volcano poisoned a whole sea.
ReplyDeleteDifferneces:
ReplyDeleteMount Saint Helens-- This erruption was unexpected and explosive though was not as deadly for there were few residents nearby. This explosion, though leaving a desiccated land in its wake, recovered in less than a decade having caused only damage to the surrounding area and areas blanketed in ash.
Iceland-- this eruption was caused by seismic activity and was a small explosion, rating a 1 on the Volcanic Index. The main killer in this explosion was that it caused glaciers and ice caps to melt and cause severe floods and mud
flows. The time for this ecosystem to Exocet from it is undeterminable for the floods have wrecked havoc through Iceland and it is hard to say when nature shall recover.
Similarities:
Both created a huge ash cloud, though Iceland's was bigger, higher, and blcoked more air traffic.
Mt. St. Helens and Eyjafjallajökull (also known as E15) are both stratovolcanoes in a cold region. They both emitted lots of ash into the air and land surrounding it, but Mt. St. Helens affected mostly the land, killing most life while E 15 clouded the air, denying birds and airplane the freedom of the sky. While Mt. St. Helens' pyroclastic flow was safely contained in a relatively small area, E 15 was spread around northwest Europe.
ReplyDeleteThe Eyjafjallajokull eruption was actually somewhat expected. There was seismic activity without any actual eruptions in 2009, and a civil protection officer called a woman who lived at the foot of the volcano about twenty minutes before the volcano exploded and told her to evacuate her family- meaning it wasn't sudden. Mt. St. Helens was the exact opposite, as it exploded without warning.
ReplyDeleteNeither explosion had lava, however. Both explosions were just soot and billowing smoke, and a few pyroclastic flows.
It's seems as if the damage caused by the Iceland Volcano was much more far spread then that of Mount St. Helens. Mt. St. Helens also seemed tto be in a much more secluded are and affected much more wildlife, compared to the volcano in Iceland, where it caused many more inconvieniences for humans. Many flights around the world had to be cancelled due to the air pollution caused by the Iceland Volcano.
ReplyDeleteMt. St. Helens was similar to the Iceland eruption in that a side of the mountain feel in both times. There was also a lot of dust, ash, and a very large general pyroclastic flow both times, though they affected things in different ways.
ReplyDeleteWith Mt. St. Helens, the cloud buried the surrounding area and wiped out almost all life and basically destroyed the forests and Spirit Lake nearby.
In Iceland, on the other hand, the debris mostly affected humans. The cloud messed up air traffic, stranding people in foreign lands and forcing people to delay or cancel vacations and other trips. This explosion was also a good bit smaller than that at Mt. St. Helens.
Eyjafjallajökull eruption was much more noticeably and more widespread than Mt. St. Helens. But Mt. St. Helens did more damage to the ecosystem because it was in a much more populated (with animals, not humans) area and the eruption cleared the area of almost all life. Eyjafjallajökull effected humans more, with 800 people being evacuated and airways in Europe being stopped. This more effected humans and economics. But what happened was that both had their side kind of cave in, adn they were both non-lava explosions, it was a pyroclastic flow eruption. They both spewed gases and ash into the air.
ReplyDeleteAdd on to original post: Both eruptions were explosive composite volcano eruptions, which shot smoke thousands of feet into the air. Also, both volcano's sides got destroyed from the eruptions, which is kind of cool how it was so similar.
ReplyDeleteMt St Helens was no doubt the bigger explosion however the eruption of icelandic volcano trigger a huge flood. Therefor the volcano in Iceland has had a bigger impact on humanity while Mt St helens had a bigger impact on the environment.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Mt. St. Helens' eruption was rated higher on the volcanic
ReplyDeleteintensity scale, the Icelandic volcano certainly effected humanity on
a much larger scale. However, mt st helens' eruption killed 57 people, and killed thousands of animals, so its impact on the local environment terrible, especially when you compare E15 glacier land near it, which has very little life. Also, E15's eruption was slow and predictable and led to an explosive eruption, while Mt St. Helens' was extremely unexpected and rapidly affected the environment.