🚀 go-pugleaf

James Tuttle <j...@earthlink.net> says:
>Charles Wm. Dimmick wrote:
>> Steve Monson wrote:
>> > > (Edward Rice) wrote:

>> > >> Encyclopedia articles can be every bit as wrong as Usenet
>> > >> postings.
>> 
>> > Note that Edward did not say that there was such a plenitude of 
>> > errors in the encyclopedia as on the Usenet, just that they could 
>> > be just as much in error. It's quite true.
>> 
>> Back in 1970 I checked 7 different encyclopedias and 36 other
>> references for information on Mt. St. Helens.  Six of the seven 
>> encyclopedias stated that Mt. St. Helens is extinct. As for Mt. 
>> Rainier, all of them listed it as being extinct, although I know for 
>> a fact that it erupted at least 5 times in the 19th. century and is 
>> considered by the US Geological Survey to be both active and
>> potentially very dangerous.
>
>Bad reasoning throughout this thread.  Encyclopedia articles are much,
>much more authoritative than Usenet postings.  Anyone can post, and the
>articles are ephemeral; encyclopedia articles are written by selected
>experts who can back up their work with research, and the articles are
>usually printed and bound.
>
>In 1970 Mt St. Helen's *was* considered extinct.  And although you say
>Mt. Rainier erupted 5 times in the 19th century, you did not say how
>many times it erupted in the 20th century.  Is the U.S.G.S. the
>definitive source for declaring a volcano active or extinct?  Has the
>U.S.G.S. changed its mind about Mt. Rainier in the last quarter-century?

Well I know for a fact that in 1970 Mt. St. Helens was not extinct.  
In fact, I can remember being up on top of it twice that year.  Besides, 
it had a major eruption in the 18th century.  In 1970 it was considered 
*dormant*  Mt. Rainier is also considered dormant. Even so, one can cook 
their camp meals in the steam vents if one dares.

Dave Greene