🚀 go-pugleaf

David B. Greene wrote:
> 
> James Tuttle says:

> >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.

Thanks, Dave; I stand corrected.  I had forgotten the difference between
dormant and extinct volcanoes.  I don't think this changes the  gist of
the (dormant or nearly-extinct) thread, viz., that encyclopedia articles
are generally researched and written by experts; that they reflect
conventional wisdom at the time of publication; and that subsequent
events such as an eruption can significantly change the content.  The
powers that be (USGS?) probably changed their assessment of Mt. St.
Helens after 1980.