[Vicki]

Yes I believe there was, but doesn't it has small quakes all the time or what that one more signficant? I see those picture of St. Helens on the news with Mt. Rainier in the background and I hope Rainier isn't getting any signals from St. Helens.

If Rainier blew that would be a very significant event and it would ruin the beauty of the mountain.

[Turk82_1]

You know, I wish everyone would calm down about Rainier. Granted, it is a beautiful mountain and all, but the activity on the seismos are ALL MSH activity.

The only danger is that the glacier is *JUST* about to slide off the rotten stone atop Rainier. In that case, ANYTHING could make the glacier move. Then you get a lahar. Bad news, if so.

Smithsonian mag was so scared of lahars about 10 years ago that they put Rainier on the cover.

BUT - there is no evidence that Rainier is being affected.

[Strategerist]

There was a lone tiny earthquake at Mt. Hood yesterday.

Hood had small swarms of about a dozen quakes each in March and April. It had 15 quake swarms of 50+ quakes each in the 1990s...all of the quakes seemed to be tectonic rather than volcanic in nature.

There has been no earthquake activity at Mt. Rainier at all.

[Atlas Sneezed]

If Rainier blew that would be a very significant event and it would ruin the beauty of the mountain.

---

Not to mention that there are populated areas nearby, and major glaciation to melt and flow.

A full Rainier blast could be the greatest natural disaster in our nation's history.

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/zellers1/rainier.htm

[El Gato]

If Rainier blew that would be a very significant event and it would ruin the beauty of the mountain.

Not to mention several suburbs. The mountain might come out of it looking little change, or changed for the better.

[blackie]

If Mt. Rainier erupted, it would kill a large amount of people ~ the beauty of the mountain doesn't mean all that much.