Want this question answered?
Not presently. Mount Rainier has not erupted in over a century and actually serves as a tourist attraction. However, it is considered to be the most dangerous volcano in the United States. While it is not as active as Mount St. the effects of an eruption would be far worse. It has the potential to produce very large, devastating mudflows that could inundate portions of Tacoma and Seattle.
Mount Rainier is one of many volcanoes in the Cascade Mountain Range. It is one of the tallest mountains in North America, and it did not gain this topographic stature by frequently blowing its top as Mount St. Helens did in 1980 or Mount Mazama did around 5677 B.C. creating Crater Lake; its tall stature would seem to indicate most of its eruptions have been "mountain-building" -- creating new rock from lava flows. However, Mount St. Helens and Mount Mazama are also both part of the same Cascade volcanic mountain range as Mount Rainier, so a mountain-destroying eruption similar to the St. Helens or even Mazama blasts (the latter, obvious by means of its more complete self-destruction, much stronger) is definitely possible. Even a mountain-building eruption, however, is likely to be rife with explosive phases, especially toward the beginning as it would 'clear the pipes.' Mount Rainier erupted as many as 6 times in the 1800s, but -- aside from tremors -- was quiet throughout the 20th century and, thus far, the 21st century. European explorers and settlers documented very noticeable volcanic plumes from Rainier during the 1800s. Relative to Mount St. Helens, Rainier is an older and taller mountain (and has more glacial volume and mass than St. Helens did even prior to its 1980 eruption), and many more people live within range of Rainier and the rivers that flow from its glaciers (susceptible to lahars and pyroclastic flows) than St. Helens. It is generally not believed that an eruption from Mount Rainier -- as with any Cascade volcano -- would not be as smooth and quiet as some of Hawaii's volcanoes, but there do seem to be more mountain-building eruptions (adding lava) than mountain-destroying eruptions (destroying the cone and leaving a crater).
The eruption of Nevado del Ruiz was far worse. While the eruption of Mount St. Helens was far larger, its worst effects were limited to mostly unpopulated areas, and many of the people who did live in the immediate vicinity had been evacuated beforehand. In ally, 57 people died. The eruption of Nevado del Ruiz was relatively small, but the resulting mudflows killed more than 23,000 people.
I've only seen Mount Kilimanjaro from two sides, so far.
no one cares
Not presently. Mount Rainier has not erupted in over a century and actually serves as a tourist attraction. However, it is considered to be the most dangerous volcano in the United States. While it is not as active as Mount St. the effects of an eruption would be far worse. It has the potential to produce very large, devastating mudflows that could inundate portions of Tacoma and Seattle.
Copper Creek Inn & Restaurant is a nice place with a good price that is near mount Rainer. It's also not to far from Tacoma, Washington. 35707 State Route 706 E, Ashford, WA - (360) 569-2799. The Lodge Near Mt Rainier is also good. 38608 State Route 706 East, Ashford, WA - (360) 569-2312
It is 1,182 miles according to Google Maps.
Seattle is far 1969.7 miles (3169.9 km) from Cincinnati.
very far.
Not far enough.
Mount Rainier is one of many volcanoes in the Cascade Mountain Range. It is one of the tallest mountains in North America, and it did not gain this topographic stature by frequently blowing its top as Mount St. Helens did in 1980 or Mount Mazama did around 5677 B.C. creating Crater Lake; its tall stature would seem to indicate most of its eruptions have been "mountain-building" -- creating new rock from lava flows. However, Mount St. Helens and Mount Mazama are also both part of the same Cascade volcanic mountain range as Mount Rainier, so a mountain-destroying eruption similar to the St. Helens or even Mazama blasts (the latter, obvious by means of its more complete self-destruction, much stronger) is definitely possible. Even a mountain-building eruption, however, is likely to be rife with explosive phases, especially toward the beginning as it would 'clear the pipes.' Mount Rainier erupted as many as 6 times in the 1800s, but -- aside from tremors -- was quiet throughout the 20th century and, thus far, the 21st century. European explorers and settlers documented very noticeable volcanic plumes from Rainier during the 1800s. Relative to Mount St. Helens, Rainier is an older and taller mountain (and has more glacial volume and mass than St. Helens did even prior to its 1980 eruption), and many more people live within range of Rainier and the rivers that flow from its glaciers (susceptible to lahars and pyroclastic flows) than St. Helens. It is generally not believed that an eruption from Mount Rainier -- as with any Cascade volcano -- would not be as smooth and quiet as some of Hawaii's volcanoes, but there do seem to be more mountain-building eruptions (adding lava) than mountain-destroying eruptions (destroying the cone and leaving a crater).
Seattle to Poland is about twice as far as Seattle to Florida.
There are far too many to count here. Most volcanoes on convergent boundaries are stratovolcanoes. Well-known volcanoes on convergent boundaries include Mount St Helens, Mount Rainier, Mount Fuji, Mount Unzen, Mount Merapi, Krakatoa, Mount Tamboa, Mount Pinatubo, Mount Etna, Mount Vesuvius, Mount Pelee, Soufriere Hills, and Nevado Del Ruiz.
Not far enough.
Surprisingly, it was not all that powerful as far as eruptions go. It was a VEI 3, about 50 times smaller than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. However, there was enough hot ash to melt part of the summit snowpack, which created devastating mudflows.
Tucson to Seattle is just over 1600 miles.