Question

How does an eruption of Mount St. Helens differ from an eruption of Kilauea?

1) Mount St. Helens has explosive eruptions, whereas Kilauea has quiescent eruptions
2) Eruptions from Mount St. Helens pose a threat to humans, whereas eruptions from Kilauea do not
3) Kilauea expels high quantities of gases and ash, whereas Mount St. Helens only pours lava down its slopes
4) Material from Kilauea is blown from far distances by the wind, whereas material from Mount St. Helens is not
5) Mount St. Helens has quiescent eruptions, whereas Kilauea has explosive eruptions

Answer 1

Mount St. Helens has explosive eruptions, poses a threat to humans, and releases lava, gases, and ash. Kilauea has quiescent eruptions, does not pose a threat to humans, and releases high quantities of gases and ash.

Step-by-step explanation:

An eruption of Mount St. Helens differs from an eruption of Kilauea in several ways:

1. Mount St. Helens has explosive eruptions, whereas Kilauea has quiescent eruptions. Explosive eruptions involve the release of large amounts of gas, ash, and rock fragments in a violent manner, while quiescent eruptions are characterized by the slow and steady flow of lava.
2. Eruptions from Mount St. Helens pose a threat to humans, whereas eruptions from Kilauea do not. Mount St. Helens is located in a populated area and has caused fatalities in the past, while Kilauea's eruptions occur in remote areas of Hawaii.
3. Kilauea expels high quantities of gases and ash, whereas Mount St. Helens not only pours lava down its slopes, but also releases gases and ash during its eruptions.