To my knowledge, the term may be not a misnofmer, as Antarctica in the south is also home to several volcanoes, maybe buried under thick ice...
Tejpor, the Antarctic volcanoes occupy a limited area and don't connect up the belt, even roughly. Thanks for bringing this up, though, as I just learned that a new volcanic field has been discovered in west Antarctica with some volcanoes buried under the ice. If there are more discoveries, perhaps in time my statement about the lack of continuity of the ring will prove to be rash.
László and Anthony, thanks for your sympathy.
Bill, although the term "Ring of Fire" was new to me, its meaning was obvious. The term is not used or common in Japan. The "circum-Pacific orogenic belt" would be more scientific, I guess?
Akira, you are absolutely correct. I guess what bothers me about the "Ring of Fire" concept being trotted out every time there's a seismic or volcano activity in the area is that it's often used as a somewhat sensationalistic term, one that pretends to convey important meaning but really doesn't. I also live in this belt and can expect earthquakes in the future, but I wouldn't breathe any easier just because I moved to a different tectonically active zone that's not part of the feared Ring of Fire. The degree of seismic or volcanic risk asserted to exist at any one location needs to be based on scientific study of that risk, not on mere co-location with a very lengthy tectonically active region where the type and degree of activity and associated danger vary wildly from one location to the next.
That said, my political jurisdiction of California has the second-highest risk of earthquakes and the highest risk of earthquake causalities and damage of any state in the U.S. We also have some volcanic risk, more than most people realize.
