What are critiques of the theory that Mt. Sinai was volcanic?

In his book *The Miracles of Exodus * (2003), chapter 6, physicist Colin Humphreys argues that the description of Mt. Sinai in the book of Exodus is characteristic of volcanic activity (and identifies Mt. Sinai with contemporary Mt. Bedr, which has a volcanic cone atop a table). In particular, Exodus 19:16-19 describes Mount Sinai as follows. > On the third day, when morning came, there was **thunder and lightning**. > A **thick cloud** was upon the mountain, and a very **loud blast** of the > ram’s horn went out, so that all the people in the camp trembled. > 17 Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and > they stood at the foot of the mountain. > > 18 Mount Sinai was completely **enveloped in smoke**, because the LORD had > descended on it in **fire**. And the **smoke rose** like the smoke of a > furnace, and the whole mountain **quaked** violently. 19 And as the sound > of the ram’s horn grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and God answered > him in the **thunder**. All the elements that are bolded are associated with volcanic activity. Are there any criticisms in the literature of the idea, as argued for by Humphreys and others, that Mt. Sinai was a volcanic mountain, either scriptural or scientific? Note: this question is similar.