It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
if you add up the dates from the world trade center bombing, japan, and now this earthquake and then correspond those numbers to letters in the alphabet it spells out UW-IL-DI
Wasatch fault line? Yeah. Pretty much salt lake is doomed if a large earthquake hits us. Not to mention we are sitting ontop of a massive volcano that spans from yellowstone. If that erupts, we are fucked.
We have to accept that the majority of the best skiing in the world is located near the "Ring of Fire" because the mountains are so Young, in geological years, and still growing. This will only result in larger peaks to shred in the future.
after such a large event it wont be surprising to have significant activity for a while. the coasts of japan and cali are now 13 feet closer together after the quake, thats alot of land moving in a split second. deffiantly shook up the earth a bit.
6.3 is not that large. They can be dangerous if in a populated area with poor construction. They happen every few days though, it's not uncommon. An earthquake almost twice as powerful hit california just over a year ago (on my birthday).
My condo is literally built on stilts for the parkade. It's also in an area with moderately high to high amplification risk. Basically if cascadia goes with me inside i'm probably screwed. At least the tsunami won't reach me.
I'm pretty sure vanuatu is right on a large convergent boundary (australian and pacific plates) That's not to say this earthquake occurred along it, I really don't know that much about the geology around there. I guess you could figure it out looking at USGS but I really don't care to.
I was also reading a paper that suggests much higher tsunami risks in cali than previously thought due to submarine landslides triggered by earthquakes.
yeah submarine landslides actually pose a pretty big threat, like if an entire bank goes. There are quite a few local tsunami hazards in california. The most dangerous are probably submarine landslides, especially catalina.
There are also often still hazards with transform faults because of restraining bends, which can uplift quite a bit (and then of course slip). I'm not sure of any specific examples but there are some on the san clemente fault. There are even tsunami models based on the lateral movement of like an island. If a large island slips a couple of feet it can displace enough water to create a pretty big wave.
what im wondering is how much of this fear has facts behind it and how much of it is purly coincidental fear because of recent events. Based on information from earthquake.usgs.gov there are about 14469 earthquakes of 4.0 magnetude and up each year. Based on this fact i believe that a lot of the fear about the rising number of earthquakes has more to do with people associating natural events with fears of 2012.
for those of us who go to school directly on the san andreas fault, should I just chill in a big field if a massive quake hits? are there precautionary steps that I can take to not die?
Damn, I don't know much about earthquakes or volcanic activity but i'm moving to Bend in June, right next to Mt. Bachelor and the ring of fire. Best get my education going