DC Tom Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 And we just had an earthquake. Did everyone run out and set fire to their houses like they did in 1906?
BuffaloBill Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 Bunch of wusses ... Can't handle a good tsunami?
Wacka Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 Wasn't that big, a 3.7. I'm about 30 miles away and didn't feel a thing.
Chef Jim Posted April 19, 2011 Author Posted April 19, 2011 Wasn't that big, a 3.7. I'm about 30 miles away and didn't feel a thing. Very small but just a little reminder on the anniversary of the big one.
BuffaloBill Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 Wasn't that big, a 3.7. I'm about 30 miles away and didn't feel a thing. I've been through several 3's and 4's back in my LA days. They hardly register. The most significant I went through was a 6.7 and that was not much fun. I can't imaginine what the people of Sendai felt. Heck they have been through aftershocks greater than 6.7.
Chef Jim Posted April 19, 2011 Author Posted April 19, 2011 I've been through several 3's and 4's back in my LA days. They hardly register. The most significant I went through was a 6.7 and that was not much fun. I can't imaginine what the people of Sendai felt. Heck they have been through aftershocks greater than 6.7. I didn't even feel it. I've been in CA for 28 years and have been through many. But what was interesting is this one was right on the San Andreas which is waaaaaay overdue. The San Andreas runs right through the Peninsula and not far from downtown SF. I was just pointing out that it was "happy anniversary....don't forget about me."
BuffaloBill Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 I didn't even feel it. I've been in CA for 28 years and have been through many. But what was interesting is this one was right on the San Andreas which is waaaaaay overdue. The San Andreas runs right through the Peninsula and not far from downtown SF. I was just pointing out that it was "happy anniversary....don't forget about me." Actually tectonic plate experts suggest that the Pacific Northwest (Portland, Oregon and Vancouver) may be more at risk of "the big one" than SF. Apparently, their fault and tectonic structures are far more like those in Japan. In my simple understanding the San Andreas is more or less sliding in a north south fashion. The plate under the Pacific northwest is headed more or less East while also driving under the north American plate. Supposedly these conditions make it more likley that the potential quake in Seattle will be far more destructive than one in SF. Given my luck it will hit on my next trip up to Vancouver in late May.
Chandler#81 Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 And we just had an earthquake. Happy Anniversary, Chef!
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 Actually tectonic plate experts suggest that the Pacific Northwest (Portland, Oregon and Vancouver) may be more at risk of "the big one" than SF. Apparently, their fault and tectonic structures are far more like those in Japan. In my simple understanding the San Andreas is more or less sliding in a north south fashion. The plate under the Pacific northwest is headed more or less East while also driving under the north American plate. Supposedly these conditions make it more likley that the potential quake in Seattle will be far more destructive than one in SF. Given my luck it will hit on my next trip up to Vancouver in late May. Yes...but the San Andreas seems to have a roughly predictable cycle where the strength of major quakes escalates until a big one in the high-7's, which seems to release tectonic stress and start the cycle all over again. The Cascadia subduction zone, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't exhibit anything even remotely cyclical. But, being a subduction zone, it's prone to larger earthquakes of a type that cause tsunamis. So a "big one" in SF is forseeable in the future...but a Seattle quake will be an unforseeable "REALLY big mother!@#$er".
BuffaloBill Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 Yes...but the San Andreas seems to have a roughly predictable cycle where the strength of major quakes escalates until a big one in the high-7's, which seems to release tectonic stress and start the cycle all over again. The Cascadia subduction zone, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't exhibit anything even remotely cyclical. But, being a subduction zone, it's prone to larger earthquakes of a type that cause tsunamis. So a "big one" in SF is forseeable in the future...but a Seattle quake will be an unforseeable "REALLY big mother!@#$er". Actually the Cascadia subduction zone is known to have quakes every 300 to 600 years. They are currently in the low side of that range since the last event. Evidence of the last 3000 years also suggests that every quake in the zone has a tsunami associated with it. Plates of the same motion and structure in other parts of the world tend to experience events every 100 to 200 years. There is speculation that the longer duration of the Cascadia cycle may result in more powerful earthquakes.
Dante Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) And we just had an earthquake. I felt that one. Shook plants and pictures. Edited April 19, 2011 by Dante
Recommended Posts