PDA

View Full Version : Monster quake in Alaska!


Mr. Anderson
Nov 4, 2002, 04:25 PM
A magnitude 7.9! One of the projects my company works on is located in Alaska, south east of the epicenter by 100+ miles and it threw one my coworkers out of his bed.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/04/earthquake.alaska/index.html

I can't imagine if something of this magnitude happened in a populated area, the devastation would be incredible.

D

job
Nov 4, 2002, 05:49 PM
Apparently the effects could be felt as far away as Louisiana..

Durandal7
Nov 4, 2002, 07:21 PM
There have been earthquakes in Japan and Italy today too. A volcano in Ecuador erupted today also. Seems like a major geological event occured.

bousozoku
Nov 4, 2002, 08:18 PM
If Japan has had a quake, it can't be too long until it goes round the Philipine plate into California. Perhaps, the volcano in Ecuador is a minor sign of that.

Hey, maybe Floriduh will go into the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico on election day! :D

idkew
Nov 4, 2002, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
If Japan has had a quake, it can't be too long until it goes round the Philipine plate into California. Perhaps, the volcano in Ecuador is a minor sign of that.

Hey, maybe Floriduh will go into the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico on election day! :D


i like that- floriduh. explains a lot of floriduh voters very well.

MacAztec
Nov 4, 2002, 10:49 PM
I live in the Coachella Valley next to the San Andreas fault, and we have some pretty big ones down here. I believe in like 94 we had a 7.4 or something, and everyone is saying were due VERY VERY soon for a BIG one....

bousozoku
Nov 4, 2002, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec
I live in the Coachella Valley next to the San Andreas fault, and we have some pretty big ones down here. I believe in like 94 we had a 7.4 or something, and everyone is saying were due VERY VERY soon for a BIG one....

I hope, for the sake of all of you in Cali, that nothing happens, but I've been watching it go back and forth for so long. It's like ping pong: Japan, Cali, Japan, Cali.

Be safe! :)

Chaszmyr
Nov 5, 2002, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet

I can't imagine if something of this magnitude happened in a populated area, the devastation would be incredible.

D

These things dont usually happen in populated areas in the US because we knew better when building cities... The only obvious exception is the idiots (hehe jk Aztec) living near San Andreas Fault

Originally posted by bousozoku

it can't be too long until it goes round the Philipine plate into California


Tectonic plate theory still is just a theory... not to say it isnt true, but its hard to say "can't" when talking about something in theory.

Originally posted by Durandal7

There have been earthquakes in Japan and Italy today too. A volcano in Ecuador erupted today also. Seems like a major geological event occured.


The end is coming, we are all gonna die! hehe just kidding. It seems like its too big to be a coincedence, but on the other hand that seems like a huge change to occur so quickly... If the tectonic plate theory as commonly believed is accurate then for these things to all be directly related i would think they would be weeks, months, or possibly years apart.

Mr. Anderson
Nov 5, 2002, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Chaszmyr


These things dont usually happen in populated areas in the US because we knew better when building cities... The only obvious exception is the idiots (hehe jk Aztec) living near San Andreas Fault


What!!! You should back up your notions with facts if you're going to post like this.

When Mt. Ranier blows and the pyrocastic flow moves down the mountain, Seatle/Tacoma will be dug up in 1000 years like Vesuvius. When they built cities in the 18th and 19th centuries, they had no real idea about geology as we do today. San Fran and the rest of California are on some pretty massively active plates. And one of the worst earthquakes in US history happened in New Madrid, Missouri in 1811. http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/factsheets/NewMadrid/

The only thing that makes earthquakes a little less lethal is that they don't happen all that often, working in geologic time scales and not human.

D

MacBandit
Nov 5, 2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
The only thing that makes earthquakes a little less lethal is that they don't happen all that often, working in geologic time scales and not human.

D

I assume that should read. .......working in human time scales and not geologic.

I say that because on a geologic time scale earthquakes and major eruptions happen constantly.

Oh and to another thread. It has been proven that earthquakes bounce around the earth and in turn cause other quakes. They have recorded several quakes on opposite sides of the world and have in turn shown how they can preclude a local quake.

Mr. Anderson
Nov 5, 2002, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit
I say that because on a geologic time scale earthquakes and major eruptions happen constantly.

I was making it in reference that where humans are concerned, lifetimes may pass between major events, but that could still make it very active, geologically speaking.

After a little searching earlier on the New Madrid quake, I found out some interesting things that that region is the most geologically active east of the rockies. There might be a plate splitting right down the middle of North America. Problem is we'll need to be around in 1 million years to see the Mississippi Ocean.....

D :D

wdlove
Nov 5, 2002, 07:32 PM
Its fortunate that it happened in a sparcely populated area. A tsunami can even be more devastating. Coastal effect EX Japan & China!:confused:

bousozoku
Nov 5, 2002, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Chaszmyr


These things dont usually happen in populated areas in the US because we knew better when building cities... The only obvious exception is the idiots (hehe jk Aztec) living near San Andreas Fault

Tectonic plate theory still is just a theory... not to say it isnt true, but its hard to say "can't" when talking about something in theory.
...


"We" didn't know better. Remember that the U.S.A. is only a child of a country and the only way "we" learned much of anything is by trial-and-error. Theorising that you're that old--oh wait! I can't do that. I could also theorise about your facts, your... :D

Mr. Anderson
Nov 6, 2002, 06:45 AM
For such a large event, the damage was minimal. The Alaskan pipeline only had 20 million in damage, which if the thing had ruptured, could have turned into a huge mess. We were very lucky.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/11/06/alaska.earthquake.ap/index.html

D

diorio
Nov 6, 2002, 08:41 AM
All of this action around the ring of fire can only mean one thing. Something big is going to happen soon, like a major major earthquake or volcanic eruption. I'm only guessing, but plate techtonics are effected by earthquakes and eruptions, so I think we'll see more in the near future.

Mr. Anderson
Nov 6, 2002, 08:49 AM
To the south east of where the quake occurred is a nice big volcano, Mt. Wrangel, situated in the Wrangel - St. Elias National Park, only 25 or so miles from our facility up there new Gakona. Its been blowing off steam for a couple years now and the USGS has it on their list. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/Highlights/AlaskaCatalog/dds039_006_caption.html

I'm going to be interested in seeing if this big quake has any effect on the volcano, cause if it blows its going to be a disaster. All that snow will melt and the flood that will ensue will be extreme.

D

MacBandit
Nov 6, 2002, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
To the south east of where the quake occurred is a nice big volcano, Mt. Wrangel, situated in the Wrangel - St. Elias National Park, only 25 or so miles from our facility up there new Gakona. Its been blowing off steam for a couple years now and the USGS has it on their list. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/Highlights/AlaskaCatalog/dds039_006_caption.html

I'm going to be interested in seeing if this big quake has any effect on the volcano, cause if it blows its going to be a disaster. All that snow will melt and the flood that will ensue will be extreme.

D

How far away was the earthquake from the volcano. It could be just as likely to have been caused by the volcano.

Mr. Anderson
Nov 6, 2002, 10:17 AM
The volcano is a little over 100 miles from the epicenter, but closer to the fault line. I don't think it had anything to do with the quake (but I'm not a geologist), however, since quite a few places felt the thing 1000s of miles away, I'm sure the quake had an effect on the volcano. To what extent remains to be seen.

D

MacBandit
Nov 6, 2002, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
The volcano is a little over 100 miles from the epicenter, but closer to the fault line. I don't think it had anything to do with the quake (but I'm not a geologist), however, since quite a few places felt the thing 1000s of miles away, I'm sure the quake had an effect on the volcano. To what extent remains to be seen.

D

I'm not a geologist either but I will be someday. I have had a couple years as a major in geology. There is a real potential here that the volcano was an influence on this earthquake not the cause. If the whole volcano is uplifting something very common in a volcano getting ready to erupt it could have pressured the fault just enough to get it to release. Most large mountains effect the plate around them at least a hundred miles in each direction.