View Full Version : Big Earthquake overdue in Southern California
Tanglewood
Jun 21, 2006, 07:17 PM
LINK (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060621-1004-wst-sanandreasfault.html)
iTwitch
Jun 21, 2006, 07:30 PM
I read about this earlier on Drudge and Steve Qualye of the Q-Files just finished talking about it. Articles like this fuel all the doom and gloomers.
Electro Funk
Jun 21, 2006, 07:30 PM
LINK (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060621-1004-wst-sanandreasfault.html)
If i lived in LA (after reading that article) i would be walking around everyday with a hard hat and a lifejacket on! :p
Tanglewood
Jun 21, 2006, 07:38 PM
I read about this earlier on Drudge and Steve Qualye of the Q-Files just finished talking about it. Articles like this fuel all the doom and gloomers.
Earthquakes happen all the time here. Its just another person saying that California is going to break off into the Pacific...and hey I slept through the Northridge earthquake, it was kinda like Magic Fingers.
Macaddicttt
Jun 21, 2006, 07:38 PM
If i lived in LA (after reading that article) i would be walking around everyday with a hard hat and a lifejacket on! :p
Lifejacket? :confused: It's not a flood. Los Angeles won't be swallowed up into the sea if there were an earthquake...
Dont Hurt Me
Jun 21, 2006, 07:40 PM
No just pushed up another 20 or 30 feet.:eek:
vniow
Jun 21, 2006, 07:42 PM
Lifejacket? :confused: It's not a flood. Los Angeles won't be swallowed up into the sea if there were an earthquake...
Damn.
EricNau
Jun 21, 2006, 07:42 PM
Lifejacket? :confused: It's not a flood. Los Angeles won't be swallowed up into the sea if there were an earthquake...
No... That's San Francisco. :p
Tanglewood
Jun 21, 2006, 07:44 PM
Damn.
Haha...if only:rolleyes:
Electro Funk
Jun 21, 2006, 09:59 PM
Lifejacket? :confused: It's not a flood. Los Angeles won't be swallowed up into the sea if there were an earthquake...
ehrm.... i was joking.... lot of people say that cali is going to break off and sink some day.... :rolleyes:
not saying i agree with that... guess im not that funny.... :(
Edit: maybe i would start a new fashion statement.... dont be surprised if the next time you come to florida we are all wearing life jackets and hard hats :p
solvs
Jun 21, 2006, 10:43 PM
I just had to move back to CA didn't I.
bousozoku
Jun 21, 2006, 11:23 PM
So, there will be another Island next to Catalina. People in Central Orange County might not mind so much. It might clean up the streets of L.A.
I'm just surprised that I didn't experience at least a 2.0 while I was there recently. I would have ordered jell-o, just to watch it wiggle.
I wonder if someone else was watching that Dolph Lundgren film that I passed on t.v. this weekend. It seems rather coincidental.
MacFan25863
Jun 22, 2006, 12:23 AM
eh.
Chip NoVaMac
Jun 22, 2006, 12:33 AM
Actually I think it it over due for the Mid-West and the New Madrid fault.
The last time it "went", church bells in Boston, MA rang....
iBlue
Jun 22, 2006, 12:41 AM
Ehhh, it happens, no sense worrying about it. I grew up in California and have had my fair share of big earthquakes. Things fall over and break and they're repaired or replaced and people move on. It's startling and it's no fun but it's not worth the panic. LA is resilient. (god I miss it)
bousozoku
Jun 22, 2006, 01:46 AM
Ehhh, it happens, no sense worrying about it. I grew up in California and have had my fair share of big earthquakes. Things fall over and break and they're repaired or replaced and people move on. It's startling and it's no fun but it's not worth the panic. LA is resilient. (god I miss it)
Shake and bake is better than soak and freeze, isn't it?
iBlue
Jun 22, 2006, 01:47 AM
Shake and bake is better than soak and freeze, isn't it?
haha, yeah agreed there. ;)
kretzy
Jun 22, 2006, 01:50 AM
Ok, dumb question, but do earthquakes really look like they do in movies? Like does the whole big crack in the earth thing actually ever happen of is that just for dramatic effect? Does it feel like the ground is shaking randomly or more moving backwards and forwards. I only ask because we don't really experience them here. :o
WildCowboy
Jun 22, 2006, 01:57 AM
It really depends...earthquakes sometimes feel like a single sharp jolt, while other ones are more of an extended rolling. In some cases, you can tell where the wave is coming from.
What you see in the movies is greatly exaggerated. In California we have strike-slip faults (where two plates are sliding by each other) rather than subduction faults (where one plate is diving below another one as they have off the coast of Indonesia). In extreme earthquakes (like the 1906 San Francisco earthquake) you can see earth movements of multiple feet...roads that all of sudden don't line up, etc. Those phenomena are pretty isolated and are really just right along the fault. You can have some ground collapsing due to the movement, and so you can get buckling pavement that looks a lot like the chasms opening up like you see in movies. But it's on a much smaller scale and more localized than the movies portray them. And this stuff only happens in major earthquakes. Smaller ones, even ones that cause significant damage, leave virtually no visible changes to the ground.
iBlue
Jun 22, 2006, 01:57 AM
Ok, dumb question, but do earthquakes really look like they do in movies? Like does the whole big crack in the earth thing actually ever happen of is that just for dramatic effect? Does it feel like the ground is shaking randomly or more moving backwards and forwards. I only ask because we don't really experience them here. :o
depends on how big it is. mostly the minor ones feel like you're off balance; it's just disorienting. the large ones are rather frightening. it's loud, everything moves [duh] randomly, and things fall and you have no idea when it will stop or get better/worse. it sucks actually. (been through too damn many)
the crack in the earth thing is silly, those are usually ariel shots, which is funny because there's no sensation of earth movement up there. mostly you're in your house and everything starts jerking around... the perspective is just different. <shrugs>
some earthquakes are more violent than others. one might feel llike a rocking motion, the other like a paint shaker. no real rhyme or reason to it that i can telll you.
edit: good description WildCowboy. there are those random jolts too. plate tectonics is strange.
if that answers your question.
kretzy
Jun 22, 2006, 02:06 AM
Thanks for the insights guys! :)
As I said, we don't really experience them here so it's interesting to hear what they're like.
erickkoch
Jun 22, 2006, 02:16 AM
I've lived with earthquakes all my life. I'm just going to enjoy the ride.
Earthquakes are mostly harmless. It's the stuff that falls on you that kills. Here in Kali the homes and most newer buildings are generally safe. It's the old buildings that I'd be worried about when it hits. Retrofitting them to standard costs too much and rebuilding them costs even more.
CorvusCamenarum
Jun 22, 2006, 03:00 AM
Actually I think it it over due for the Mid-West and the New Madrid fault.
The last time it "went", church bells in Boston, MA rang....
There was a 4.9 earthquake near here 3 years ago; the epicenter was in DeKalb County, AL (northeast corner of the state, about 2 1/2 hours or so from me). It surprisingly woke me up.
If the New Madrid fault really goes again, I wonder how many of the buildings in this area of the country are built to withstand a major or semi-major quake.
hmmfe
Jun 22, 2006, 09:00 AM
In California we have strike-slip faults (where two plates are sliding by each other) rather than subduction faults (where one plate is diving below another one as they have off the coast of Indonesia).
Not to be too picky, but for those interested not all faults in California are transform faults (stike-slip) but most are. The Cascadia subduction zone extends south to Cape Mendocino. There have been earthquakes at Cape Mendocino and Eureka from this fault zone in the recent past. This zone produces the volcanos of Northern California (Lassen and Shasta).
IJ Reilly
Jun 22, 2006, 11:07 AM
I've lived with earthquakes all my life. I'm just going to enjoy the ride.
Earthquakes are mostly harmless. It's the stuff that falls on you that kills. Here in Kali the homes and most newer buildings are generally safe. It's the old buildings that I'd be worried about when it hits. Retrofitting them to standard costs too much and rebuilding them costs even more.
That's a rather broad statement. The Northridge earthquake destroyed some relatively new buildings, which were designed to much more current seismic standards. This resulted in a lot of study about how modern buildings perform in earthquakes, which is another subject about which we know less than you might expect. Also, extensive retrofitting of older buildings has occurred throughout California since Northridge, backed up by state funding. So older buildings aren't as much of a risk, and newer ones probably not as safe, as you think
As for this new study, it doesn't seem to tell us anything we didn't already know. The mother-of-all-earthquakes is coming to a fault near you...
Tanglewood
Jun 22, 2006, 11:42 AM
In California we have strike-slip faults (where two plates are sliding by each other) rather than subduction faults (where one plate is diving below another one as they have off the coast of Indonesia).
We do have other types like Blind Thrust Fault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_fault) that caused the Northridge Earthquake. The scary thing about that fault was that no one even knew about it until it actually caused an earthquake.
Heres a website (http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latest.htm) that shows all the earthquakes for California and Nevada for the past week.
Chip NoVaMac
Jun 22, 2006, 10:12 PM
Heres a website (http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latest.htm) that shows all the earthquakes for California and Nevada for the past week.
Thanks for the link. Didn't know about Nevada being prone to earthquakes too. Was impressed by the 4.4 78 miles NE of Las Vegas.
Back to the New Madrid Fault. Found the attached image, with this text:
Although earthquakes in the central and eastern United States are less frequent than in the western United States, they affect much larger areas. This is shown by two areas affected by earthquakes of similar magnitude-the 1895 Charleston, Missouri, earthquake in the New Madrid seismic zone and the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Red indicates minor to major damage to buildings and their contents. Yellow indicates shaking felt, but little or no damage to objects, such as dishes.
From this website: http://www.greatdreams.com/madrid.htm and this one, http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/factsheets/NewMadrid/
Came across these pages in trying to find out what type of fault, it is an intraplate fault. Not sure if this goes by another name.
Music_Producer
Jun 23, 2006, 07:25 AM
Great.. I live like 10 minutes from the San Andreas fault. :eek:
asxtb
Jun 23, 2006, 08:25 AM
Don't know if this is true or not, but regarding building damage, I heard that the cemet in large building that is made with salt-water is much more easily damaged than cement made with fresh-water. Supposedly that is why the Kobe quake was so bad. And also supposedly, Tokyo buildings are also at risk. Anyone know if this is true or not?
paleck
Jun 23, 2006, 11:48 AM
Where I live in Utah they have been saying we are way way way overdue for an earthquake for the last 20 or 30 years. I just figure if it happens it happens, not much I can do in the meantime.
Tanglewood
Jun 23, 2006, 12:24 PM
Chip NoVaMac quick question - Is the damage area for the New Madrid adjusted for advances in building code since 1895 to 1994? Though I guess it doesn't matter buildings aren't built back there with earthquakes in mind. Tornados maybe, but not earthquakes.
I just figure if it happens it happens, not much I can do in the meantime.
Sure there is. Get yourself a cold drink and enjoy your summer.:D
paleck
Jun 23, 2006, 01:21 PM
Sure there is. Get yourself a cold drink and enjoy your summer.:D
Good point...though I'll be seriously pissed off if an earthquake happens right after I finish closing and moving into my new condo. :D
XNine
Jun 23, 2006, 01:45 PM
Discovery or History had something on about a week ago about the New Madrid Fault and quakes that happened in the 1800's. They said that they lasted for months, off and on.
It created fishures in the earth, caused the mississippi river to flow backwards (upstream) and adjusted the land. Pretty scary to think that that could happen. Getting hit for days on end, for months on end with 8.0 and greater earthquakes.
altair
Jun 23, 2006, 06:23 PM
Here's a video of a earthquake, for all of you who haven't experienced one.
here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7boO_wTzS4&search=earthquake)
Chundles
Jun 23, 2006, 06:53 PM
Thanks for the insights guys! :)
As I said, we don't really experience them here so it's interesting to hear what they're like.
Speak for yourself, growing up in the southern highlands of NSW I got woken up heaps of times to the unmistakable feeling of the earth shaking beneath me. Mind you, they were only little 3.0 - 3.5 earthquakes, the one that tried it's best to flatten Newcastle a while back was a 6 so I can't really imagine anything stronger then that, it would definitely give me a bit of a scare.
solvs
Jun 23, 2006, 07:05 PM
Good point...though I'll be seriously pissed off if an earthquake happens right after I finish closing and moving into my new condo. :D
Get yourself some eathquake insurance. Mine is only an extra ~$10 a year, but I rent.
Chip NoVaMac
Jun 23, 2006, 09:35 PM
Chip NoVaMac quick question - Is the damage area for the New Madrid adjusted for advances in building code since 1895 to 1994? Though I guess it doesn't matter buildings aren't built back there with earthquakes in mind. Tornados maybe, but not earthquakes.
No the image I posted indicates by the red zone, areas with structural damage back in 1812.
I want to say that St. Louis is somewhat prepared for the worst. Back in the late 80's, early 90's there was a scientist that predicted a date for the New Madrid Fault to blow again. Many companies had their buildings checked out for earthquake preparedness. IIRC the Arch was given a clean bill of health to 6.0. :eek: People slept out in parks for like two weeks.
patrick0brien
Jun 26, 2006, 06:06 PM
-Chip NoVaMac
I remember working a FedEx about 6 years ago in Memphis and all of those buildings were of the 'suspended' types for earthquake resistance. Every time someone walked by, the floor would bounce.
uaaerospace
Jun 27, 2006, 09:09 PM
Discovery or History had something on about a week ago about the New Madrid Fault and quakes that happened in the 1800's. They said that they lasted for months, off and on.
It created fishures in the earth, caused the mississippi river to flow backwards (upstream) and adjusted the land. Pretty scary to think that that could happen. Getting hit for days on end, for months on end with 8.0 and greater earthquakes.
It was actually a series of three major earthquakes. Anyone ever heard of Reelfoot lake in northwest Tennessee?
More information on Reelfoot Lake and the New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1812 (http://www.reelfoot.com/new_madrid_earthquake.htm)
uaaerospace
Jun 27, 2006, 09:20 PM
Is the damage area for the New Madrid adjusted for advances in building code since 1895 to 1994?
Keep in mind that the larger impact area of a New Madrid quake is due to the soil type and solidness of the plate in the eastern US. The west coast diminishes more energy because of its faults, resulting in a smaller impact area for a similar magnitude quake. The eastern US lacks these dissipative faults.
Also, for those that think CA is going to sink into the ocean.... :rolleyes: It's not going to happen due to an earthquake. A portion of CA is located on the Pacific plate (the rest on the North American plate) and moving northward towards Alaska. It will eventually move up and away, however you and I will be looooong gone by the time that happens.
hofnar
Jun 27, 2006, 10:39 PM
When i first came to Japan I was like "OMG! EARTHQUAKE!" and I stood in the doorway. Now if one happens now I just stay where I am, like in bed.
I was practicing on the water one day and we had one and it was neat to see buildings sway. :p But still a bit scary.
IJ Reilly
Jun 28, 2006, 12:56 AM
When i first came to Japan I was like "OMG! EARTHQUAKE!" and I stood in the doorway. Now if one happens now I just stay where I am, like in bed.
I was practicing on the water one day and we had one and it was neat to see buildings sway. :p But still a bit scary.
Spoken like someone who's never experienced a killer earthquake. After one of those, you'll be running for cover the next time you feel a rumble, and you'll be keeping shoes next to your bed. You will, or you won't be a very smart person.
Tanglewood
Jun 28, 2006, 02:02 AM
Did anyone else have problems with the disaster drills they run in K-12? My big problem was when you did duck and cover was as I was getting bigger (I'm 6' 2") the desks were getting smaller. So by the time I was a senior there was no point since my notecard size desk wouldn't protect me from the building coming down around me.
Kingsly
Jun 28, 2006, 12:26 PM
LINK (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060621-1004-wst-sanandreasfault.html)
Wow. Between this and North korean taepodong missiles... Im thinking about cashing in my return tickets and staying put here in kansas.
AhmedFaisal
Jun 28, 2006, 04:09 PM
Damn.
Agreed. LA is what screws it up and gives a bad rep to all of California... How often have I heard people make a bad statement about California as a whole and I had to tell them that this was an LA issue, not a California issue, and that us that are NOT from LA don't particularily care for the city either....
mrichmon
Jun 28, 2006, 09:49 PM
the one that tried it's best to flatten Newcastle a while back was a 6 so I can't really imagine anything stronger then that, it would definitely give me a bit of a scare.
I was walking through a doorway when the shock wave from the Newcastle 'quake rolled through Sydney and noticed the corner of the ceiling at the opposite side of the room move followed by the rest of the room. Kinda freaky.
Now that I'm living in San Francisco the latest 'quakes are reported as part of the weather forecast with a number of small 2-3 'quakes each week. Sitting through the Parkfield 6.0 'quake in 2004 I only noticed the 'quake because the cat freaked out.
I was roughly the same distance from the Parkfield 'quake as I was from the Newcastle 'quake. The main difference is that California buildings are designed to accomodate earthquakes.
killr_b
Jun 28, 2006, 10:39 PM
Agreed. LA is what screws it up and gives a bad rep to all of California... How often have I heard people make a bad statement about California as a whole and I had to tell them that this was an LA issue, not a California issue, and that us that are NOT from LA don't particularily care for the city either....
L.A. would be a lot better if the federal government didn't steal billions of dollars from us over the last couple decades for things like, rebuilding NY, rebuilding FL, and LA, MS and TX from Katrina. We're sick of the whining from all the other states after every natural disaster. Durring Northridge when contractors and insurance companies screwed just about everyone we didn't get one tenth of the assistance like "victims" of Katrina. L.A. supports the rest of the country. We passed a messure to keep local monies local and the federal gov. still jacked us for, oh the ever-so poor people in the gulf.
When there's a huge earthquake in L.A. I expect we'll have to riot to get anything, actually, to keep what is ours already. I don't expect anything from Bush and the babysitting squad that follows him around. We're a blue state through and through and they know it.
Hillbillies and rednecks get new houses and the school I went to as a child still doesn't have air conditioning.
WildCowboy
Jun 28, 2006, 10:47 PM
L.A. would be a lot better if the federal government didn't steal billions of dollars from us over the last couple decades for things like, rebuilding NY, rebuilding FL, and LA, MS and TX from Katrina. We're sick of the whining from all the other states after every natural disaster. Durring Northridge when contractors and insurance companies screwed just about everyone we didn't get one tenth of the assistance like "victims" of Katrina. L.A. supports the rest of the country. We passed a messure to keep local monies local and the federal gov. still jacked us for, oh the ever-so poor people in the gulf.
Of course, Northern CA pitched in to help you guys rebuild after Northridge, but your lawmakers certainly balked at helping to pay for our Bay Bridge project...
killr_b
Jun 28, 2006, 11:00 PM
Ya, sorry about that. We don't have any money yo. But I do like visiting up north and spending $ in local shops, does that count?
WildCowboy
Jun 28, 2006, 11:02 PM
But I do like visiting up north and spending $ in local shops, does that count?
As long as you bring all the other SoCal folks along with you, we'll call it even. :D
Chip NoVaMac
Jun 28, 2006, 11:09 PM
Keep in mind that the larger impact area of a New Madrid quake is due to the soil type and solidness of the plate in the eastern US. The west coast diminishes more energy because of its faults, resulting in a smaller impact area for a similar magnitude quake. The eastern US lacks these dissipative faults.
Also from what I understand is the difference between soil composition between the West and East coasts. The "softer" soil here in the East transmits the energy much more efficiently than it would on the West coast.
I am surprised that nothing has been mentioned about the Cheesequake, NY fault that is close to NYC. IIRC a 5.0 there could level most of lower Manhattan.
IJ Reilly
Jun 28, 2006, 11:14 PM
Of course, Northern CA pitched in to help you guys rebuild after Northridge, but your lawmakers certainly balked at helping to pay for our Bay Bridge project...
You think it might have something to do the proposed 24k gold plating? The estimated cost of construction started at about $1 billion and is now over $5 billion.
WildCowboy
Jun 28, 2006, 11:22 PM
You think it might have something to do the proposed 24k gold plating? The estimated cost of construction started at about $1 billion and is now over $5 billion.
A big chunk of the blame goes to Caltrans, who couldn't estimate the cost of a banana. Another big chunk goes to the Governator for sticking his nose in it.
I'll admit Brown and Brown (the mayoral duo) also deserve a good chunk of it though. The $1 billion cost was for a simple concrete viaduct, which I can't imagine being acceptable for such a major project in such a prominent setting anywhere in the world.
AhmedFaisal
Jun 29, 2006, 05:57 PM
A big chunk of the blame goes to Caltrans, who couldn't estimate the cost of a banana. Another big chunk goes to the Governator for sticking his nose in it.
I'll admit Brown and Brown (the mayoral duo) also deserve a good chunk of it though. The $1 billion cost was for a simple concrete viaduct, which I can't imagine being acceptable for such a major project in such a prominent setting anywhere in the world.
And there I was thinking that that would have been a bad idea to begin with... for the size of that thing and given that this is earthquake central, I'd thunk that they would have planned in a construction that can withstand a big one from the getgo. A concrete viaduct sure wouldn't as it is too rigid!
Cheers,
Ahmed
IJ Reilly
Jun 29, 2006, 06:41 PM
A big chunk of the blame goes to Caltrans, who couldn't estimate the cost of a banana. Another big chunk goes to the Governator for sticking his nose in it.
I'll admit Brown and Brown (the mayoral duo) also deserve a good chunk of it though. The $1 billion cost was for a simple concrete viaduct, which I can't imagine being acceptable for such a major project in such a prominent setting anywhere in the world.
Ah, well there's the problem. Southern California didn't get any fancy public works after Northridge, just the reconstruction of the same nasty freeways we had before. Likewise Northern California got reconstructed freeways after Loma Prieta, as well as the removal of some major eyesores like the Embarcadero freeway and the 880. Now the Bay Area wants a showplace bridge. That's fine -- I hope it's built. But that doesn't mean the entire state should pay for it, at least not while we're slashing funding for education and health care.
WildCowboy
Jun 29, 2006, 07:06 PM
Ah, well there's the problem. Southern California didn't get any fancy public works after Northridge, just the reconstruction of the same nasty freeways we had before. Likewise Northern California got reconstructed freeways after Loma Prieta, as well as the removal of some major eyesores like the Embarcadero freeway and the 880. Now the Bay Area wants a showplace bridge. That's fine -- I hope it's built. But that doesn't mean the entire state should pay for it, at least not while we're slashing funding for education and health care.
The revised "freeway on stilts" viaduct proposed by Arnold was projected to "possibly" save $300 million (which is within rounding errors on a $6 billion bridge), and may even have ended up costing more than the showplace bridge.
guifa
Jun 29, 2006, 07:17 PM
There was a 4.9 earthquake near here 3 years ago; the epicenter was in DeKalb County, AL (northeast corner of the state, about 2 1/2 hours or so from me). It surprisingly woke me up.
If the New Madrid fault really goes again, I wonder how many of the buildings in this area of the country are built to withstand a major or semi-major quake.
Really? I don't remember feeling anything. Thought depending on if you mean nearly three years ago or slightly more than three years ago I might not have been in Tuscaloosa yet. But I'd still've been in Auburn which might have felt a slight tremble....
IJ Reilly
Jun 29, 2006, 08:42 PM
The revised "freeway on stilts" viaduct proposed by Arnold was projected to "possibly" save $300 million (which is within rounding errors on a $6 billion bridge), and may even have ended up costing more than the showplace bridge.
Still, the project has inflated massively. It should come as no surprise that the state isn't anxious to bear the cost.
WildCowboy
Jun 29, 2006, 09:07 PM
Still, the project has inflated massively. It should come as no surprise that the state isn't anxious to bear the cost.
Agreed. For anyone who's interested in the history of the Bay Bridge replacement, here (http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/04/13/04-013.pdf) is a PDF that explains it all in only 38 pages (plus another ten pages for references). And keep in mind that this is for only the half of the bridge that needs to be replaced (imagine if we had to replace the western span as well) and this history only goes through 2004.
If all goes according to plan, we'll have a new bridge around 2013, only 24 years after it partially collapsed in the last earthquake.
patrick0brien
Jun 30, 2006, 12:07 PM
Not to rain on parades, but this is starting to sound political...
WildCowboy
Jun 30, 2006, 01:39 PM
Not to rain on parades, but this is starting to sound political...
Meh...more just a bit of NorCal-SoCal rivalry. I think we're done with it anyway.
vBulletin® v3.6.10, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.