Predicted quake could rate 9 on scale

HeXp£Øi±

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Researchers at
Columbia University say
the West Coast could
soon be facing its worst
earthquake in centuries.

New research focusing
on the coastal waters off
Vancouver show that
the area where the Juan
de Fuca and North
America plates overlap
is almost twice the size
that they thought.

Columbia's Earthquake
Institute says the
original estimate for the
zone where the tectonic
plates interlock, called
Northern Cascadia, was
56 kilometres. The area
is now believed to be 90
kilometres.

The known width of the
zone now extends farther towards the mainland, creating an
additional hazard for coastal communities.

The greater the overlap, the more friction is built up, resulting
in a more powerful earthquake.

Researchers say that this locked zone could create so much
energy when it finally releases that it could cause one of the
largest earthquakes in history.

In fact, they say it would release 1,000 times the energy of the
2001 Seattle earthquake, which shattered windows, caused
skyscrapers to sway and rattled buildings up to 350 kilometres
away. The damage caused by that quake cost several billion
dollars.

The Seattle quake registered only a 6.8 on the Richter Scale.
Researchers say the predicted Cascadia earthquake would
measure at least 9 on the Richter Scale.

If the quake is as powerful as the researchers believe, it would
be the worst in the region since 1700.

http://www.canada.com/victoria/chtv/story.asp?id=8038419B-A867-4816-BD14-7F2E57923824
 
CydCharisse

CydCharisse

New Member
I wouldn't doubt it. I don't think people should freak out about it though. If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, great.
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
I'm trying to remember exactly where the southern top of the Juan de Fuca plate is. If it's where I think it is, then I'm sitting pretty. :D
 
A.B.Normal

A.B.Normal

New Member
Inkara1 said:
I'm trying to remember exactly where the southern top of the Juan de Fuca plate is. If it's where I think it is, then I'm sitting pretty. :D
Click to expand...
See my location ,about 50 miles west ,oh f@ckin joy :swing:
 
MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
The matter isnt wether it will happen or not...it WILL happen..it's just a matter of when. They've tried different ways of reducing the load on the 'bog one' by releasing smaller ones, using oils, dynamite etc...but it's not enough. As it is, the amount of potential energy is higher than has ever been stored before. That is to say, they don't know how it's held on this long.

It's not the earthquake that really bothers me...it's what those brilliant city planners were thinking when they placed : 5 Hospitals, 2 Nuclear Power Plants and over 20 schools directly on/or near the fault line. (And that's just in California)

This is not to mention the damage in coastal areas because of the amplifying power of sand on earthquake waves...and the Tidal Wave heading for Japan and Hawaii once this quake does hit.
 
Luis G

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
which shattered windows, caused
skyscrapers to sway and rattled buildings up to 350 kilometres
away. The damage caused by that quake cost several billion
dollars.

The Seattle quake registered only a 6.8 on the Richter Scale.
Click to expand...

:rofl4: :rofl2:
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Bish, new faults are being discovered practically every week. The high-rise buildings in downtown LA are designed to withstand the shock from the largest earthquake the San Andreas Fault could dish out from the 30 or so miles away it is. Now we know there's a fault directly below downtown that could produce just as strong an earthquake--but much closer.
 
Luis G

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
The San Andres fault can make such an earthquake that would wipe several cities from the USA and Mexico (no matter how much the buildings can take), that fault even reaches my state.
 
IDLEchild

IDLEchild

Well-Known Member
Sadly enough this only but one of the major diasters waiting to happen. Anyone ever heard of mega tsunamis? Apprently one of the biggest one is just waiting to happen, originating from one of Hawaii's islands. As always it will hit west coast first.
 
Luis G

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
Considering that Hawaii and Michoacan are on the same latitude, i assume it would hit us harder.
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Luis G said:
The San Andres fault can make such an earthquake that would wipe several cities from the USA and Mexico (no matter how much the buildings can take), that fault even reaches my state.
Click to expand...

That depends on the stretch of the fault. Parkfield, for example, is supposed to be the "earthquake capital of the world" and the San Andreas has had more frequent temblors there--but they're smaller. The area is 15 years late for its "every 22 year" low-6 quake. That part can only produce a quake in the low 6 range on the Richter Scale because there's less friction there than, for example, up north of San Francisco (the 1906 quake was between 7.7 and 7.9 depending on who you ask--that's getting close to 100 times the energy) so the slip can happen more frequently and with less energy contained in it.

Part of the problem in this is if one part of the fault slips fairly easily and other parts don't, that's causing the ground to stretch between the low-friction and high-friction areas. Eventually the ground won't stretch anymore and will "snap back" like the elastic on your underwear. Since the snap-back action isn't likely to pull back what's been slipping faster, since that would also mean pulling back the entire Pacific or North American plate, it would pull the part of the edge of the plate that's gridlocked down near LA or up near San Francisco.

Now, if anyone wants me to go off on a tangent on why I think Parkfield is 15 years late for its 22-year quake, the answer is simple: The 6.7 quake that flattened much of Coalinga, which is right on the other side of the hill range, in May 1983 shows that there are more faults than just the San Andreas in the area (that quake happened on a previously unknown underground fault line that doesn't touch the surface). Who's to say that the quakes in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934 and 1966 weren't caused by other faults and falsely attributed to the San Andreas, especially with as little as was known about earthquakes until the later decades of last century?
 
MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Inkara1 said:
Bish, new faults are being discovered practically every week. The high-rise buildings in downtown LA are designed to withstand the shock from the largest earthquake the San Andreas Fault could dish out from the 30 or so miles away it is. Now we know there's a fault directly below downtown that could produce just as strong an earthquake--but much closer.
Click to expand...

I wasn't speaking specifically of the San Andreass fault... I used to have a map of the known fault lines along the western seaboard with cities and major urban centers highlighted by population density. The map was fairly well detailed and it was easy enough to overlap other maps with Nuclear power plants, power facilities, hospitals etc... as layers in Phontoshop. This was a few years ago though, for a project I was doing for Greenpeace. It's not online anymore. I'd have to ask if they still have the files because I don't.

This was a click-layering page, with a nice sidebar so that you could choose the overlays that you wanted. Not a bad piece of work.

Have to find it.
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Would that map also have an option for what was built in, say, 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990 compared to what fault lines were known in those years?
 
A.B.Normal

A.B.Normal

New Member
Found a pic
C7F111FC-4580-40BC-AA6A-4BEAB29E2397.jpg

I live on the big Island just across the water from Vancouver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top