Seismologists Alarmed by Rash of Quakes Rattling Around Globe

Doesnt the Richter scale simply state the power-of-ten(or whatever you call it:p) of the energy released? Ie a 6 quake would be [some static value]*10^6, while an 8 quake would be [value]*10^8... Thereby, a 10,3 quake would be 100x more powerful than an 8,3 quake.

Or was my prof wrong?
 
Kawaii said:
Doesnt the Richter scale simply state the power-of-ten(or whatever you call it:p) of the energy released? Ie a 6 quake would be [some static value]*10^6, while an 8 quake would be [value]*10^8... Thereby, a 10,3 quake would be 100x more powerful than an 8,3 quake.

Or was my prof wrong?
Click to expand...

Nah...he was right, but they reversed the scale. 10 was listed as being able to destroy all 'man made' structures...and they reverse-mathematized it. :p

10.3 would not only destroy all man-made structures, but also take out a few beaver-dams too. :) :rofl:
 
Y'know, the San Andreas isn't the biggest, the baddest, or even the most dangerous fault in the world. Or even California. It's just the one with the best press agent.
 
anyone in the Midwest should be aware of this one: http://www2.semo.edu/ces/ces2.html

The highest earthquake risk in the United States outside the West Coast is along the New Madrid Fault. Damaging temblors are not as frequent as in California, but when they do occur, the destruction covers over more than 20 times the area because of underlying geology.
A damaging earthquake in this area (6.0 or greater) occurs about every 80 years (the last one in 1895). There is a 50% chance of such a quake by the year 2000. The results would be serious damage to schools and masonry buildings from Memphis to St. Louis.

A major earthquake in this area (7.5 or greater) happens every 200-300 years (the last one in 1812). There is a 10% chance of such a disaster by the year 2000 and a 25% chance by 2040. A New Madrid Fault rupture this size would be felt throughout half the United States and damage expected in 20 states or more. Missouri alone could anticipate losses of at least $6 billion from such an event.
Click to expand...
 
Yep, I feel the tremors from that one occasionally here. They keep saying the big one is coming too.
 
Professur said:
Y'know, the San Andreas isn't the biggest, the baddest, or even the most dangerous fault in the world. Or even California. It's just the one with the best press agent.
Click to expand...

It just happens to be the one with the most immediacy. Most of the others are quiet (in California) in comparison.

Problem with the ones in California, their proximity to beaches. Sand is a multiplier for seismic waves.
 
The San Andreas is the longest fault in California, but it doesn't worry me very much at all. The northern section had its last major quake less than 100 years ago (San Francisco, 1906, 7.9 or 8.0), the southern section had a major one in 1857 (Fort Tejon, 7.8-8.0), and the middle (around Parkfield) slips easier than the rest, making its recurring quake relatively minor at around 6.0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top