Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Statewide Mega Quake May Be Possible After All
ktla ^ | 5 hours ago

Posted on 01/10/2013 12:08:52 PM PST by BenLurkin

For decades, scientists have assumed the central portion of California’s San Andreas fault acts as a barrier that prevents a big quake in the southern part of the state from spreading to the north, and vice versa. As a result, a mega-quake that could be felt from San Diego to San Francisco was widely considered impossible.

But that key fault segment might not serve as a barrier in all cases, researchers wrote Wednesday in the online edition of the journal Nature.

Using a combination of laboratory measurements and computer simulations, the two scientists showed how so-called creeping segments in a fault — long thought to be benign because they slip slowly and steadily along as tectonic plates shift — might behave like locked segments, which build up stress over time and then rupture.

Such a snap caused the 9.0-magnitude Tohoku-Oki earthquake that hit Japan in 2011, triggering a tsunami, killing nearly 16,000 people and destroying the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Forecasters had not believed such a large quake was possible there.

A supposedly stable section of fault also ruptured during the 1999 Chi-Chi quake in Taiwan, a 7.6-magnitude temblor that killed more than 2,400 people.

(Excerpt) Read more at ktla.com ...


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: california; catastrophism; earthquake; megaquake; quake; sanandreas

1 posted on 01/10/2013 12:09:01 PM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

The Creeping Quake to be more worried about is one that originates in Mexico.


2 posted on 01/10/2013 12:11:33 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Kenneth Hudnut, a geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena who was not involved in the research, said that the study sounded “a warning message.”

“The more big earthquakes we’ve seen around the world, the more we’ve realized that there are some deficiencies in our models,” he said.


3 posted on 01/10/2013 12:12:02 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I’m pretty sure it’ll hit Seattle first.


4 posted on 01/10/2013 12:12:43 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Why is that?


5 posted on 01/10/2013 12:14:09 PM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I guess we’ve all got our “favorites”. The one I worry about is the Juan de Fuca & the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Makes me glad I live in Texas (though we’ve had some shakers here).


6 posted on 01/10/2013 12:18:05 PM PST by KGeorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Tony Villar will be in front of a camera before the earth stops shaking


7 posted on 01/10/2013 12:25:36 PM PST by al baby (Hi Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“the 9.0-magnitude Tohoku-Oki earthquake that hit Japan in 2011, triggering a tsunami, killing nearly 16,000 people and destroying the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant”

The 9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake itself did not directly damage the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, much less destroy it.

Very preventable flooding from the tzunami damaged external emergency generators powering pumps dealing with circulation and disposal of the water used to keep the reactor cooled, and the failure of THOSE generators caused over-heating of the reactor, which caused some damage to the facility, resulting in some release of radiation before the reactor was shut down. The flood protection for the emergency generators was spec’d for less severe tsunami possibilities than what happened with the 9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake.

As far as the direct affects of the earthquake, the nuclear plant was not damaged. As far as the general outcome altogther, the plant was not “destoryed”; though, for public relations reasons more than scientific reasons it may not be repaired completely and reopened.


8 posted on 01/10/2013 12:41:21 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

all kinds of things can be shown with mathematical models to be “possible”, but “possible” means neither certain nor likely;

but, people love what the media (and a lot of scientists) does best - sensationalism


9 posted on 01/10/2013 12:44:10 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Like the way one type of tectonic envrionment is so freely juxtaposed with another.


10 posted on 01/10/2013 1:04:45 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

That central section of the San Andreas fault let go in 1857 causing an 8.0 earthquake. The fault ruptured from Wrightwood to Parkfield which is about 225 miles. That section of the fault seems locked (little activity) again.


11 posted on 01/10/2013 1:24:20 PM PST by Mike Darancette (LIM=Low Information Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I am a total amateur geek about Earth Science, but for whatever my opinion is worth, I think this scenario isn’t going to happen. But what do I know?


12 posted on 01/10/2013 1:52:39 PM PST by machogirl (First they came for my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Dealing with two completly different mechanisms. The Japan quake was a subduction/thrust scenario. The San Andreas fault is a transform fault, right lateral. While capable of a large quake, it is incorrect to compare the two types of fault mechanisms as being equivalent.

I do believe a recent transform quake in the Indian Ocean indicates that an these faults can potentially run as high as the upper eights, I think that these scenarios will have to be pretty solid if they are to withstand peer review.


13 posted on 01/10/2013 2:27:27 PM PST by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

There were scientists warning of the possibility of a Tohuku 9.0 earthquake before it happened, but they weren’t sensationalized - they were ignored.

You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

We now have multiple lines of evidence that we have underestimated the maximum quake possible on numerous faults, so it’s likely that there are others where this is the case.

On the other hand, the whole East Coast Tsunami caused by a volcano collapse IS sensationalized by the media and bad documentaries - it’s basically one scientist whose work has been debunked by the tsunami science committee as a whole, yet you still see people on FR excitedly talking about it.


14 posted on 01/10/2013 3:34:21 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

“maximum quake possible”

again, I repeat - “possible” is neither “likely” or “certain”

Just as lots of variables in a math/computer model MAY suggest some POSSIBILITIES, among those variables are also possibilities that can change the conditions today, and change the values of those variables tomorrow.

Siezmic science is still in kinderagarten and even less reliable than wheather predictions.


15 posted on 01/10/2013 5:23:55 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Who cares?

I left that state DECADES AGO. But I do still go back - it is an absolutely BEAUTIFUL place, at least in parts of it (i.e., runs circles around Texas).

But to live or work there, nothing matters. As Tolstoy said in one of his killer books: “Yes, Siberia is beautiful in the winter, but it doesn’t matter when when your life expectancy is measured in weeks.”


16 posted on 01/10/2013 5:45:37 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

It’s called “the Reconquista Fault Line”


17 posted on 01/11/2013 2:14:27 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Gotcha.


18 posted on 01/11/2013 5:42:43 AM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 75thOVI; agrace; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; ...

Thanks BenLurkin.
Thanks .


19 posted on 01/13/2013 11:37:36 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wuli; All

I heard a report the other day which said that the location of the nuclear plant had received 30 meter (95 ft) tsunamis in the historical past, but the plant was not sited or protected to reflect this historical reality. I spoke to a man the other day from the northern part of Washington, DC. He said that all the houses in his neighborhood had sustained earthquake damage from the 5.6 in Mineral, VA. They all had to have their chimneys torn down and rebuilt and it was not covered by their insurance because this is not an earthquake area.


20 posted on 01/14/2013 9:46:48 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

“I heard a report the other day which said that the location of the nuclear plant had received 30 meter (95 ft) tsunamis in the historical past, but the plant was not sited or protected to reflect this historical reality.”

From everything I have read, if the site of the plant had ever received a 95 ft tsnami in the past, it was not in the living memory of any Japanese living today.

Such assessments are based on the statisical most likely scenarios not the radomly, rarely possible though not likely scenarios.

Many things can be on the order of “possible” but it does not make them likely or certain and that sort of unpredictability leaves all kinds of planning left dealing responsibly with statistically greatest, most frequent, most often recorded case scenarios.

No one can afford to build for D-Day every day in every way. If we were asked to, civilization would slowly shut down.


21 posted on 01/14/2013 10:20:54 PM PST by Wuli (uire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wuli; All

Perhaps the story misspoke and meant 30 feet not meters. They certainly should have built to that standard, and I think they did not. Maybe like the mistake where we sent a rocket to the moon and the program mixed up meters and feet and crashed the rocket.


22 posted on 01/16/2013 11:25:50 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson