PDA

View Full Version : 6.9 Earthquake in Baja; Felt bad in San Diego



RBA
04-04-2010, 06:49 PM
Felt in a large portion of So Cal.

upgraded/revised to 7.2

TheNext44
04-04-2010, 07:13 PM
I was typing a reply on Redszone when I felt it. Thought I was just drunk and the room was spinning. Pretty cool. One of the fun benefits of living in SoCal. :)

nate
04-04-2010, 08:17 PM
I'm out here in the OC visiting friends and the folks. My wife and I were on the 5 at the time and didn't feel it. Mom, Dad and our dog did though.

SunDeck
04-04-2010, 08:18 PM
My brother felt it pretty good in OC. Said he was in a grocery store, waiting in line and felt the rumble. It left the signs in the store swinging, but that was about it.

GIDP
04-04-2010, 08:44 PM
It's amazing how little earthquakes hurt when you actually have buildings that are built correctly.

pedro
04-04-2010, 08:57 PM
It's amazing how little earthquakes hurt when you actually have buildings that are built correctly.

Um, that's really not the lesson here, although obviously buildings are stronger in Southern California than in Haiti. The epicenter was out in the middle of no where.

This quake was larger than the 1994 Northridge quake which did a ton of damage.

It's just very fortunate that this didn't strike in a more populated area. I have friends that live in SD and they are none the less freaked out this evening.

GIDP
04-04-2010, 08:59 PM
Um, that's really not the lesson here, although obviously buildings are stronger in Southern California than in Haiti. The epicenter was out in the middle of no where.

This quake was larger than the 1994 Northridge quake which did a ton of damage.

It's just very fortunate that this didn't strike in a more populated area. I have friends that live in SD and they are none the less freaked out this evening.

My point is how peoples perception of a huge earth quake depends nothing on the size of the quake but how big they were told it was.

SandyD
04-05-2010, 07:59 AM
My point is how peoples perception of a huge earth quake depends nothing on the size of the quake but how big they were told it was.

an earthquake that hits in the middle of nowhere, and doesn't do a lot of damages won't get the same media attention that one of the same magnitude that hits a population center and does a lot of damage. But, it would still be a little freaky for those who felt it. And at least moderate level of anxiety for people who have friends/family in the regions where the quake was felt.

it's also interesting how far away earthquakes can be felt, or how far reaching the effects. Lake Pontchartrain (north of new orleans) experienced a "sloshing" effect from the recent Chlilean earthquake.

westofyou
04-05-2010, 09:01 AM
My point is how peoples perception of a huge earth quake depends nothing on the size of the quake but how big they were told it was.
Maybe to those who have never been through one.

6.9 is huge, take my word for it.

BuckeyeRed27
04-05-2010, 11:01 AM
I was driving on the 10 when it happened and didn't feel it at all.

KYRedsFan
04-05-2010, 11:12 AM
Didn't feel it at all at the beach. Lots of people who were inside felt it though.

ochre
04-05-2010, 11:24 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/seismic_waves.png
http://xkcd.com/723/

RedsManRick
04-05-2010, 01:47 PM
Cousin in SD said a few knickknacks fell off the shelf, but that was about it. Brother in LA said it was like a train passing nearby for about 45 seconds.

oneupper
04-06-2010, 01:11 AM
Maybe to those who have never been through one.

6.9 is huge, take my word for it.

It is. I've been through some smaller ones, and it was no fun.

What many don't understand is that the Richter Scale is not lineal.
A 7.0 Quake is not 16% more intense than a 6.0, it's 30 times more intense!

Wikipedia has the math, if you're interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

GIDP
04-06-2010, 01:57 AM
Maybe to those who have never been through one.

6.9 is huge, take my word for it.

Certainly.

redsmetz
04-06-2010, 08:28 AM
it's also interesting how far away earthquakes can be felt, or how far reaching the effects. Lake Pontchartrain (north of new orleans) experienced a "sloshing" effect from the recent Chlilean earthquake.

The largest earthquake in the history of the U.S. was the New Madrid MO earthquakes over 1811 and 1812, some exceeding 8.0 on the Richter Scale. The largest is said to have been felt as far away as Boston (1275+ miles away), ringing church bells there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1812_New_Madrid_earthquake

RBA
04-06-2010, 04:39 PM
The largest earthquake in the history of the U.S. was the New Madrid MO earthquakes over 1811 and 1812, some exceeding 8.0 on the Richter Scale. The largest is said to have been felt as far away as Boston (1275+ miles away), ringing church bells there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1812_New_Madrid_earthquake

On the afternoon of March 27, 1964, the state of Alaska suffered the worst earthquake ever recorded in North America. The quake registered 8.6 on the Richter Scale in 1964 and has since been upgraded to 9.2 by the USGS. The effects of the quake were devastating. All of Anchorage was shaken by the quake, but the Downtown and Turnagain neighborhoods incurred the most dramatic damage. One hundred-seventeen people lost their lives and millions of dollars in property was damaged or destroyed. Thirty-five years later the state has made a full recovery but signs of the disaster, such as Earthquake Park and Potter Marsh, serve as a reminder of the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake.


http://consortiumlibrary.org/archives/Photographs/PhotoExhibits/EarthquakeExhibit.html

Seems New Madrid is further down the list..
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/10_largest_us.php

redsmetz
04-06-2010, 05:18 PM
On the afternoon of March 27, 1964, the state of Alaska suffered the worst earthquake ever recorded in North America. The quake registered 8.6 on the Richter Scale in 1964 and has since been upgraded to 9.2 by the USGS. The effects of the quake were devastating. All of Anchorage was shaken by the quake, but the Downtown and Turnagain neighborhoods incurred the most dramatic damage. One hundred-seventeen people lost their lives and millions of dollars in property was damaged or destroyed. Thirty-five years later the state has made a full recovery but signs of the disaster, such as Earthquake Park and Potter Marsh, serve as a reminder of the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake.


http://consortiumlibrary.org/archives/Photographs/PhotoExhibits/EarthquakeExhibit.html

Seems New Madrid is further down the list..
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/10_largest_us.php

Thanks for the clarification. I have vivid memories of the photos from the Alaska earthquake in 1964. The New Madrid fault has not had a major quake in nearly 200 years. I know it's one they watch. Of course, compared to the emptiness of the area back then, a major quake there would be significantly different.

RBA
04-06-2010, 07:34 PM
You are right redsmetz. A 6 plus would not be good there. A 7 plus would be devastating.

SandyD
04-06-2010, 07:48 PM
From the Tennessee Historical Society:
http://www.reelfoot.com/new_madrid_earthquake.htm


The legend:
http://www.reelfoot.com/legend_1.htm

Reelfoot Lake was formed or expanded in the 1812 earthquake.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/26xx/264x/2641_ult_earthquake-3_04700300.jpg