Earthquake-free Cali-Coastal Populated Centers (Los Angeles, Fresno: most dangerous, move, activity)

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by kidcanaduh

If you look at the ring of fire you can clearly see the areas of it that are over due, i.e., North America. Thus, people living there have had plenty of warning of what's going to happen during the fall and winter of 2008. Right, Fleet?

Yes and no.
The certainly areas which are overdue. The problem is that Seismologists agree that we don't know exactly when and where the next big one will happen. Professional Seismologists also agree that large quakes can and do happen throughtout the year and that there is no one time period when large quakes are more likely to occur. They are just as likely to happen during the spring (San Francisco, April 18 1906, 7.7 magnitude) and the summer (Kern County, July 21, 1952, 7.5 magnitude).

The 5 shaker last month was only a foreshock, i.e., another warning

After one day, the chance of that quake being a foreshock dropped down to 1%. So the odds are against that July quake being a foreshock.

[happ]

Fleet
They are just as likely to happen during the spring (San Francisco, April 18 1906, 7.7 magnitude) and the summer (Kern County, July 21, 1952, 7.5 magnitude).

Wasn't the 1906 San Francisco earthquake over 8.0 on Richter scale?

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by happ

Wasn't the 1906 San Francisco earthquake over 8.0 on Richter scale?

It was on the Richter scale, but it is an estimated 7.7 on the more accurate Moment Magnitude scale. The Richter scale isn't very accurate for quakes above 7.

[happ]

Originally Posted by Fleet

It was on the Richter scale, but it is an estimated 7.7 on the more accurate Moment Magnitude scale. The Richter scale isn't very accurate for quakes above 7.

Gees, I didn't even know a new scale is used now. So only earthquakes under 7 are measured by the Richter scale?

[gentledental4u]

i don't mean any disrespect, but you guys sound like a bunch of hairy back marys

[gentledental4u]

i mean that with all due respect, of course, pansies.

[FresnoFacts]

Originally Posted by happ

Not true! Don't forget the 1952 Bakersfield earthquake & Coalinga had a strong quake a few years ago [I believe there were fatalities in both earthquakes]. The Central Valley is less likely to receive earthquakes compared to the coastal areas but, as you can see, earthquakes do strike the San Joaquin valley w/ deadly results.

True but both of those were along the edges of the San Joaquin Valley, near faults.

If you look at the map
http://www.seismic.ca.gov/images/ca_earthquakes_map.jpg
you see as you move to the east side of the Valley there is a very low risk.

There are no known faults through the center to the east of the valley. And even when quakes hit other areas all we feel is slight swaying, if that. All I felt of Coalinga was a sway, when Loma Prieta hit the Bay Area I saw a chandelier sway that was it.

The lack of faults is why the SF Federal Reserve used to have its backup data center in Visalia.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by JoeyT

Are there ANY reasonably-sized (pop. 50,000-100,000) cities on California's coast that are free of these^%$#earthquakes??

No.. is it just me or are these questions getting more desperate? Either you want to live in California or you don't.. why are people looking for parts of California that aren't like California, and why should we encourage people who don't like California to live here?

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by happ

Gees, I didn't even know a new scale is used now. So only earthquakes under 7 are measured by the Richter scale?

Both measurements are used, because people are used to hearing "Richter scale."
But, yes, I don't see the Moment Magnitude used for quakes under 7.

[kidcanaduh]

You forget the kidcanaduh scale, Fleet. It's the most accurate.