Destruction of LA by earthquake coming soon! (Los Angeles, San Fernando: apartment, condo)

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by SoCalBrad

^ Do you think other states and countries will help or will we have to fend for ourselves?

Also, the earthquake in Chille was very deep underground which is why the damage wasn't as bad, but the San Andreas is ABOVE ground

The San Andreas is ABOVE ground??? Hmmm... Wouldn't that be an AIR quake then?

[BacktoBlue]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

What's important is the intensity, and the Chilean Earthquake had a higher maximum intensity (IX) at the surface than did the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 in San Francisco (VIII), though the intensity farther north of San Francisco did equal the intensity of this year's Chilean quake.

For comparative purposes, the Northridge Earthquake also had a maximum intensity of IX.

The theorized "Big One" would be expected to have a maximum intensity of X or more, with a much more widespread intensity of IX than the Northridge Earthquake (basically, from the Salton Sea to southern Kern County).

Ohh Science talk. I think I understand lol?

Originally Posted by Lovehound

The San Andreas is ABOVE ground??? Hmmm... Wouldn't that be an AIR quake then?

haha well I meant you can see it from the air. It's on the surface and sticks out of the ground in some places.

[MattSteeleLA]

Originally Posted by SoCalBrad

Also, the earthquake in Chille was very deep underground which is why the damage wasn't as bad, but the San Andreas is ABOVE ground

There are two things to consider: 1. epicenter and 2. ground movement...

1. Epicenter: While the San Andreas fault is visible from above ground, is stretches all the way underground to the softer, hotter parts of the earth's crust (hence the name "fault") -- it separates the North American continental plate from the Pacific continental plate. Any earthquake along this fault will occur deep underground, just as all earthquakes do. What I think you're referring to is #2:

2. Ground movement: There was ground movement in the Chilean quake -- a LOT of it, just underwater. This is why it caused a tsunami that crossed the Pacific. In many ways the type of movement accounted for in the Chilean quake would be considered more damaging than the type on the San Andreas because the Chilean fault experienced a "megathrust" earthquake -- common to subduction faults where one plate slides under the other. This results in a dramatic elevation change in the land causing vertical quake waves which are far more dangerous.

The San Andreas is not a subduction fault, but rather a "strike-slip" fault where the plates slide against each other without either going underneath the other. Ground movement here can be dramatic as well, but causes ground-movement waves that move side-to-side rather than up and down.

Originally Posted by SoCalBrad

^ Do you think other states and countries will help or will we have to fend for ourselves?

Of course the federal government will help out, but when you're talking hundreds of billions in damages, no magic-wand will keep the place economically sound.

And Voyager -- There's no geological evidence to support the possibility of a magnitude 10+ along the San Andreas. There is however, plenty of geological evidence to support a magnitude 8.5. It'll just be spread-out over 100 miles (as you mentioned).

[MattSteeleLA]

You don't say?!?!...

Southern California is overdue for 'The Big One,' study finds | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by MattSteeleLA

There are two things to consider: 1. epicenter and 2. ground movement...

1. Epicenter: While the San Andreas fault is visible from above ground, is stretches all the way underground to the softer, hotter parts of the earth's crust (hence the name "fault") -- it separates the North American continental plate from the Pacific continental plate. Any earthquake along this fault will occur deep underground, just as all earthquakes do. What I think you're referring to is #2:

2. Ground movement: There was ground movement in the Chilean quake -- a LOT of it, just underwater. This is why it caused a tsunami that crossed the Pacific. In many ways the type of movement accounted for in the Chilean quake would be considered more damaging than the type on the San Andreas because the Chilean fault experienced a "megathrust" earthquake -- common to subduction faults where one plate slides under the other. This results in a dramatic elevation change in the land causing vertical quake waves which are far more dangerous.

The San Andreas is not a subduction fault, but rather a "strike-slip" fault where the plates slide against each other without either going underneath the other. Ground movement here can be dramatic as well, but causes ground-movement waves that move side-to-side rather than up and down.

Of course the federal government will help out, but when you're talking hundreds of billions in damages, no magic-wand will keep the place economically sound.

And Voyager -- There's no geological evidence to support the possibility of a magnitude 10+ along the San Andreas. There is however, plenty of geological evidence to support a magnitude 8.5. It'll just be spread-out over 100 miles (as you mentioned).

I know - my reference of 10 (X) was to the Mercalli intensity scale!

[MattSteeleLA]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

I know - my reference of 10 (X) was to the Mercalli intensity scale!

Ah -- gotcha!

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by SoCalBrad

Ohh Science talk. I think I understand lol?

haha well I meant you can see it from the air. It's on the surface and sticks out of the ground in some places.

Yes, you can see the results of upheavals from the air as well as easily from the ground. However, the shifts in tectonic plates occur far beneath the earth's surface and visible signs of them.

The New Madrid earthquake (the worst in the nation's history) occurred in the late 1800s in Missouri and Tennessee and was felt far north in Washington, DC and further. Church bells were rung by the temblor in Boston. Some of the visible signs, surface were a new channel being cut for part of the Mississippi River, the river running backward and in at least on place, the river rising above the heads of spectators while still running. The town of New Madrid virtually vanished. But I can assure you, the upheaval occurred far below the surface.

[BacktoBlue]

Originally Posted by MattSteeleLA

There are two things to consider: 1. epicenter and 2. ground movement...

1. Epicenter: While the San Andreas fault is visible from above ground, is stretches all the way underground to the softer, hotter parts of the earth's crust (hence the name "fault") -- it separates the North American continental plate from the Pacific continental plate. Any earthquake along this fault will occur deep underground, just as all earthquakes do. What I think you're referring to is #2:

2. Ground movement: There was ground movement in the Chilean quake -- a LOT of it, just underwater. This is why it caused a tsunami that crossed the Pacific. In many ways the type of movement accounted for in the Chilean quake would be considered more damaging than the type on the San Andreas because the Chilean fault experienced a "megathrust" earthquake -- common to subduction faults where one plate slides under the other. This results in a dramatic elevation change in the land causing vertical quake waves which are far more dangerous.

The San Andreas is not a subduction fault, but rather a "strike-slip" fault where the plates slide against each other without either going underneath the other. Ground movement here can be dramatic as well, but causes ground-movement waves that move side-to-side rather than up and down.



Of course the federal government will help out, but when you're talking hundreds of billions in damages, no magic-wand will keep the place economically sound.

And Voyager -- There's no geological evidence to support the possibility of a magnitude 10+ along the San Andreas. There is however, plenty of geological evidence to support a magnitude 8.5. It'll just be spread-out over 100 miles (as you mentioned).

oh ok That makes sense.

Originally Posted by MattSteeleLA

You don't say?!?!...

Southern California is overdue for 'The Big One,' study finds | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

very interesting article. Did you see the first comment? What is that guy a prophet? lol

[Charles]

The Big One: Study shakes up scientists' view of San Andreas earthquake risk - latimes.com

[BacktoBlue]

Originally Posted by Charles

The Big One: Study shakes up scientists' view of San Andreas earthquake risk - latimes.com

More wonderful news!