Eureka, CA has another quake in 4 years

[bing101]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-northern-california-earthquake-20140310,0,1233717.story#axzz2vaLAtv4v


Dang its crazy that Eureka had a 2010 quake between 6.5-6.7
now its 6.9 quake.

[ET21]

The West Coast is due for a big one. You could almost say the entire country is due for a big one in any one of Mother Nature's hazards department

[Takumi]

In before Alanland jokes.

[SteveG1988]

In before fracking comments

[hotdogPi]

In before

[agentsteel53]

shouldn't that be this?

[Road Hog]

It'll take a hundred 6.9 quakes to bleed off what'll be an 8.9 when it hits.

[NE2]

I think Mr. Crosby is The Alan 360.

[SteveG1988]

[SSOWorld]

[sdmichael]

Large magnitude earthquakes are fairly common near the Triple Junction. So... a 6.9 or 6.5 isn't that big a deal. The Cascadia Subduction Zone, which hasn't seen a large event since 1700, is capable of a 9.0+. That fault runs from the Mendocino Fracture Zone north past Seattle, WA. It forms the boundary between the Juan De Fuca Plate and the North American Plate.

[jeffandnicole]

Wasn't the big one supposed to hit 20 years ago?

[hm insulators]

Wasn't the big one supposed to hit 20 years ago?

Of course, nature doesn't operate on human time-scales; it works on its own schedule. That being said, the West Coast has always been earthquake-prone, not just California but all up and down the coast and even into Canada. In California, of course, you have the infamous San Andreas Fault plus a host of others, known and unknown. Off the coast of the Pacific Northwest you have the Cascadia Fault Zone which has the potential to be nastier even than the San Andreas. (The other day I spent an entire afternoon reading a book called Cascadia at the Tempe, Arizona public library.) Unfortunately, we just have no way of knowing when these faults will let go and cause a disaster that might make Hurricane Katrina look minor. It could happen right now while you're reading this, or next week, or next year, or not for a hundred years or more.

[Brandon]

Wasn't the big one supposed to hit 20 years ago?

Of course, nature doesn't operate on human time-scales; it works on its own schedule. That being said, the West Coast has always been earthquake-prone, not just California but all up and down the coast and even into Canada. In California, of course, you have the infamous San Andreas Fault plus a host of others, known and unknown. Off the coast of the Pacific Northwest you have the Cascadia Fault Zone which has the potential to be nastier even than the San Andreas. (The other day I spent an entire afternoon reading a book called Cascadia at the Tempe, Arizona public library.) Unfortunately, we just have no way of knowing when these faults will let go and cause a disaster that might make Hurricane Katrina look minor. It could happen right now while you're reading this, or next week, or next year, or not for a hundred years or more.

Very true, the Earth does not, has not, and never will work on human time scales (a reason why I laugh at certain "change" folks I've met).  Earthquakes are terribly hard to predict and do not occur on a schedule.  But, if you want serious disaster, wait until Yellowstone goes off.

[Brian556]

But, if you want serious disaster, wait until Yellowstone goes off.

or the next time I eat at Taco Bell! 

[Stephane Dumas]

I wonder if the new Eastern span of the Bay bridge might resist to a 9.0 quake?
Then, one more worried thing, is there some nuclear reactors along the Western coast? I hope we won't get a Fukushima incident after the quake.

[sdmichael]

I wonder if the new Eastern span of the Bay bridge might resist to a 9.0 quake?
Then, one more worried thing, is there some nuclear reactors along the Western coast? I hope we won't get a Fukushima incident after the quake.

It doesn't have to withstand a 9.0... the SAF and the Hayward aren't capable of such. Maximum would be around 8.2 or so.

[Brian556]

From what I hear, it wasn't the quake that caused the problems at Fukashima; it was the tsunami.

[Brandon]

From what I hear, it wasn't the quake that caused the problems at Fukashima; it was the tsunami.

Yes.  The plant survived the quake quite well in fact.  It just couldn't handle the rush of water coming in during the tsunami.  Many of these affected areas of Japan had seawalls of some sort to defend against tsunami, but during the quake, and because of the quake, the ground subsided about 3-5 feet.  This was just enough to make the tsunami a factor.

[bing101]

Wasn't the big one supposed to hit 20 years ago?

Which Big one? Hayward Fault in Oakland, CA. I know San Francisco Bay Area is overdue for a quake not so much the rest of California.

[Stephane Dumas]

There another quake in the LA area of 4.4 and some said it could be a foreshock to a bigger one.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-earthquake-foreshock-20140317,0,2194994.story

[jeffandnicole]

There another quake in the LA area of 4.4 and some said it could be a foreshock to a bigger one.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-earthquake-foreshock-20140317,0,2194994.story

Where have I heard that before?  Oh, yeah...EVERYTIME there's been a minor quake in the LA area, some say it could be a foreshock to a bigger one.

[Brandon]

There another quake in the LA area of 4.4 and some said it could be a foreshock to a bigger one.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-earthquake-foreshock-20140317,0,2194994.story

Where have I heard that before?  Oh, yeah...EVERYTIME there's been a minor quake in the LA area, some say it could be a foreshock to a bigger one.

LOL!  That area sees hundreds of minor earthquakes everyday.  Most are never felt by anything other than instruments.  For all we know, that could be the big one for that fault at this time.

[SteveG1988]

[agentsteel53]

[gratuitously colossal image]

dude, not funny.  edit that shit.