Easter Earthquake In California

In summary, the 6.9 magnitude 2010 Easter earthquake struck Baja, California. Everyone in the cafe stood up instinctively, and the quake was felt as far north as Santa Barbara.
  • #36
Ivan Seeking said:
Checkout the dust cloud generated in the desert hills of Mexicali [presumably].
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-428979?hpt=C2
I just became aware today that Calexico had major damage. Video on TV showed split roads, traffic lights fallen over onto cars, buildings shaken to funny angles.

No people seriously injured, but the economy was already bad there, so now they're thinking it's going to be depressed for years. The downtown businesses and the city infrastructure suffered major blows.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #37
Frame Dragger said:
What I find amusing is that the same people who take this in stride, might be the same people who think strangers always kidnap children...
You mean the candy people? I like the candy people!

But seriously, I have lived here all of my life. I have yet to be in an earthquake where, in my immediate vicinity, there was more damage than a picture that fell off the wall.

I know that there are big earthquakes and they can cause some serious damage but the vast majority of them are nothing but a bit of a shake up. Its like freaking out every time it rains because hurricanes do lots of damage.
 
  • #38
TheStatutoryApe said:
But seriously, I have lived here all of my life. I have yet to be in an earthquake where, in my immediate vicinity, there was more damage than a picture that fell off the wall.

I know that there are big earthquakes and they can cause some serious damage but the vast majority of them are nothing but a bit of a shake up. Its like freaking out every time it rains because hurricanes do lots of damage.

The thing is, geologists have been saying that San Diego is overdue for a big one. The geological record indicates this area is the epicenter of a 7. + quake every hundred and something years, and we're about 30 years overdue. This is why each one I can feel alarms me till it's over.
 
  • #39
zoobyshoe said:
The thing is, geologists have been saying that San Diego is overdue for a big one. The geological record indicates this area is the epicenter of a 7. + quake every hundred and something years, and we're about 30 years overdue. This is why each one I can feel alarms me till it's over.

Indeed, especially as "overdue" often means a larger energy release. Of course, what the news doesn't cover (not horrifying) is that faults can have that same potential sapped by a number of smaller quakes.

So.. this could be very VERY bad, or it could be you never have to see more than pictures fall. I hope (I'm guessing as you do!) for the latter.
 
  • #40
Frame Dragger said:
Indeed, especially as "overdue" often means a larger energy release. Of course, what the news doesn't cover (not horrifying) is that faults can have that same potential sapped by a number of smaller quakes.

So.. this could be very VERY bad, or it could be you never have to see more than pictures fall. I hope (I'm guessing as you do!) for the latter.
Yes, the "overdue" seems to indicate things have gotten stuck on a particularly difficult spur, as it were, which would mean a much larger quake when that finally gives way. On the other hand it could mean that the past regular quakes already succeeded in grinding down a particularly difficult spur, and that is the reason there has not been another big one in the series. In any event, I once saw a map of all the faults under San Diego. It looked like a peanut butter cookie that someone had sat on: it's in a million pieces.
 
  • #41
zoobyshoe said:
Yes, the "overdue" seems to indicate things have gotten stuck on a particularly difficult spur, as it were, which would mean a much larger quake when that finally gives way. On the other hand it could mean that the past regular quakes already succeeded in grinding down a particularly difficult spur, and that is the reason there has not been another big one in the series. In any event, I once saw a map of all the faults under San Diego. It looked like a peanut butter cookie that someone had sat on: it's in a million pieces.

I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't, but that last sentence had me in stitches! Of course you're absolutely right, and here's to hoping that this 100-130 years just missed a "big one" or that this fault will be less... energetic. Unlike a subduction zones, slip-strikes can have much longer periods of "calm".
 
  • #42
Frame Dragger said:
I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't, but that last sentence had me in stitches! Of course you're absolutely right, and here's to hoping that this 100-130 years just missed a "big one" or that this fault will be less... energetic. Unlike a subduction zones, slip-strikes can have much longer periods of "calm".

Yeah, I guess that sounded funnier than I meant it to.

I certainly hope any large buildup of potential energy is frittered away in small quakes.
 
  • #43
zoobyshoe said:
Yeah, I guess that sounded funnier than I meant it to.

I certainly hope any large buildup of potential energy is frittered away in small quakes.

I'll drink (well.. ok, I don't, but I WOULD) to that!

On a related note, the prediction now is for a very strong Atlantic hurricane season. That is NOT going to be good news for Haiti, and if we had a major quake in the USA, we would divert resources even more from those who literally couldn't live without it. Hell, they may not anyway. :sad:
 
  • #44
zoobyshoe said:
The thing is, geologists have been saying that San Diego is overdue for a big one. The geological record indicates this area is the epicenter of a 7. + quake every hundred and something years, and we're about 30 years overdue. This is why each one I can feel alarms me till it's over.

Sorry Zoob. I do not mean to demean your, or anyones, concern regarding earthquakes. For those who have never experienced them I'm sure that even a small one is rather surprising to say the least.
 
  • #45
TheStatutoryApe said:
Sorry Zoob. I do not mean to demean your, or anyones, concern regarding earthquakes. For those who have never experienced them I'm sure that even a small one is rather surprising to say the least.

What can I say? The ground should not be moving around.

I'm not a fan of volcanoes either.
 
  • #46
zoobyshoe said:
What can I say? The ground should not be moving around.

I'm not a fan of volcanoes either.

Yeah... the latter really can be terrifying, especially the notion of something like Yellowstone blowing its top. :eek: Then again, that probably is the answer to my earlier question: you can't run from nature in the end.
 
  • #47
zoobyshoe said:
What can I say? The ground should not be moving around.

Duct tape to the rescuuuuuuue!
 
Back
Top