Washington earthquake

[obyknven]

An unusually strong and shallow earthquake struck the U.S. East Coast and Canada on Tuesday, shaking buildings, forcing evacuation of office buildings in several cities and delaying flights in New York.

 

There were no immediate reports of major damage or injuries from the 5.9 magnitude quake, which the U.S. Geological Survey said was centred in Mineral, Virginia, at a very shallow depth of 0.6 mile (1 km).

 

The Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol evacuated in Washington, and thousands of panicked office workers scurried into the streets of the city after the lunchtime quake, which sent items crashing to the floor from store and office shelves.

 

[Calax]

In other news, there was also a 5.3 in Colorado.

[obyknven]

Tuesday afternoon?s 5.8 earthquake caused two nuclear reactors at a power plant outside of Washington DC to go offline.

The facilities at Lake Anna, roughly a dozen miles away from the epicenter of today?s quake in Virginia , was rated by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the seventh most ?at risk? plant of its type for earthquake damage according to a report released this March. That analysis took into account the 100-plus power plants from coast-to-coast and rated the Virginia site?s odds of experiencing a quake around 1 in 22,727.

 

Jim Norvelle of Dominion Power added to the report, published by NBC, that the plant was built to withstand a magnitude of 5.9 to 6.1. Today?s quake was originally rated a 5.9 before being downgraded to 5.8.

 

fukushima

[Morgoth]

It's just viral marketing for the upcoming Gears of War 3.

 

[Enoch]

Yeah, that was entertaining.

 

Not going to be a fun commute home today, though. I'm thinking of sheltering in place at the bar around the corner for a little while before giving the Metro a try. (It's running, but all trains are going only 15MPH until they're sure there isn't track damage.)

[Hurlshort]

Wussy east coaster, 5.8 isn't even worth getting out of bed in California.

[Enoch]

Wussy east coaster, 5.8 isn't even worth getting out of bed in California.

It's all in what you're expecting. And in what they have in mind in terms of acceptable tolerances when they build buildings, bridges, tunnels, and train tracks. Luckily, the biggest news so far in terms of real damage is that a finial broke off of the National Cathedral.

 

I'm sure the first thought that went through nearly every DC resident's head was "Holy ****, was that a terrorist bomb going off??"

[Syraxis]

Wussy east coaster, 5.8 isn't even worth getting out of bed in California.

 

No, you guys just freak out over an inch of snow

[Gromnir]

Wussy east coaster, 5.8 isn't even worth getting out of bed in California.

 

No, you guys just freak out over an inch of snow

 

blue canyon, ca gets something like 240' o' snow per year. is a Big state. however, am gonna concede that most californians seems to be disproportionate spooked by rain and weather in general. even in nor cal where they gets good seasonal rainfalls, many drivers act as if it were hydrofluoric acid falling from the sky 'stead o' water.

 

'o, and north or south, coast or mountains, ca earthquakes is relative ignored 'less you get at least into low 6's... and keep in mind that seismic orders o' magnitude is not simple linear... is a huge difference 'tween 5.8 and 6.2. that being said, even when we were in so cal, we typical never even woke up for the 5 range quakes. is always disappointing when news announces nighttime quake and we realize we slept through another one. stuff in ca is built with much greater earthquake tolerances, and apparent Gromnir gots some kinda seismic blinders when we sleep.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 23, 2011 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

5.9 is a pretty decent size, especially when it's so shallow. The February quake in Christchurch was only 6.3 but had around 3 times the ground acceleration (~ practical effect; barring tsunami of course) of the far larger magnitude Sendai one in Japan because it was closer and shallower.

[Gromnir]

just to repeat, 'cause is something most folks not seem to realize, the richter scale is represented by an exponential growth curve. there is a very significant difference 'tween 5.8 and 6.3.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

And there's an even larger difference between the 5.1 earthquake in Spain earlier this year and 5.8. And the Spanish one was a deadly quake.

[Calax]

Note to remember

 

Earthquakes are measured in magnitudes rather than just a standard unit...... so yeah, the difference between a 3 and a 4 vs a 5 and a 6 is going to be immense.

[Gromnir]

And there's an even larger difference between the 5.1 earthquake in Spain earlier this year and 5.8. And the Spanish one was a deadly quake.

 

the fact that people died ain't relevant. maybe means that many buildings in spain is quite old and not built with earthquake tolerance in mind? hell, barely perceptible earthquakes is sometimes killers just 'cause o' simple gravity... decorative plate with elvis painting falls off wall and kills earnest dominguez when a 4.0 hits near diablo mountain, ca? *snort* regardless, experience a 6.3 don't give much o' an impression o' what a 5.8 is like. is Exponential different.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 24, 2011 by Gromnir

[Shryke]

5.9 is a pretty decent size, especially when it's so shallow. The February quake in Christchurch was only 6.3 but had around 3 times the ground acceleration (~ practical effect; barring tsunami of course) of the far larger magnitude Sendai one in Japan because it was closer and shallower.

 

yeah the February quake in Christchurch was probably more destructive because of another big quake a few months earlier that had already torn down some buildings. i've spoken to some friends down there and they say it's still strange to see almost a year after the first quake, parts of the central city are still blocked off and there are hundreds of buildings that are unsafe and need to be demolished

[Walsingham]

LoF, real conspiracy theorists don't believe EVERY conspiracy theory. Little tip there.

[obyknven]

LoF

Paranoia detected

[Walsingham]

LoF

Paranoia detected

 

You're equipment needs some adjustment. You are detecting pity.

[Zoraptor]

the fact that people died ain't relevant. maybe means that many buildings in spain is quite old and not built with earthquake tolerance in mind? hell, barely perceptible earthquakes is sometimes killers just 'cause o' simple gravity... decorative plate with elvis painting falls off wall and kills earnest dominguez when a 4.0 hits near diablo mountain, ca?

That quake killed nine. Rather a lot of poorly secured Elvises in Spain, it appears.

 

I'll make a deal with you, I won't try and correct you on matters of US law, you don't try and correct me on matters of science natural.

 

regardless experience a 6.3 don't give much o' an impression o' what a 5.8 is like. is Exponential different.

And this is why. What measures the 'impression of what a quake is like' is the Mercalli Scale, not the Richter scale. Mercalli exists precisely because earthquakes of the same energy/ Richter magnitude can have significantly different effects depending on circumstance and location. 'lol, exponential' is a great example of the old adage of having just enough knowledge- Chile earthquake 2010, 8.8 Richter, IX Mercalli, 0.7g acceleration; Christchurch earthquake 2010 (since it was a similar distance from Chch as the Chile one was from Concepcion) 7.1 Richter, IX Mercalli, 1.2g. That's for two quakes exponential different to the tune of a factor of 125. The difference between 5.9 and 6.3? The comparatively puny factor of 4. There's plenty of scope for a 5.9 to be nasty under the right (or wrong) circumstances.

 

*snort*

Yes, quite.

 

yeah the February quake in Christchurch was probably more destructive because of another big quake a few months earlier that had already torn down some buildings.

I'm from Christchurch originally, lived there until I was 19.

 

I should really correct myself on one thing though, it was the 8.8 Chile quake which had 1/3 the acceleration of the 6.3 at Christchurch, not the Sendai one which was roughly equivalent.

 

[grr smilies. An 8.8 magnitude quake is not cool]

Edited August 24, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Moose]

LoF

Paranoia detected

 

You're equipment needs some adjustment. You are detecting pity.

 

That's what she said...

 

 

... I couldn't resist, humble apologies.

[Gromnir]

the fact that people died ain't relevant. maybe means that many buildings in spain is quite old and not built with earthquake tolerance in mind? hell, barely perceptible earthquakes is sometimes killers just 'cause o' simple gravity... decorative plate with elvis painting falls off wall and kills earnest dominguez when a 4.0 hits near diablo mountain, ca?

That quake killed nine. Rather a lot of poorly secured Elvises in Spain, it appears.

 

I'll make a deal with you, I won't try and correct you on matters of US law, you don't try and correct me on matters of science natural.

 

 

yes, badly secured elvis is probable a good comparison. a very old church had part o' a roof/cieling drop killing some. similarly, a fragile overhang cornice on an equal old bit o' architecture fell killing 3. etc. lethality o' a quake is frequent a matter o' shoddy construction rather than measure o' severity o' earth movement... is typical why impoverished locales suffer much higher casualties following seeming smallish quakes. 3 little pigs.

 

as for your deal... okie doki, but am gonna observe that you were using richter as the measure. you is kinda being self contradictory, no? use richter to says a quake is significant but then noting that mercalli is a more appropriate measure 'cause richter don't give a true impression? also, am not sure how you is using natural science or the basis o' your expertise. Gromnir not claim to be a natural science expert, in part 'cause we do not know what natural science is... very ambiguous term that can encompass a dizzying array o' disciplines. would be exceeding arrogant to claims expertise in natural science entirety. you gots a masters in geology or geophysics?

 

edit added link for reference: http://www.cam.ac.uk/about/natscitripos/links.html

 

btw, am gonna note that we didn't actual initial boast specific expertise in us law. we did ask why folks like walsh and oro were so certain o' their opinions o' us law. afterwards folks questioned our background to be questioning walsh and oro. sssssoooooooo...

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 24, 2011 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

okie doki, but am gonna observe that you were using richter as the measure.

I didn't, I made the point that Richter was not the be all and end all straight away, to whit:

 

"..only 6.3 but had around 3 times the ground acceleration (~ practical effect.."

 

I've known about Mercalli since I was around 10 (belated thanks due to HS and his social studies lessons, see, I did learn something) and, frankly, that was all the knowledge needed, the rest is just looking up the relevant numbers and basic observation.

 

Personally, I'm happy to concede that there is a fair probability that someone who lives in the US knows more about their law than I do, whether your last name happens to be Scalia or not.

[Gromnir]

okie doki, but am gonna observe that you were using richter as the measure.

I didn't, I made the point that Richter was not the be all and end all straight away, to whit:

 

"..only 6.3 but had around 3 times the ground acceleration (~ practical effect.."

 

I've known about Mercalli since I was around 10 (belated thanks due to HS and his social studies lessons, see, I did learn something) and, frankly, that was all the knowledge needed, the rest is just looking up the relevant numbers and basic observation.

 

Personally, I'm happy to concede that there is a fair probability that someone who lives in the US knows more about their law than I do, whether your last name happens to be Scalia or not.

 

*chuckle*

 

you indicated that 5.8 RICHTER, were pretty significant. selective quotes not help you in this matter. you also has implied that you got knowledge o' natural sciences superior to Gromnir and that we should defer... a bold suggestion. based on what you has provided thus far, we ain't so impressed, and we will choose not to offer any special deference to you on matters o' natural science. thanks anyways. am not willing to assume that somebody who lives elsewhere (am guessing new zealand) knows more o' natural sciences than does our self. sorry, no particular famous new zealand scientists come to mind, so we cannot effective parrot the Scalia quip.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps sorry, you actual keep referencing 5.9. not wanna false attribute. the east coast quake were 5.8 'ccording to us geological, but were reported (briefly) as 5.9. even so, we not wanna be putting words in your mouth.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

No, you should give deference to basic science learnt in the equivalent of fifth grade.

 

You were ignorant, you got schooled, deal with it or don't, no skin off my back.

[Gromnir]

No, you should give deference to basic science learnt in the equivalent of fifth grade.

 

You were ignorant, you got schooled, deal with it or don't, no skin off my back.

 

eh? we got no problem with admitting that we is hardly an expert on earthquakes. we understand the physics more than the specifics o' geology. our point were that 5.8 not get much press in ca, and that 6. 3 not give a genuine notion o' relative strength o' 5.8.

 

1) you did use richter to make guesstimates 'bout strength o' quake (selective quote aside)

 

2) you made false correlation 'tween deaths and quake severity

 

3) you suggested expertise in natural sciences which you has yet to back up

 

btw, you did not offer mercalli for east coast quake, so your initial point is even more suspect. again, please keep in mind that our initial observation that your christchurch 6.3 and east coast 5.8 being a less than useful comparison stands, no? got schooled? *chuckle* hardly. though we did know pretty much nothing 'bout mercali, so thanks for that.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps is complete aside, but am actually recalling one new zealand scientist, though his name escapes us. he were a chemist, but we not recall why he were noteworthy in his field. am only recollecting 'cause he were a nudist. what were his name? oh well. am thinking that that there were also some famous guy at jpl who were new zealand or australian. am recalling hearing an accent in an interview.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Gromnir