|
Post by avordvet on Mar 29, 2011 5:43:32 GMT -5
Big Earthquakes Are Not LinkedBy Daniel Strain, Science News, March 28, 2011 “If California is ready to go, it’s because California is ready to go,” says Jian Lin, a geophysicist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts. “Not because an earthquake in California would be triggered by Japan.”www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/major-quakes-not-linked/Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Mar 29, 2011 11:27:05 GMT -5
I guess it depends upon which expert you believe. I watched anothe "expert" lay out the connection between the faults along the "Ring of Fire" along Pacific coats lines of Asia and North America. His hypothesis was not that the seperate fault lines would necessarly trigger one another but the instablity of one fault line pointed to a much greater chance of instablity of the surrounding fault lines in that area. He stated that it was not if but when the Casadia fault line off the western coast of North America will become active and deliver the next 9.0 or greater quake. The last time it did so was in the early 1700's and so he claimed that it was due any "time" now. His only caveat to his so called prediction was of course he was speaking in terms of geological time.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Mar 29, 2011 14:03:11 GMT -5
I guess it depends upon which expert you believe. I watched anothe "expert" lay out the connection between the faults along the "Ring of Fire" along Pacific coats lines of Asia and North America. His hypothesis was not that the seperate fault lines would necessarly trigger one another but the instablity of one fault line pointed to a much greater chance of instablity of the surrounding fault lines in that area. He stated that it was not if but when the Casadia fault line off the western coast of North America will become active and deliver the next 9.0 or greater quake. The last time it did so was in the early 1700's and so he claimed that it was due any "time" now. His only caveat to his so called prediction was of course he was speaking in terms of geological time. The show you were watching was correct, a quake can cause further instability along the zones in the same plates, some were saying that if you had a major quake, say in Japan, the "ripple" effect moving though the mantle could cause a quake on the other side of the planet. This article is saying it doesn't transmit to the other side of the world that way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Mar 29, 2011 14:28:58 GMT -5
In fact I believe that they said the big one in japan did cause a measurable shift in the Casadia fault but like Is aid the geological time reference could mean there could be a major event off the west coast next week or in two centuries...
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Mar 29, 2011 15:12:28 GMT -5
In fact I believe that they said the big one in japan did cause a measurable shift in the Casadia fault but like Is aid the geological time reference could mean there could be a major event off the west coast next week or in two centuries... It did, but that is along the same continental plate (Pacific Plate). This article is saying that a major quake on the Pacific Plate will not cause an earthquake on, say the African Plate on the other side of the world. Saw a show on history channel about the Cascadia Subduction Zone... the Northwest is not a good place to be when it slips, and they say it over due for a good sized quake.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Mar 29, 2011 20:27:47 GMT -5
Understood on the fact that a quake on one plate will not have an affect on a fault on another plate on an unrelated part of the world.
|
|