Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
seeder

LA could see the "Eathquake From Hell"

26 posts in this topic

Experts ID fault that could unleash ‘earthquake from hell’ on L.A.

A fault that runs beneath the ground of Los Angeles that sent the city on unsteady ground over the weekend could actually be the one that causes the massive earthquake that devastates the entire community, experts warned.

The San Andreas Fault may be better known — but this one, the Puente Hills Fault, that sent shockwaves on Friday actually runs directly beneath downtown Los Angeles and into Hollywood, the blog Newser reported. And it’s capable of delivering a quake that hits a 7.5 on the Richter scale, with the potential of causing $250 billion in damage and killing 18,000, U.S. Geological Survey researchers find, The Associated Press reported

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/experts-id-fault-could-unleash-earthquake-hell-l/#ixzz2xdnUmjXi

Yes well the Americans have to have BIGGER of everything dont they? Still, lets hope for the best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if so.. this could be the biggest evacuation since records began

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if so.. this could be the biggest evacuation since records began

That'll be something to see wont it? Im glad in the UK we have relatively stable geology! OK we have had very minor tremors, but we seem to get away with it all.

Apart from rain and floods that is, then hosepipe bans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In California it is only a matter of time. A large destructive quake will devastate the area at some point and may will die. I just hope that they continue to prepare so they can minimize the effects.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Yellowstone kicked off at the same time....boy, that will be SHTF time...BIG time :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found some YT vids

A Temblor On The Puente Hills Thrust Fault Would Be "The Quake From Hell"

Puente Hills Earthquake Visualization

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is certainly not news, it's just because of the recent quake that they're rehashing this doomsday stuff.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if ? California earthquake First 5 mins show some scary footage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to be there when it hits.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to be there when it hits.

i for sure won't be there when it hits.

i figure they are going to get a massive quake - it's inevitable,

what i was pointing out is that it's been pretty much known for a long while that it could happen anytime, and that this 'news' item was kind of beside the point.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're supposed to go to SF in a month or so. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there always supposed to be a massive quake from hell or whatever for somewhere in California?

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but crying wolf a thousand times isn't helping the matter.

If it goes I hope they just bulldoze the remains of the city and start over. It would be cheaper. Though I wanted that for New Orleans as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as I lived in L.A. we were always told that the next one could be the big one. But it really does not need to get that big for the city to be completely devastated. Today a 8.2 magnitude earthquake hit off the coast of Chile. There is a tsunami warning and the entire cost is being evacuated. That's all it would take to bring L.A. to it's knees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes well the Americans have to have BIGGER of everything dont they? Still, lets hope for the best!

Yeah, no. Whilst a 7.5 is still large, it's by no means the biggest and meanest in terms of earthquakes. For example, I live within 100 miles of a subduction zone called the Hikurangi Trench which is capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 8.5 or larger.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as I lived in L.A. we were always told that the next one could be the big one. But it really does not need to get that big for the city to be completely devastated. Today a 8.2 magnitude earthquake hit off the coast of Chile. There is a tsunami warning and the entire cost is being evacuated. That's all it would take to bring L.A. to it's knees.

I just read this in the news too!

Tsunami alert after 8.2 quake strikes off Chile

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-26846984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Richter Scale number can deceive. If the quake is deep or not in a heavily populated area, even a big one like in Chile is soon forgotten (and whether or not it generates a tsunami is based on many complications and cannot be used by itself to say anything about the quake).

A 7.5 in downtown LA is going to flatten the US economy for a couple years and kill thousands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're supposed to go to SF in a month or so. :cry:

Don't worry ... the odds are in your favor. .. and it was nice meeting you.. goodbye . ;

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry ... the odds are in your favor. .. and it was nice meeting you.. goodbye . ;

Lol - don't listen to him, what a cheeky thing to say. Mind you, when these things happen they always happen to somebody I guess :whistle:

Seriously, enjoy your trip, I'm sure you'll be just fine.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this warning stop the building and concreting of land? will it stop humans from producing an even bigger % of people to be affected? will it heck .

We in Engand know where the flood risks areas are, but they still build on or around it.

In Africa they know where the barren land is, but the stil breed like rabbits on it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this warning stop the building and concreting of land? will it stop humans from producing an even bigger % of people to be affected? will it heck .

We in Engand know where the flood risks areas are, but they still build on or around it.

In Africa they know where the barren land is, but the stil breed like rabbits on it.

Earthquakes are a bit different. You can engineer buildings to withstand substantial amounts of shaking and if the buildings are built to standards, peoples lives can be saved. It's, quite frankly, stupid to say "oh well because this area has earthquakes, therefore we should stop building because people are at risk". When an earthquake strikes, there are a lot of factors in determining the amount of damage inflicted.

Let's use a local analogy from where I live. The February 22nd earthquake in Christchurch killed 185 people and created billions in damage to the city. Why? Because the fault line was very close to the city. The city itself was built over an old swamp and the composition of the soil underneath accentuated the seismic waves and the location and position of the fault itself meant that the vast majority of it's energy was directed at the city, and peak ground acceleration recorded was some of the highest in any seismic event in the world at that time. That earthquake was a 6.3 and was 5 km deep.

Compare it with the Lake Grassmere earthquake in Marlborough in August 2013. Although it was deeper (8 km deep), the earthquake was three times as powerful at a magnitude 6.6. The difference between this quake and the February one is surprising. It occurred under a lake and the shockwave was able to be dispersed over a much wider area due to the reasonably flat terrain of the Wirau Valley mouth. Most of the cities affected, aside from Blenheim, were either too far away to be substantially affected by it, or had a mountain chain in the way to absorb the shockwave, but still left enough energy to give everyone a damned good fright (and I should know because I felt it). There was less damage because there was less to damage. Marlborough has about a 12th of the population that Christchurch has and aside from Blenheim, most of the towns and villages there number less than 1,000 inhabitants.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Earthquakes are a bit different. You can engineer buildings to withstand substantial amounts of shaking and if the buildings are built to standards, peoples lives can be saved. It's, quite frankly, stupid to say "oh well because this area has earthquakes, therefore we should stop building because people are at risk". When an earthquake strikes, there are a lot of factors in determining the amount of damage inflicted.

Let's use a local analogy from where I live. The February 22nd earthquake in Christchurch killed 185 people and created billions in damage to the city. Why? Because the fault line was very close to the city. The city itself was built over an old swamp and the composition of the soil underneath accentuated the seismic waves and the location and position of the fault itself meant that the vast majority of it's energy was directed at the city, and peak ground acceleration recorded was some of the highest in any seismic event in the world at that time. That earthquake was a 6.3 and was 5 km deep.

Compare it with the Lake Grassmere earthquake in Marlborough in August 2013. Although it was deeper (8 km deep), the earthquake was three times as powerful at a magnitude 6.6. The difference between this quake and the February one is surprising. It occurred under a lake and the shockwave was able to be dispersed over a much wider area due to the reasonably flat terrain of the Wirau Valley mouth. Most of the cities affected, aside from Blenheim, were either too far away to be substantially affected by it, or had a mountain chain in the way to absorb the shockwave, but still left enough energy to give everyone a damned good fright (and I should know because I felt it). There was less damage because there was less to damage. Marlborough has about a 12th of the population that Christchurch has and aside from Blenheim, most of the towns and villages there number less than 1,000 inhabitants.

Good post.

May I just point out my point, where you have address as "stupid to say etc etc etc" and then actually back up my quote with "there was less damage because there was less to damage".

Ofcourse buildings can be made to withstand the shaking, but my point was.....not if you keep building and building and building....are they all going to be built to withstand the shaking and as the population grows, surely this will increase the risk of the number of people injured? You even say it yourself, "less to damage".

Edited by freetoroam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already explained why there was "less to damage". Marlborough doesn't have the same population size and density as Christchurch and Canterbury in general, does. The quote speaks for itself. And yes, buildings are going to be built to standards because you are, by law (in New Zealand anyway), required to build your building/house according to standards because it will cost thousands to strengthen it if you don't.

The whole premise you made of "we should stop building because it's dangerous" is rooted in ignorance of seismic activities. It's like saying "don't build here because the place could be hit with an asteroid". You can't prevent earthquakes from happening. And even when they do happen, few of them are big enough to cause damage, let alone be felt. New Zealand has over 20,000 earthquakes a year, but only 400 or so are strong or shallow enough to be felt. And less than 5 in any given year are strong enough to cause damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in the news...

WASHINGTON - An earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 hit Panama on Wednesday, the U.S. Geological Survey said.

The quake came a day after Chile was shaken by an 8.2 magnitude quake that killed six people and set off a tsunami with 7-foot (2-meter) waves.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/5-8-magnitude-earthquake-hits-panama-article-1.1743249#ixzz2xts1G4Aq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Richter Scale number can deceive. If the quake is deep or not in a heavily populated area, even a big one like in Chile is soon forgotten (and whether or not it generates a tsunami is based on many complications and cannot be used by itself to say anything about the quake).

A 7.5 in downtown LA is going to flatten the US economy for a couple years and kill thousands.

IF L.A. is Flattened ITs will Kill Millions,and then Were Toast ! Look to Jelly-stone ITs Gonna be a Big one people !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole premise you made of "we should stop building because it's dangerous" is rooted in ignorance of seismic activities. It's like saying "don't build here because the place could be hit with an asteroid".

You have no idea how many times after the Kanto Earthquake I had people telling me "Well, maybe people shouldn't live in that part of Japan so close to a fault line."

Ya. Well, Japan ain't that big, for starters, and asides from that, it's all a fault line.

I'm a little surprised people aren't more aware of building codes, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.