I am a earthquake seismologist. AMA. 5th anniversary of Louisa Quake

[Anonymous]

Yes, i should have said 2 May 2015.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in central MI now and we had an earthquake April 2015 strong enough to feel (at least 3.0) . Very unusual - could it be from fracking? If so, how would we know? Would anyone tell us the truth?

I am not sure. First, I can not find an earthquake in April 2015; I suspect you meant the May 2, 2015 earthquake. That is in an area where there is oil and/or gas production. But, usually, when fracking is involved, there will be more earthquakes. Furthermore, it is not the fracking that triggers the earthquakes, rather it is the deep water injection of the waste products.

Is that what is going on in Oklahoma? Will they have a big earthquake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anywhere you would not live because of earthquakes or other seismic activity (tidal waves, etc)?

Yes. I would not live real near the coast of any active region. If I were in Pacific Northwest, for example, I would want to be at least 50m above sea level Basically, when the big one hits, there will be as little as 10 minutes to get to higher elevation before a 10 to possibly 40m wave hits. In some places, you just will not have enough time to get to higher ground.

PP in Seattle here. Thanks! You're reaffirming my decision to buy our house at one of the higher land points in the area. Now to check the exact elevation ...

There is no real tsunami hazard in the Puget Sound. The hazard is in the coast. What scares me with Seattle (and Portland) is not the Megathrust earthquake that people talk about, but the magnitude 7 right under the city.

Have you read this? http://www.geekwire.com/2015/earthquake-experts-on-the-really-big-one-heres-what-will-actually-happen-in-seattle/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anywhere you would not live because of earthquakes or other seismic activity (tidal waves, etc)?

Yes. I would not live real near the coast of any active region. If I were in Pacific Northwest, for example, I would want to be at least 50m above sea level Basically, when the big one hits, there will be as little as 10 minutes to get to higher elevation before a 10 to possibly 40m wave hits. In some places, you just will not have enough time to get to higher ground.

PP in Seattle here. Thanks! You're reaffirming my decision to buy our house at one of the higher land points in the area. Now to check the exact elevation ...

There is no real tsunami hazard in the Puget Sound. The hazard is in the coast. What scares me with Seattle (and Portland) is not the Megathrust earthquake that people talk about, but the magnitude 7 right under the city.

Have you read this? http://www.geekwire.com/2015/earthquake-experts-on-the-really-big-one-heres-what-will-actually-happen-in-seattle/

I did not read that specific article, but I know the people referenced. I did not mention the landslide hazard, which is covered in the article. It is of concern, as is liquefaction: when the ground basically turns into quicksand.

The main takeaway is to be prepared for 1-2 weeks being isolated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in central MI now and we had an earthquake April 2015 strong enough to feel (at least 3.0) . Very unusual - could it be from fracking? If so, how would we know? Would anyone tell us the truth?

I am not sure. First, I can not find an earthquake in April 2015; I suspect you meant the May 2, 2015 earthquake. That is in an area where there is oil and/or gas production. But, usually, when fracking is involved, there will be more earthquakes. Furthermore, it is not the fracking that triggers the earthquakes, rather it is the deep water injection of the waste products.

Is that what is going on in Oklahoma? Will they have a big earthquake?

OK earthquakes are certainly being triggered by deep injection. Interestingly, since the price of Oil crashed, there has been less fracking/water injection, and the rate of Oklahoma earthquakes has diminished.

[Anonymous]

Can you explain the Richter scale? What is it based on and what is the unit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you explain the Richter scale? What is it based on and what is the unit?

Richter scale, it runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest magnitude quake and 10 being the highest. The scale is logarithmic, which means for every step up the scale there is actually a 10-fold increase in ground shaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you explain the Richter scale? What is it based on and what is the unit?

How Does the Ritcher Scale Work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you explain the Richter scale? What is it based on and what is the unit?

Richter scale, it runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest magnitude quake and 10 being the highest. The scale is logarithmic, which means for every step up the scale there is actually a 10-fold increase in ground shaking.

OP here. not quote. It is open ended: it is logarithmic, but there are negative magnitude earthquakes (but they would not be felt). The largest earthquake recorded is 9.5, 1960 in Chile.

It is mathematically possible to have a 10+ earthquake, but the fault would have to be an almost 2000 km long fault, and is probably not possible.

[Anonymous]

Is your office talking non stop about the earthquake in Italy today??

[Anonymous]

This is the first I knew that the earthquake had the name "Louisa." Who gave it that name and are all earthquakes given names? Are they all female, or do they now alternate between male in female names like hurricanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the first I knew that the earthquake had the name "Louisa." Who gave it that name and are all earthquakes given names? Are they all female, or do they now alternate between male in female names like hurricanes.

Not the OP.
The epicenter was in Louisa County, VA. That is where the name came from.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in what is now Serbia, but we had lots of Earthquakes all over former eastern parts of Yugoslavia. Why were there so many earthquakes there in the 1970s and even 80s and now there are hardly any? I didn't think it was near tectonic plates. We would have like "sliding" effect if you were sitting on a couch and earthquake happened.

[Anonymous]

Where would be the worst area to live in LA for the quake? The valley? Also where would a tsunami be worse Vancouver or Seattle?

[Anonymous]

How close is LA to having the big one?