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