Is Japan's quake part of a cluster?

[marjar]

With massive earthquakes rocking many of the countries bordering the Pacific Ocean's "ring of fire," Simon Winchester, the author of "A Crack in the Edge of the World," warns that the Golden's State's San Andreas fault could rupture.

In the past year, massive earthquakes have rattled three corners of the Pacific plate — Chile, New Zealand, and Japan. Is the fourth corner of the plate — the west coast of North America — the next to go?

The possibility is getting a serious look — and air time. Journalist Simon Winchester, who often covers geological history, wrote a piece speculating about a major quake along the west coast in the March 13 issue of Newsweek and spoke about it this morning on the Today show.

According to Winchester, there is little doubt that earthquakes happen in clusters — a major event on one side of a tectonic plate is often followed weeks or months later by another major event on the far side of the plate.

"It is as though the earth becomes like a great brass bell, which when struck by an enormous hammer blow on one side sets to vibrating and ringing from all over. Now there have been catastrophic events at three corners of the Pacific Plate — one in the northwest, on Friday; one in the southwest, last month; one in the southeast, last year," he writes in Newsweek.

"That leaves just one corner unaffected — the northeast. And the fault line in the northeast of the Pacific Plate is the San Andreas Fault, underpinning the city of San Francisco."

Speaking with Meredith Vieira on the Today show, Winchester also emphasized the potential of a massive rupture on the Cascadia fault, which runs off the coast from Northern California to British Columbia. If that fault were to rupture, "it would cause not just terrifying problems on land, it would also generate a tsunami and that's a big, big problem," he said.

Earthquake clusters
John Rundle, an expert on earthquake dynamics at the University of California at Davis, said evidence is mounting that major earthquakes do cluster in space and time, but that the New Zealand quakes were too small to count (magnitude 6.3 for Christchurch) in this current spate of events.

Even taking out the New Zealand events, there are still four major earthquakes at least as big as magnitude 8.6 in the last seven years – the two events in Sumatra in 2004 and 2005, the Chilean earthquake in 2010, and Japan. This is unusual, Rundle said.


"The question is, is it so unusual that these things are causal? We don't know that, but we used to believe that these things were independent and you would see random clustering, but this has become so pronounced that you have to think there might be some correlation to it," he told me today. "In fact most of our models that we use do show correlations of earthquake events."

Rundle added that he believes that earthquakes are correlated and these big events are correlated. The question is, are they correlated because there is a surge in plate motion or do these things just align in

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6268123-is-japans-quake-part-of-a-clusterspurts when looked at over spans of thousands of years?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Well, the question is not IF a massive quake will hit California, it is WHEN will it happen.
As much as we all like to poke fun at CA, let's hope this does not happen to our fellow citizens.

[floridayankee]

Interesting read Marjar. Unfortunately only time will tell.....

[marjar]

It is interesting and a bit frightening.

[floridayankee]

Mar 15, 2011 14:05:18 GMT -5 @marjar said:

It is interesting and a bit frightening.

It's inevitable. The quakes are the precursor to the 12/21/12 Mayan calendar predictions of the end of time because the earth will shift on it's crust as it crosses the galactic center.

Ok....<removes tinfoil hat>....maybe not.

[handyman2]

Marjar I hope they are wrong but I have read also where there is considerable concern about pressures building on several faults running through not only the faults along the west coast but several faults running through the middle of the US and northeast area.
Some of these faults have not moved for some time and the people who research this stuff are worried.

[marjar]

Handy - the lack of movement is one of the reasons some experts feel that NoCal and the PNW have a greater chance of a quake than SoCal.

If there is a silver lining to this disaster, it may be the scientific knowledge that is gained, and lessons learned that can be applied to help mitigate the damage in other parts of the world, when the next big one hits. Let us hope we have time to learn those lessons before the next big quake.

[Gardening Grandma]

(I live in the PNW).... The maps I've seen of the fault lines (and I'm no geologist) show that the Calif faults are underneath land (Calif) whereas the northwest faults are further out in the ocean. The geologis talking said that meant that a quake out there would mean tsunamis for the WA Ore coasts, whereas a quake in the Calif fault would mean a major quake in Calif.

Again, I'm no geologist, but it seemed reasonable.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

I spent three years as a Geology major. Grandma is correct, the faults of the PNW are not only underwater but move in a different direction (up & down) than the San Andreas does (side to side).

There is also no concrete connection in what is going on in the eastern part of the world and our West Coast. They are on opposite sides of the spreading center ridge of the Pacific.

[vonnie6200]

Mar 15, 2011 18:41:33 GMT -5 Mad Dawg Wiccan said:

I spent three years as a Geology major. Grandma is correct, the faults of the PNW are not only underwater but move in a different direction (up & down) than the San Andreas does (side to side).

There is also no concrete connection in what is going on in the eastern part of the world and our West Coast. They are on opposite sides of the spreading center ridge of the Pacific.

Would there be any connection to a very major quake on the San Andreas fault and a subsequent quake on the New Madrid fault?

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

<<Would there be any connection to a very major quake on the San Andreas fault and a subsequent quake on the New Madrid fault?>>


None at all, they are in no way connected. Karma for even know what the New Madrid fault is, most people have never even heard of it and it is potentially far more dangerous than the San Andreas.

[Deleted]

My second son is in LA. Loves it, will not leave it. CA scares the tar outta me. WAY too many natural disasters-- but the people that love it stay forever. Not to be a total azz, but what if feds stopped all the millions and billions CA gets when the well forecasted events occur? Just wondering... between the illegals and the disasters-- why do people live there? Just because they love it, I guess. Makes no sense to me.
I drove a professor lady from some CA university in my cab from the U of A to the airport. She said it is not IF, but WHEN, also, and that was her field of expertise.

[vonnie6200]

Mar 15, 2011 18:52:32 GMT -5 Mad Dawg Wiccan said:

<<Would there be any connection to a very major quake on the San Andreas fault and a subsequent quake on the New Madrid fault?>>


None at all, they are in no way connected. Karma for even know what the New Madrid fault is, most people have never even heard of it and it is potentially far more dangerous than the San Andreas.

Thanks - but I live on it and have seen scenarios where a quake could destroy both Memphis and St Louis - and do extensive damage over several states.

I was pondering if the plates that keep shifting - as I read it - if the two faults were separate sides of the same plate - and might therefore impact each other

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

<<I drove a professor lady from some CA university in my cab from the U of A to the airport. She said it is not IF, but WHEN, also, and that was her field of expertise.>>


She is correct, and it's been known for decades. I minimize my risk by not living in LA or San Francisco. You run a far higher risk being killed by a drug runner where you are than I do being killed by a quake here.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

<<I was pondering if the plates that keep shifting - as I read it - if the two faults were separate sides of the same plate - and might therefore impact each other>>

No. Both are part of the North American plate, but are interacted by different plates. I suppose it might be theoretically possible with something like a 9.9, but that's highly unlikely.

[vonnie6200]

Mar 15, 2011 19:06:48 GMT -5 Mad Dawg Wiccan said:

<<I was pondering if the plates that keep shifting - as I read it - if the two faults were separate sides of the same plate - and might therefore impact each other>>

No. Both are part of the North American plate, but are interacted by different plates. I suppose it might be theoretically possible with something like a 9.9, but that's highly unlikely.

Thanks - one less thing to worry about

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

Mar 15, 2011 19:08:16 GMT -5 vonnie6200 said:

Mar 15, 2011 19:06:48 GMT -5 Mad Dawg Wiccan said:

<<I was pondering if the plates that keep shifting - as I read it - if the two faults were separate sides of the same plate - and might therefore impact each other>>

No. Both are part of the North American plate, but are interacted by different plates. I suppose it might be theoretically possible with something like a 9.9, but that's highly unlikely.

Thanks - one less thing to worry about

Not to spoil your sleep, but:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone

[Gardening Grandma]

Mar 15, 2011 18:57:13 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

My second son is in LA. Loves it, will not leave it. CA scares the tar outta me. WAY too many natural disasters-- but the people that love it stay forever. Not to be a total azz, but what if feds stopped all the millions and billions CA gets when the well forecasted events occur? Just wondering... between the illegals and the disasters-- why do people live there? Just because they love it, I guess. Makes no sense to me.
I drove a professor lady from some CA university in my cab from the U of A to the airport. She said it is not IF, but WHEN, also, and that was her field of expertise.

Seriously krickitt
Your odds of being hurt or killed in an auto accident are greater than that of any CA resident being hurt or killed in an earthquake. Not wishing that on you (or anyone). Just saying.....

[handyman2]

If I am correct the fault that runs through the middle of the country last became active in around 1900 and made the Mississippi run backward and a whole forest sink and reelfoot lake was formed.

[vonnie6200]

The next biggest quake was a 5.4-magnitude quake (although it was reported as a 5.5 at the time) on November 9, 1968, near Dale, Illinois. The quake damaged the civic building at Henderson, Kentucky and was felt in 23 states. People in Boston said their building swayed. It is the biggest recorded quake with an epicenter in Illinois in that state's recorded history.[15]

Thanks - that was on my 18th birthday - I was in a basement in Chicago and it was very noticeable and very scary - and I do have earthquake insurance.

[mmhmm]

Interesting map on Huffpo showing where the danger areas are in the US. A lot of people don't realize they live in areas that might be impacted.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/us-fault-lines-graphic-ea_n_432948.html

[mmhmm]

I lived in California for years. Also, lived in St. Louis. Heck, if you're going to spend your days worrying about what might happen to you because of a natural disaster, there's noplace in the world you're going to be safe ... from yourself!

[vonnie6200]

Mar 15, 2011 20:00:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I lived in California for years. Also, lived in St. Louis. Heck, if you're going to spend your days worrying about what might happen to you because of a natural disaster, there's noplace in the world you're going to be safe ... from yourself!

LOL - or from nature

[mmhmm]

Hee! Yeah, vonnie. Nature can pull a number on us every once in awhile, and it doesn't matter much where one lives. Ask the folks in New Jersey who are wishing they had gills! I could step off the curb tomorrow and get hit by a bus, but I'm not going to lose any sleep tonight worrying about it.

[mmhmm]

Thinking about the original question, I find myself wondering ... does all the activity in Japan at the moment put other earthquake-prone areas at higher risk, or does it serve to relieve some pressure and lower the risk of a "big one" elsewhere ... or, does it have any effect, at all. I hate thinking!

[vonnie6200]

Mar 15, 2011 20:12:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hee! Yeah, vonnie. Nature can pull a number on us every once in awhile, and it doesn't matter much where one lives. Ask the folks in New Jersey who are wishing they had gills! I could step off the curb tomorrow and get hit by a bus, but I'm not going to lose any sleep tonight worrying about it.

You and I are on the same wave length!

[mmhmm]

That's often so, I find, vonnie. We do think much the same. There's a certain pragmatism that's necessary, IMO, to live a reasonably happy life. We've got enough problems, most of us, we shouldn't have to sit around thinking of more. ;D

[Tennesseer]

Mar 15, 2011 19:59:01 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Interesting map on Huffpo showing where the danger areas are in the US. A lot of people don't realize they live in areas that might be impacted.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/us-fault-lines-graphic-ea_n_432948.html

HuffPo (to some):

[Tennesseer]

Mar 15, 2011 20:00:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I lived in California for years. Also, lived in St. Louis. Heck, if you're going to spend your days worrying about what might happen to you because of a natural disaster, there's noplace in the world you're going to be safe ... from yourself!

An Interesting article from Slate Magazine in 2005:

Where To Hide From Mother Nature

Wyoming? Nope. West Virginia? Think again.

By Brendan I. Koerner

Human beings are self-absorbed creatures, so the response to Hurricane Katrina has naturally included some hand-wringing over the question: "Could this happen to my hometown?" Depending on the worrywart's location, the theoretical catastrophe could be a flash flood, a wildfire, or an earthquake rather than a hurricane; no corner of the United States is immune to lethal natural disasters.

Still, some corners are safer than others. If an American wants to minimize his chances of dying at Mother Nature's hands, where should he set up house? Slate crunched the numbers—and did some educated guesswork—to find the U.S. city where the odds of perishing in a natural disaster are closest to nil.

We started by taking a look at every presidential disaster declaration from 1965 through 2004. As this color-coded map reveals, the Eastern half of the nation has had the most officially declared disasters, although North Dakota, Washington, and California have endured more than their share of woe. Going by presidential decrees alone, then, Western states such as Nevada or Wyoming appear safest.

But the data are skewed by the fact that disasters are more likely to be declared in populated areas. As this FEMA primer makes clear, disasters are declared in order to make funds available to people and businesses affected by a catastrophe. So, a severe storm in the Milwaukee suburbs is a lot likelier to be declared a federal disaster than a severe storm in an unpopulated expanse of southwestern Wyoming.

The declared disasters list was useful, however, in helping to eliminate the obvious noncontenders. Like, say, California. The state's massive population gives it a low per-capita fatality rate for natural disasters, but no one would consider it a safe haven from nature's worst: It's susceptible to earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, torrential rains, rip currents, and even volcanoes. Unsurprisingly, then, California has had more declared disasters than any other state but Texas, which is frequently hammered by tornadoes, thunderstorms, and floods.

For simplicity's sake—Slate still lacks a supercomputer to handle massive number-crunching assignments—we automatically eliminated the 30 states with the most declared disasters. Most were no-brainers, such as the hurricane-prone states of the Gulf Coast and the heartland states that lie in Tornado Alley. Sparsely populated North Dakota has regular problems with severe flooding, as do Virginia, Tennessee, and New York. (Flooding, tornadoes, and tropical storms/hurricanes have been the most prolific killers in recent years, although heat waves often take significant tolls.) Illinois and Pennsylvania didn't make the grade because their cities can get lethally hot. Also disqualified were some notably frigid members of the union, such as Wisconsin and Minnesota; blizzards and icy conditions are frequently deadly, especially for motorists. And seemingly placid West Virginia? It has some issues with landslides, particularly in the counties that border Ohio.

That left 20 states, two of which we knocked out immediately on common-sense grounds: Hawaii, since islands are inherently at the ocean's mercy (plus there's a slew of volcanoes), and Alaska, where severe winter storms are the norm. For the remaining 18 states, then, we looked at year-by-year fatalities resulting from severe weather, dating back to 1995, as recorded by the National Weather Service. The NWS statistics cover 27 different types of weather events, including such relative rarities as deaths due to volcanic ash, fog, dust devils, and "miscellaneous." (Since California had been eliminated at this stage, we ignored earthquake fatalities, which the NWS does not track.) We then used the total number of fatalities from each state to arrive at a deaths-per-thousand figure, based on population numbers taken from the 2000 Census.

Of the 18 states, only three had a fatality rate lower than 0.01 per thousand for the last decade: Connecticut (0.00587 per thousand), Massachusetts (0.00299), and Rhode Island (0.00286). These figures are somewhat surprising, given that all three of these New England states have ample coastlines and are thus susceptible to fierce storms. But they are also more immune to hurricanes than their southerly counterparts, virtually free of tornadoes, and blessed with relatively cool summers and winters that, although cold, aren't quite North Dakota cold. They're also affluent—all three boast family median incomes above the national average—and, as Hurricane Katrina reminded us, socioeconomics matter when it comes to preserving life during natural disasters.

For the three finalists, we looked at the county-by-county breakdowns of presidential-disaster declarations since 1995. Rhode Island only had one, during the Blizzard of '96. Connecticut was hit by that storm, too, as well as by Tropical Storm Floyd in 1999, which affected Litchfield, Hartford, and Fairfield counties. Massachusetts, meanwhile, had five major declared disasters, mostly associated with heavy rains and flooding in its seven easternmost counties.

Based solely on the numbers, then, Rhode Island would seem to be the winner. But the tiny state's cities are clustered around bays and rivers, which means a major hurricane could cause flooding. During the Great New England Hurricane of 1938, for example, a violent storm surge hit Providence.

Eastern Massachusetts is dicey because its long coastline is exposed to the unforgiving Atlantic Ocean. The rural west has proven statistically safer, but winter in the Berkshires can be snowy and harsh.

That leaves Connecticut, whose coastline faces the Long Island Sound rather than the open ocean. Still, living near the water is not recommended for the truly tense; a safer bet is somewhere inland, away from rivers and lakes, but not too deep in the boonies. The state's winters aren't tropical, but they tend to be not quite as snowbound as those in western Massachusetts.

After much debate, then, we settled on Slate's "America's Best Place to Avoid Death Due to Natural Disaster": the area in and around Storrs, Conn., home to the University of Connecticut. It lies in Tolland County, which was not part of the 1999 federal disaster declaration for Tropical Storm Floyd. It's a safe 50 miles from the sound and not close to any rivers. It also has relatively easy access to a major city (Hartford) in the event an evacuation or hospitalization becomes necessary.*

This conclusion is by no means scientific, nor can safety ever be completely guaranteed; as moviegoers and Rick Moody fans are already aware, Connecticut does have its share of dangerous ice storms. And we're open to suggestions about other candidates for the title. If you want to make a case for your hometown, please drop us a line. In the meantime, the parents of UConn students can sleep a little easier tonight.

*Correction, September 15, 2005: This piece originally asserted that the University of Connecticut Health Center is in Storrs, Conn. It's actually in Farmington.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

Mar 15, 2011 19:59:01 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Interesting map on Huffpo showing where the danger areas are in the US. A lot of people don't realize they live in areas that might be impacted.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/us-fault-lines-graphic-ea_n_432948.html