It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: 6.2 Quake in Sumatra Jan 6, 2005

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
The USGS has just reported a magnitude 6.2 earthquake in: "NORTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA Thursday, January 06, 2005 at 00:56:26 UTC." It's 60 km (40 miles) WSW of Banda Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia, the hardest hit area in the tsunami.

 



neic.usgs.gov
Magnitude 6.2 NORTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA

Magnitude 6.2
Date-Time Thursday, January 06, 2005 at 00:56:26 (UTC) - Coordinated Universal Time
Thursday, January 06, 2005 at 07:56:26 AM local time at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location 5.31N 94.82E
Depth 22.4 kilometers
Region NORTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA
Reference 60 km (40 miles) WSW of Banda Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia
335 km (210 miles) SSE of Misha, Nicobar Islands, India
1125 km (700 miles) SW of BANGKOK, Thailand
1830 km (1140 miles) NW of JAKARTA, Java, Indonesia

Location Quality Error estimate: horizontal +/- 6.9 km; depth +/- 21.0 km
Location Quality
Parameters Nst=144, Nph=144, Dmin=1574.6 km, Rmss=0.72 sec, Erho=6.9 km, Erzz=21.0 km, Gp=72.3 degrees
Source USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




[edit on 6-1-2005 by Banshee]




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Granted not thier area of watch, but nothing from the NOAA's tsunami site

wcatwc.gov...



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I have cousin who is in Malaysia right now. He said his island was not hit very hard by the tusnami because the island of Sumatra protected it. Still, he said 59 people were killed because of the waves and that one of them was the father of one of his friends.

I just sent him an email. I can't guarantee that he will be able to respond in a timely manner, but if he does, I'll let you know what he has to say.

[edit on 05/1/6 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
That wasn't the only one. I just checked out that map and there are so many earthquakes, many over 5.0 that have happened in only the past 3 days. All I know is that there is a lot of activity under there, let's just hope it simmers down soon so we can finally be at peace with that.


Oh, i jus found this pic which shows the ring of fire and it's pretty much where a lot of quakes have been occuring.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by makavelli]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I've been monitoring that site since the main Earthquake occurred & I have to say that some of those aftershocks & minor quakes have been quite large. They have been occurring since 26th December & I'm guessing they're not done yet.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I'm throwing this out to anyone with some geology knowledge (because mine is pretty limited), but is this a normal amount of activity after a quake of that magnitude? Looking at the USGS website it appears that quakes of 5.0+ have been happening almost every few hours almost continuously since the 9.0. Having grown up in southern California and been through many quakes myself, I'm familiar with aftershocks, but nothing like that. I'm not one of these nutters who thinks this is the end of the world, or the poles are shifting or whatever, but I'm curious as to whether it is possible to have periods of dramatically increased seismic activity (e.g. having major quakes constantly for months). From what I've read of the Alaska 9+ quake I never recall reading anything about continuous major aftershocks for weeks afterwards. If anyone can enlighten me on the normality or abnormality of this particular series of events that would be great.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I certainly cannot vouch for this guys methods or predictions but the graph seems to a telling instrument showing an increasing magnitude of quakes when there should be a drop off in magnitude of aftershocks.






January 2, 2005
By Stan Deyo


After the 7.2, 8.1 and 9.0 quakes of last week, pressure should have been significantly reduced in the Southern Hemisphere. However, this quake trend line indicates just the opposite. Pressure is rebuilding and earthquakes are increasing in magnitude by 20%. Earthquake energy currently released is at least 10 times what it was a week ago.


I am no geology expert so I have no way to interpret this information. All I have is my own recollections of past accounts of other earthquakes where soon after there were significant aftershocks that died down in intensity.

This episode seems to be very different.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
There is still alot of movement of the India and Burma plates. These smaller quakes are releasing the stress that builds because of this movement. Without the smaller quakes you get a sudden release of energy as with the 12/26 earthquake.

neic.usgs.gov...



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rg73
I'm throwing this out to anyone with some geology knowledge (because mine is pretty limited), but is this a normal amount of activity after a quake of that magnitude? Looking at the USGS website it appears that quakes of 5.0+ have been happening almost every few hours almost continuously since the 9.0.

There are thousands of 5.0 quakes every year.

Having grown up in southern California and been through many quakes myself, I'm familiar with aftershocks, but nothing like that.

The san andreas is one fault, actually its a series of microfaults in some parts, and what you have is the last bits of i think the juan de fuco plate being subducted underneath north america. In the rest of the ring of fire, there are not just double, not just triple, but quadruple plate boundaries. Its a whole different world from california.



I'm not one of these nutters who thinks this is the end of the world, or the poles are shifting or whatever, but I'm curious as to whether it is possible to have periods of dramatically increased seismic activity (e.g. having major quakes constantly for months)
I don't know, you'd think so, but apparently it doesn't happen. I think this is a 'full moon babies' case.

Lemme 'splain. For a long time people thought that more babies were born on a full moon, for whatever the reason. Nurses actually confirmed it. But when the records were checked, it was completely untrue. Everyone had an expectation that it should be true, so they took more note of stuff on those occasions. Full Moon out, check, crap look at all these babies. No full moon, well, there's lots of babies, but no full moon, so forget about it.

Here its, wow, what a huge earth quake. Then everytime there is an earthquake in that part of the world, its going to get noticed, even get reported on the news and multiple newssites. So it seems like there is a ton of stuff going down.



From what I've read of the Alaska 9+ quake I never recall reading anything about continuous major aftershocks for weeks afterwards.

I don't think that these are necessarily aftershocks. Thats a region where there are constant unrelated (well, sort of) earthquakes.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
found this on USGS site - interesting to read I think

Q&A about recent earthquake and tsunami



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
That's right...it's called "The Fallacy of Positive Instances". I see a lot of this type of thinking applied in many posts on ATS.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
This, apparently, falls into the category of an "aftershock" -- and seemed to be fairly close to the surface of the earth, meaning it was felt by people in the immediate area.

For those asking, yes, there are lots of aftershocks following a big quake, and they will go on for up to 6-8 months AFTER the initial quake. This was true of the big one in Bam (another recent massive catastophe.) We can expect to see others.

Remember that the monitoring system there in the Indian Ocean was bad to begin with, and hasn't improved in the destruction following the tsunami. The most effective way of reaching many areas right now seems to be ham radio (cell phones aren't as reliable because they need to have towers to work... many were damaged by the force of the water.)

If you haven't checked it out, look at Jazzgurl's link to the USGS site. Very interesting and infomative.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join