Strongest Earthquake this Year

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Is the planet just releaving some stress or is this a sign of much larger earthquakes coming? I'll need to check the research forum and find out the elasped time between the last major earthquake and the one before that. According to the research there is a large increase of 4.0+ earthquakes over the last decade. Maybe we can see about 8.0+.

----
More than 230 people were injured, 41,000 forced to evacuate and 16,000 homes blacked out Friday when Japan's northern island of Hokkaido was rocked by the strongest earthquake to hit anywhere in the world this year.

www.cbsnews.com...




posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 07:42 AM
link   
This one was 8.0 by the way. Just in case you don't feel like following the link.

The after shocks for this quake were 7.0 and 4.9. An aftershock of 7.0?!? Check out the latest.

gldss7.cr.usgs.gov...

The Yellowstone Caldera Project in the research forum is watching quake activity. We may want to add a research project for quakes in general. It's been a busy week.


[Edited on 26-9-2003 by uIVIa]



posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Still more aftershocks on this one. Or are they just additional quakes?

So far we have 5 quakes in 2 days in the same small area...

8.0 - 2003/09/25 19:50:07 (initial quake)

7.0 - 2003/09/25 21:07:59

4.9 - 2003/09/25 22:20:20

5.4 - 2003/09/26 02:35:10

5.6 - 2003/09/26 06:26:54



posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Can't believe someone hasn't checked up on HAARP activity yet...you sleepin' DR???



posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Was just having a look at the "Iris Seismic Monitor" looks nasty out there right now!



www.iris.edu...



blackwidow



posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I've looked at HAARP a couple times in the last few days. Its seems active but no major pulses of the magnitude we saw on the 15th and 16th. Mostly keeping under 500 on their scale..but still very active..although resolute bay still seems more quiet than the rest of them.



posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I wasnt asleep, but was having computer problems last night (damn, always happens when something like this happens and Im not on it!!!!!)

Anyway, yes, an 8.0 is a DAMN powerful quake, and is capable of catastrophic damage. I have not yet heard of any deaths associated with this quake, and if that continues to be true, that would be a level miracle.

Yes, for whoever asked, the decreasing series of shocks is a series of aftershocks: this is normal for a really huge quake like that.

As for HAARP, I did check it when I got on last night, and when you check the magchain, there was a VERY interesting pulse during the day, about 8-12 hours before the quake... very high end, localized, lasted about 3-4 hours....

I also noticed that the USGS seismos showed damn near ALL seismos TOTALLY BLACK from seismic activity WORLD WIDE.

Red Puma was kicking yesterday too... Japan was NOT the only place getting shaken, just the hardest.

Val has posted a nice statistical trend showing that there IS an overall increase in high end quakes over the past century or so, and I have been thinking that to be the case lately....

Combined with what we are tracking at Yellowstone... I have a bad feeling...



posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
I have not yet heard of any deaths associated with this quake, and if that continues to be true, that would be a level miracle.


This quake was offshore that's probably why there were no reported deaths. USGS just updated it to an 8.1. Also, I noticed a couple aftershocks that were closer to land. The 7.0 was closer. The next one (4.9) was even closer. The last 2 were northeast of the initial quake and were more in the ocean.

gldss7.cr.usgs.gov...



Yes, for whoever asked, the decreasing series of shocks is a series of aftershocks: this is normal for a really huge quake like that.


Yea, the 7.0 aftershock got my attention. Is the initial aftershock of such a large quake usually close to the same size as this one was?

Edit: Oh yea, USGS doesn't show the depth for the initial and the first 2 aftershocks (they put 33 meaning they don't know), is there another place that shows the depth?

Edit2: Given the last 2 aftershocks at 10 km I'm assuming the initial ones were not that deep either. Minor Tsunamis were reported with this as well.

[Edited on 26-9-2003 by uIVIa]

[Edited on 26-9-2003 by uIVIa]





new topics
 
0

log in

join