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.

 

Magnitude 6.4 quake off Oregon coast: USGS

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Magnitude 6.4 quake off Oregon coast: USGS


www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A magnitude 6.4 earthquake struck off the central Oregon coast at 8:37 p.m. EST on Wednesday (0137 GMT Thursday), the U.S. Geological Survey reported.

The temblor was located 151 miles west-northwest of Barview, Oregon, at a depth of 6.2 miles, the USGS said. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said no current warning or advisory was in effect following the quake.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
This is the fifth 6+ magnitude in this region in the last week.

There where two in the Queen Charlotte Islands area just North of there on Sunday plus two others through the week.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 9-1-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
OOPS Took out the USGS link.


USGS

[edit on 9-1-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


oregon?

im in seattle and its only 640pm

what the F? should i wait for an earthquake?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I must start with this: I know absolutely nothing about plate tectonics!... but I was looking at my world news site yesterday... visz.rsoe.hu...

and there were many earthquakes and volcanoes... is this normal? i am asking because i don't know at all! they were everywhere!



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Looks like there was a 6.2 today on the west coast of Canada.

Seattle is way overdo for the big one


Did I write Canada? I meant Kanada. This sight uses Engrish.

[edit on 9/1/2008 by Nyorai]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nyorai
Looks like there was a 6.2 today on the west coast of Canada.

Seattle is way overdo for the big one


plus we have mt ranier, maybe thatll let off some steam too

my mudder in law lives in eugene

ill call and see if it reached her at all



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by purplecoral
 


Ya thats pretty normal I would say. There doesn't seem to be any major volcanic activity in the region. Mount St.Helen's doesn't have any alerts issued that I found.

volcano.wr.usgs.gov...



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


so was this false news? or what was going on with this post OP?

just curious to know how you find this info to be?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MurderCityDevil
 

Hope the OP doesn't mind my answering you.


This info is readily available on the Web. I generally use the USGS site because its maps are updated almost real-time and they also have plenty of technical info for those who want it. Just go to [this link for USGS] and you can click on the interactive map to get details of quakes.

Quakes in the 6 to 7 range are not all that unusual in the island chain west of mainland Alaska, but further down the coast around Vancouver quakes of that size are comparatively rare. In fact -- and I monitor USGS daily -- I don't recall any in the plus-6 range in that region in the past year. Okay, they may have been one and I simply have forgotten it but there have been three in that area (and in that range) in less than a week and that is really something that caught my attention.

However, the one off the coast of Oregon (almost straight West of Eugene) concerns me a lot more, because a 6-plus there is very unusual indeed. There are plenty there in the 3 to 4.5 range and occasionally even low-5s, but a 6.3 is significant.

The reason it's a worry is because there is a stuck plate boundary there. One edge of the Juan de Fuca plate has not moved significantly for around 300 years. The last time it did let go and release its energies was on 26 Jan 1700, the date known precisely because the Japanese -- way across the ocean -- recorded details of the tsunami that reached them several hours later. Local studies in coastal Oregon indicate that this quake produced a tsunami that flooded into near-coastal lakes up to 30 metres high. (That's close to 100 feet.) Authorities in the Oregon coastal regions are well aware that sooner or later this fault will let go again and (past quakes being a fair guide), trigger a quake around a mag 9.0 and a very serious tsunami.

I find it puzzling that (at least here on satellite TV like CNN) so little has been said about this series of quakes. True, it could well be that nothing serious will ensue in the near future, but on the other hand these quakes could be a precursor of a large one. Please note that this is not "the big one" relating to the San Andreas group of faults that so many people are waiting for. This is quite separate, for some reason largely ignored, and potentially far more devastating.

Don't think I'm crying doom and gloom. I'm not. The fact is that around once every 300 years that stuck plate lets go, and it's pretty well due. That's all. It could happen tomorrow or it could be in 100 years from now. But the series of significant quakes in that region (along connecting plate boundaries) is bothersome, to put it mildly.

Edited to add: Apologies to other posters for any material I've rehashed. Just tying a few bits and pieces together for those who might come in late on thread.

Mike



[edit on 11-1-2008 by JustMike]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Thanks Mike, that is about right. I am at work right now so don't have time to put together a detailed answer but like Mike, I'm a daily viewer of USGS site and these quakes are relatively rare. There has been speculation in Canada that the Vancouver region( about mid way between where these quakes occured) is due foir a major quake. Again as Mike said, it isn't part of the San Andreas fault that gets the attention but could be potentially more devasting due to the concentration of population and the resulting tsunami's it could generate. California would be affeted by the tsunami's more than the quake but it has also been theaorizeed that a major quake in this area could cause one in the California region also. I'lll add some links about this later when I get time this evening.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Interesting, we had a tornado touch down yesterday as well. Needless to say, those aren't common to Oregon either. Strange days.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 

Glad to help


There is a huge amount of info available on the Cascadia Subduction Zone (which is the area of concern off the US/Canadian west coastal regions), but rather than posting links willy-nilly I'd rather defer to you (as it's your thread).

I do think that the relative rarity of mag 6-plus quakes in the Cascadia area is worthy of mention. I checked USGS records and couldn't find any of that magnitude in the area in the past couple of years -- prior to those since last weekend, that is. The largest was a mid-5 in Northern Cal back in May last year. Offshore, I mean.

Does seem odd, this relative silence on the part of the experts...You'd think that this flurry of 6-plus quakes in the one region would have them all over the media.

Just for anyone who's not too clear on "magnitude": on the Richter scale of earthquake strength measurement (as used by USGS and many others), the energy released in an earthquake is assigned a number value. But the scale is not linear, it's logarithmic. This means that (for example) a 7.0 is a lot stronger than a 6.0. A 7.0 actually releases around 31 times more energy than a 6.0 and has an amplitude ten times greater than a 6.0. To put that into better perspective, while a 6.0 is "strong" and a 7.0 is "major", an 8.0, releasing somewhere around 1000 times (31 x 31) the energy that a 6.0 does, is "great". (Meaning extremely powerful and potentially very destructive.)

This is why I am concerned about these low- to mid- 6 magnitude quakes. They are nothing minor, but if (and please note: IF) they are a precursor to a "great" quake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (where the last big one was around a mag 9.0) then I hope those who have access to the best sensing equipment are wide awake and ready to issue warnings if needs be. Sooner or later this particular "big one" will happen and people will want to head for high ground PDQ.

Mike




[edit on 11-1-2008 by JustMike]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Interesting, we had a tornado touch down yesterday as well. Needless to say, those aren't common to Oregon either. Strange days.


Now that is interesting. The mechanisms are not yet well understood but I've read of links between odd weather and quakes -- especially cloud types. Some geomagnetic effect if I recall what's been surmised. (They're sometimes called "earthquake clouds".) Where and when exactly did this tornado touch down?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Yesterday just outside of Portland at about 2pm. I started a thread with a link to the local news story on it.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


For more threads on this sort of activity, There was this one last year, which some may find interesting.

It is also possible to get live seismograms for all the Cascade volcanoes, from the PNSN. An example of this can be seen here, and you can In fact see the quake mentioned in this thread. Pacific time is shown on the left side, UTC on the right. Best viewed at a Horizontal resolution greater than or equal to 1280pixels.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by apex]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Thanks for the info about your thread...I was a bit confused as most reports on the web just talked about "Vancouver", which for foreigners like me suggests a location in a different country from the USA
So, I learned something new.

Hopefully this rare weather event is not an indicator of anything else -- except that our weather is going weird, which we know already...

On some other threads referred to, some members surmise about whether medium-sized quakes are indicators of impending larger ones or if they actually help to release energy and reduce the effects of bigger quakes. My own feeling is that if (as scientists predict) there will eventually be a quake around a high-8 mag to a 9 in this region, then the energy released by a few 6-mag quakes is so insignificant by comparison that their "reduction" effect on a "great" quake is negligible. A mag 9 is thousands of times more powerful than a 6. If there was a series of mag-6 quakes (say hundreds) in a relatively short time then they might help, but in reality this type of seismic activity in that region is unknown.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join