Originally posted by pynner
half-past-human... are one of a few predicting a quake up here in the PNW... IF it's anything like they say it's going to be, we are in alot of
-a compression wave that makes people lose hearing
-hundreds of miles of land that liquefies.
-changed weather patterns
- lightning storms.. lightning coming off of higher structures because of underground rock sheer.
- 9.2 at or above 22kms (that still blows me away)
oh.. and HPH says there will more than likely be 2 earthquakes.
I know you're only the "messenger" so don't worry, I'm not shooting at you!
But like I said in my other post I've got my doubts on this
one... I saw from another post of yours that they're predicting around Dec 12? That's a fair ways off, so do they say what their basis is? I mean,
statistically this is a once-in-decades magnitude quake they're talking about. Mag nines are very very rare (thank goodness).
To the points mentioned:
"A compression wave that makes people lose hearing."
I assume they mean a concussion wave? I'm not sure how a compression wave could have the effects they indicate. I'm also not sure how either a
compression or concussion wave could be generated on the sea floor, miles from land, that would seriously affect the hearing of humans. The Juan de
Fuca fault region that's going to let go one of these days is under the sea, and all that water would deaden any such possible deafness-causing
"Hundreds of miles of land that liquefies." Hundreds of miles of near-coastal low-lying land would likely get very wet, but liquefy? No. Again, the
quake's epicentre would be in the sea -- on the sea floor, that is -- and although there will be seismic waves of several types that will radiate out
from it, the land along the coast is not uniform and much of it is simply incapable of liquefying. Beach areas may well be badly affected as many are
semi-liquid "land" already, but we don't build houses on beaches below the reach of the tides so that's not a problem. Back away from the beaches,
some areas could liquefy if the soil strata are of the "right" consistency. They need to be sandy but not just any mix. There are limits. If they
are more clay-based or simply rock, then they can't liquefy. Just not possible. Not denying they could get a hell of a shaking with scarily high
ground-acceleration speeds that topple structures, but the ground itself won't liquefy unless it's of a type that can.
"Changed weather patterns." It's known that weather can be affected by quakes, yes. This is due to electro-magnetic radiation release, such a
peizo-electric effects. (See below under "lightning".) But changed weather patterns
implies more than short-term changes just prior to or
post quake. It suggests long-term effects. I'd like to know what quake activity could cause long-term effects because I've never heard of any.
"Crust upheaval." The plate junction (Juan de Fuca/Nth American plates) is a subduction zone, so if the big one happens then the Juan d. will take a
lurch and move under the Nth Am like it's done before. Besides the crust changes in situ, this could
cause upheavals elsewhere, even many
miles away. How dramatic they may be is hard to say. Inches or feet? We don't really know with a great degree of accuracy. We do
know that the
mountains in Oregon and along that line were formed partly due to the Juan d's subduction under the Nth Amer. plate.
"Lightning storms.. lightning coming off of higher structures because of underground rock sheer." This could well happen if there are associated and
very strong seismic movements that are near structures on land, yes. I understand they're caused by piezo-electric effects and that they can be quite
dramatic. Frankly the possible lightining would be the least of my worries. I'd be worried about collapsing buildings.
"9.2 at or above 22kms (that still blows me away)." 22 kms is only about 14 miles away, so if the quake is a seriously big 9-plus, then it will
likely still feel about the same from so close to the epicentre. Put it this way: I wouldn't want to be within 14 miles of a mag-9's epicentre!
"oh.. and HPH says there will more than likely be 2 earthquakes." Yep, no surprises there. After a mag nine, you can expect hundreds (if not
thousands) of aftershocks and some could be quite large -- maybe only one or two magnitudes less. (Viz the "Asian Tsunami" quake in 2004.)
Overall: they're pretty right on some factors but dubious on others, especially the "liquefaction" and "compression waves" stuff.
Did they mention the tsunami that would likely follow a mag nine on that fault line, by the way? Maybe I missed it, but that's how we know the date
the last big one occurred there (on 26 Jan 1700), because of the tsunami it produced. It was recorded in Japan. The tsunami is potentially the single
most dangerous element of such an event on the Juan d/Nth Amer fault junction. It could be over thirty feet high -- like the last one was.
I'm hoping they are wrong on this. Having seen what's happened after hurricanes Katrina and Ike, I don't think the US emergency services are really
up to handling something that would potentially be far more destructive than they were.