posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:11 AM
Hey Matth. How's it going buddy? Great topic. Made me think of the super-hurricane that scientists say hits New York every 120 years or so. (Next one
should be somewhere around 2050 but who knows?). As for the earthquakes, there have actually been a suprising number recorded since the early 1700's.
In 1737, a 5.2 hit. In 1783, a 4.9. And in 1884, another 5.2 hit. These are just the larger ones recorded.
On January 17 2001, a 2.4 magnitude earthquake in Manhattans upper east side. The epicenter was found to be around 102nd Street & Park Avenue, at an
estimated depth of 6km/3.5miles. Then on October 27 2001, a 2.6 magnitude quake hit the west side of Manhattan. Its epicenter was around 55th Street
and 8th Avenue, at a depth of about 1km/0.6miles. These are the most recent recorded.
For comparison, the towers falling on 9/11 are said to have recorded magnitude levels of 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale, obviously at ground level
depth and very localized. For a little clarity, a magnitude 2.5 quake is equal to about 5.6 metric tons of TNT. A magnitude 5.5 meanwhile, is equal to
roughly 178 KILOtons of TNT. One could expect the damage in NYC to be widespread and severe with a 5+ magnitude quake.
What I don't understand is the reports of this being somehow "new" knowledge. After about 2 minutes of searching on Google, I found these records
easily on several sites. They've recorded these seismic activities since the early 1700's! Why didn't they consider the geological data as they
I agree with some points I've read on this thread and in the one you linked to Matt, that most of the steel skyscrapers should survive okay but spill
their glass facades in a shower of shards onto the streets below. I'd hate to be there when that happens. And I agree that it's the older brick
lowrise buildings that may face total collapse in such an event.
Retrofitting the older buildings to dampen the effects and strengthen the structures is a viable option that certainly would lessen damage and save
lives but it would be costly and take decades to complete. And with the current state of the US economy, I wouldn't hold my breath for this to
happen. It might be easier and certainly cheaper, just to deny that it's likely to happen and when it finaly does, act suprised and say, "How were
we to know?" I am very worried about the nuclear power plant though. As someone not living in the NYC area, that's the single biggest threat to me
from a NYC earthquake.
Great thread Matth. S&F for you my friend. Be well.