Thoughts on New York City Earthquake Study?

As reported on the Breaking News forum...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

...what are everyone's thoughts on this? An earthquake up to 7.0 could hit New York City, and scientists just now discover the active fault lines that are only 25 miles away from the city? I think that it is mind boggling that they are just now discovering this, considering the size and importance of NYC. They even said that an earthquake measuring at a 5.0 would produce deaths in the city, due to the size of buildings and large urban population. What is everyone's thoughts, on a more scientific sense?

Well if it does happen (which it probably will) the buildings wont be able to withstand it and theyre would be mass deaths

lets just hope to god that it doesnt ever happen though or let just hope if one does happen which it definitely should within 50 years or so that its not a remotely big one and the buildings can withstand it.

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 built NYC?

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.

-Static Sky

well, this is pretty interesting to say the least.... now all of a sudden, it's quite possible to have a large quake in a city full of brick buildings and subways.

and the faults line up under a nuclear power plant... sweet.

what gets me is that if you were to "cut through" the globe, japan is roughly on the other side of the world from NY... which has been having some monster quakes in the last few months.

My predictions is that the next MAJOR and I mean MAJOR quake will happen out east... and it will be ugly and it will surprise everyone.

I guess I just find it odd they come out with this now... it's not like newyork hasn't been there for a very long time.