Magnitude 8.8 Offshore Maule, Chile

Originally posted by JakiusFogg

Just becuase there is no major fault line the strata of the rocks underneath you have mini faults.

Uk has a series of Earthquakes in Manchester UK as strong as 5.0. I remember that one quite clearly, and again there was over 100 aftershocks in the following weeks.

Just becuase something shifted on a mini fault under the Penine hills!

So it can happen awywhere.

And a 5.2 in feb 2008! Epicentre was in Market Harborough if I remember correctly.

anybody heard about that big tsunami that hit a town in chile at about 3/4:00 pm California time?

My girl and I talked with her extended family who live on the border of Chile and Peru, and although the mining town which they live in has basically been reduced to rubble, they're far more afraid of America coming to "help" then of the aftereffects of this disaster. Apparently that's all people are talking about, how to keep the Americans out so their great great grand children aren't financially enslaved. It already happened once and they're determined to prevent it happening again.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


then there not completely ignorant are they...
its not america they have to be affraid of... its the AIC< and their incognito, World Vision...

Not sure if this has been posted before, but here's a link to some raw footage from the Chile quake .
Also has footage of Japan earthquake , tsunami hitting Hawaii etc.

reply to post by bonesinis


You know I SO hope you are wrong!

Chile has had 83 quakes since 06:30 this morning only 5 of which have been between 4.7 and 4.9. The rest have all be 5.0+ with 6 of those being > 6 and of course one at 8.8 - as I write make that 84 quakes.

I so feel for them. Living in Ireland as I do which is the country in the world least likely to experience an earthquake I am told, and of course never having felt one, I can only try and imagine what they must be going through.

Folks I have been at this for over fifteen hours now so I bid you all good day or good night depending on where you are. May your God keep you and the people of Chile safe.

reply to post by spearhead


I think they're right to fear all of the above. I also know that most of the people down there realize it's not the American people who want to bankrupt them and put them into financial servitude for the next century and beyond, but corporate America, which includes the government. Unfortunately it's not the bankers and corporatists whom actually provide the aid in person.

After all the planted dictators, political assassinations and "disaster aid" meant to endebt Peru and other South American nations for generations, they would rather violently expel further "assistance" than risk the consequences of accepting it. That's the impression I got.

I don't know that that will happen, I think it might in pockets like in the town my girl's family lives where it's a tight knit group of a few thousand hard working miners and engineers where everyone is of a similar mindset. Perhaps not in the larger metropolitan areas where there's more loss of life and people are thinking in terms of second-to-second.

[edit on 2/27/2010 by ZombieOctopus]

Sorry not sure if its been posted in the last couple of pages,


Second Earthquake reported in argentina 6.7

Also there has been over 60 after shocks most of them all well over 6.0 the biggest 6.8 which are expected to continue for weeks months even a year,

the one in the US is just madness i cant understand why there would be one in the middle of the usa

So does anybody have a theory as to why we are seen such incredible amounts seismic activity, without ringing the 2012 bells preferably,

Originally posted by Bluebelle

Originally posted by JakiusFogg

Just becuase there is no major fault line the strata of the rocks underneath you have mini faults.

Uk has a series of Earthquakes in Manchester UK as strong as 5.0. I remember that one quite clearly, and again there was over 100 aftershocks in the following weeks.

Just becuase something shifted on a mini fault under the Penine hills!

So it can happen awywhere.

And a 5.2 in feb 2008! Epicentre was in Market Harborough if I remember correctly.

Also dont forget the one in dudley near birmingham, before the big one we all remember, well big for the UK

It's actually normal seismic activity

I just want to point out something I just found on the statistics part of the USGS website. its nothing sinister (maybe) but something that struck me as odd. And is definitely a statistical anomonly.

Look at the 4 to 4.9 range happily boucing along aroud the 8000 mark years 2000 to 2003, along come 2004 and bang, up to 10000, then 12000 and stays at 12000 or there abouts until 2006, and then halves the next year

in the same time frame the mini quakes 1 to 109 go from around 1000 a year to almost none and has stayed that way.

OK Crazy time. Is it not also significant that this was also the time period when bush was in his second term!!! eeeeeeeeh!!!

Interesting none the less!




Magnitude 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
8.0 to 9.9 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 4 0 1 0
7.0 to 7.9 14 15 13 14 14 10 9 14 12 16 2
6.0 to 6.9 146 121 127 140 141 140 142 178 168 142 18
5.0 to 5.9 1344 1224 1201 1203 1515 1693 1712 2074 1768 1700 258
4.0 to 4.9 8008 7991 8541 8462 10888 13917 12838 12078 12291 6981 816
3.0 to 3.9 4827 6266 7068 7624 7932 9191 9990 9889 11735 2896 253
2.0 to 2.9 3765 4164 6419 7727 6316 4636 4027 3597 3860 3005 373
1.0 to 1.9 1026 944 1137 2506 1344 26 18 42 21 26 6
0.1 to 0.9 5 1 10 134 103 0 2 2 0 1 0
No Magnitude 3120 2807 2938 3608 2939 864 828 1807 1922 20 6
Total 22256 23534 27454 31419 31194 30478 29568 29685 31777 * 14788 * 1732
Estimated
Deaths 231 21357 1685 33819 228802 82364 6605 712 88011 1787 222531

[edit on 27/202/1010 by JakiusFogg]

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


Remember that one too, I was drunk and sake, at 1am, and the wall pictures stated moving. It even woke the cat up.

I though my nerves had gone!!!!

Needless to say I went to bed straight after that!

I thought this was kind of interesting...

I know that Chile has some active volcano's and I think this is something alot of people are not looking at.

I did a search for "earthquake triggered volcano's" and this is the first thing it brought up:

Volcano eruptions have occurred shortly after earthquakes and they may be linked, but scientists are still debating the topic. Notably, an Andean volcano (Cordon Caulle) began erupting 2 days after the magnitude 9.5 1960 Chile earthquake.

Eruptions of mud volcanoes have occurred in the Andaman Islands following the recent magnitude 9.0 megathrust earthquake. Mud volcanoes consist of surface mud extrusions that vary in size from meters to several kilometers. They sometimes resemble magmatic volcanoes in appearance but they generally consist of low lying mud flows. Mud volcanoes do not involve magma. They emit mud at significantly cooler temperatures than lava, well below the ~800 degrees Celsius temperatures that characterize volcanic eruptions. Eruptions from mud volcanoes can reach heights of several hundred meters and consist of mud and sometimes burning hydrocarbon gasses. They are often associated with gas and oil fields. Mud volcanoes were known to exist in the Andaman Islands before the earthquake and in many other regions of the world.

Deadly mud volcano eruptions are extremely rare because their eruptions generally do not affect large areas. One deadly eruption in Bozdagh, Azerbaijan reportedly killed six shepherds who were camping in the caldera of a mud volcano and about 2,000 of their sheep.

Source

That is taken from the USGS website....

I think we should be monitoring volcanic activity.Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/2/2010 by ArMaP]

I would like to see the video of the sky changing colors in chille

Depth of the 4.4 Oklahoma EQ 3.8 km (2.4 miles)

Afghanista just in?

Im going to bed my heads going to pop!

I wanna see the sky thing too. That really interests me becuase Years ago when i was in like 5th grade there was a bad storm and the sky was turning colors. I remember that day perfectly because after i went back inside i turned on the show signs from god. Has anyone else every seen the sky change color?

The earthquake really was bad.

Good morning everyone. I have a questino about the different quake lists a nd maps this morning.
I was checking out RSO EDIS and it is blinking on New Zealand saying there are a couple of small earthquakes one 3.1 and one 5.1 magnitute. However there's nothing as yet on either
USGS,gov or EMSC-CSEM that I cab see. Who to trust in this instance? Why do they differ in their listings?

thanks

[edit on 28/2/2010 by IAmD1]

reply to post by IAmD1

Good morning,

generally speaking I'd trust USGS and the EMSC over RSOE in terms of their accuracy in reporting precise locations. The RSOE site does take in data from a wide range of sources, though, and sometimes it picks up on events before these others do. So it's well worth keeping an eye on.

In this case, those two new quakes in NZ are both reported by RSOE with a location of "Woodville County", even though one (the 5.1) is located in the SW region of the South Island and the other (the 3.0) is in the NE part of the North Island. However, the magnitudes as well as the given locations on the map are correct, and this can be confirmed by referring to the latest quakes page on geonet.org's NZ website.

The USGS does not generally show smaller events (below M 4.5) on their maps unless they are within US territory. The EMSC's primary function is to report European and Mediterranean region events, so while they do report some outside of that region (especially closer to it), they again tend to exclude smaller ones that are further away.

Considering location, I have seen cases where events reported by RSOE as occurring within Australia have actually been located in the ocean more than 1000 km south... This is probably just because they are getting their first data from Australian-based reporting stations. The whole thing is automated, after all.

Short answer: IMHO the RSOE is a useful resource but in respect of earthquakes, its reports should be checked against local, task-specific data bases where possible.

Mike

reply to post by PuterMan

Hi PuterMan,

thank you for your response and the data. I'm a bit puzzled by it so I'd like to confirm that we are both referring to the same region, namely around where that mag 5.4 occurred yesterday (at 10.896°N, 43.442°W) on the Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge. According to your data, there have been 5 mag 5-plus quakes there in the past year, but my search of the NEIC database turned up different results.

I set the search parameters for a 300km radius circle around the epicentre, with a min mag of 5.0 (and max of 10.0), at any depth, time period from 1/1/1990 to yesterday, and it only turned up 17 quakes. (However, yesterday's quake has not yet be archived into the database.) This figure would tie in quite well with the USGS maps for the region that I referenced. Also -- although this is only my own observation -- I don't recall seeing five mag 5-plus quakes in that specific region of the Northern Mid-Atlantic ridge in the past year, and I check the USGS maps almost daily.

EDIT: I posted a link to my search page with the criteria loaded but after umpteen tries the link still wouldn't set up properly here. So here's the data:

U. S. G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y

E A R T H Q U A K E D A T A B A S E



FILE CREATED: Sun Feb 28 09:04:00 2010
Circle Search Earthquakes= 17
Circle Center Point Latitude: 10.896N Longitude: 43.442W
Radius: 300.000 km
Catalog Used: PDE
Date Range: 1990/01/01 to 2010/02/27
Magnitude Range: 5.0 - 10.0
Data Selection: Historical & Preliminary Data


CAT YEAR MO DA ORIG TIME LAT LONG DEP MAGNITUDE IEM DTSVNWG DIST
NFO km
TF

PDE 1991 03 13 080152.66 12.68 -44.55 10 5.3 MwHRV ..M ....... 231
PDE 1994 01 25 071244.88 10.60 -41.72 29 6.3 MwHRV ..M ....... 191
PDE 1994 08 03 022509.89 12.45 -43.98 10 5.0 mbGS ... ....... 181
PDE 1994 11 30 022815.52 10.77 -41.03 10 5.1 MwHRV ..M ....... 263
PDE 1995 02 02 125353.19 10.74 -42.56 10 5.8 MwHRV ..M ....... 97
PDE 1995 07 25 151326.85 10.70 -41.21 10 5.7 MwHRV ..M ....... 244
PDE 1996 06 02 025209.55 10.80 -42.25 10 7.0 MwHRV ..M ....... 130
PDE 1997 02 24 041702.11 10.82 -43.61 10 5.6 MwHRV ..M ....... 20
PDE 1997 12 01 001032.87 11.20 -43.66 10 5.0 mbGS ... ....... 41
PDE 1997 12 02 044755.62 11.99 -43.82 10 5.0 mbGS ... ....... 127
PDE 1998 02 11 211637.53 10.68 -41.44 10 5.0 mbGS ... ....... 220
PDE 2002 04 14 111702.59 11.95 -44.05 10 5.1 MwHRV ..M ....... 134
PDE 2002 12 15 055623.81 10.82 -43.25 10 5.3 MwHRV ..M ....... 22
PDE 2004 03 08 233911.34 10.48 -43.92 10 6.0 MwGS ..M ....... 69
PDE 2004 05 11 235854.41 12.70 -44.49 10 5.5 MwGS ..M ....... 229
PDE 2008 02 08 093814.10 10.67 -41.90 9 6.9 MwUCMT ..M ....... 170
PDE 2008 07 02 000831.38 12.45 -44.20 10 5.0 MwGCMT ..M ....... 190

Looks ugly as we can't format so well here, but there it is. Due to the data discrepancies, could you please confirm that we are discussing the same quake and region, and if so, what data base you are using? If the NEIC is not the best resource I'd like to know so that I can use a better one.

Many thanks,

Mike

[edit on 28/2/10 by JustMike]

Are these earthqukes a symptom?

Has CERN killed the world?