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.

 

Another large quake hits Christchurch New Zealand

page: 20
78
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 



I'm more worried that you think that driving New Zealand into poverty is a good idea! :p

there were massive earthquakes and volcanic erruptions in BNew Zealand long before mining - Rangitoto, Lake Taupo, Wellington in 1855 - that was 8.2 MM!




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   


I'm more worried that you think that driving New Zealand into poverty is a good idea! :p

there were massive earthquakes and volcanic erruptions in BNew Zealand long before mining - Rangitoto, Lake Taupo, Wellington in 1855 - that was 8.2 MM!


Two points. One, yes it is worth discussing the economic disaster and the way it will be handled following the Christchurch earthquake. Two. The anomaly that is the two earthquake events in Christchurch.


New Zealand's economic situation and and the wealth /poverty gap in the country are both directly associated with the drive to profit which is the apparent prime shaper of the government policies. The earthquake in Christchurch will simply ratchet up those problems immensely. So talking about issues of poverty and economic policy is very to the point of how this catastrophe will impact not only the Canterbury region in the South Island but all of Aotearoa.

The real anomaly appears to be the new fault first the Greendale fault, which appeared in the first earthquake in September 2010 that wreaked havoc on the area. Either this new earthquake epicentre indicates the Greendale fault has grown longer or it is the second newly revealed faultline. Either way one thing is certain, Christchurch and the surrounding settlement were not built to withstand earthquakes.

The very fact the settlement hired architects of the gothic stone and brick buildings the place is famous for when they knew damn well they would be sitting on sand, silt, and gravel i.e. an alluvial bed should be evidence enough earthquakes were never expected in Christchurch. It does seem the MSN are instructed to repeat ad nauseum this totally untrue line, that Christchurch people are used to earthquakes. They are not. They were still in shock over the September 2010 event when the latest one hit them. In New Zealand and Australia, it is pretty well taken for granted one of the reasons people decide to live or particularly to retire in Christchurch, is to live in beautify NZ in a location where there is not the threat of earthquakes!!

Even the most recent buildings in the CBD, the ones you see pancaked and tilting were not built with earthquakes in mind, and you must remember this is NZ the country with the most advanced anti earthquake building techniques put into use anywhere in the world, in Wellington. .

That is the other part of the anomaly.

The earth quakes in Christchurch were simply totally unexpected by authorities in NZ.

As for those ancient and extinct volcanoes forming the harbours around Christchurch. Well they are just that, extinct.
edit on 23-2-2011 by Tallone because: Added the last bit



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
wow just watched the latest update. 238 missing. Up to 120 within the CTV building and 22 at the Cathedral. 76 confirmed. Very bad situation unfolding in Christchurch.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tallone


I'm more worried that you think that driving New Zealand into poverty is a good idea! :p

there were massive earthquakes and volcanic erruptions in BNew Zealand long before mining - Rangitoto, Lake Taupo, Wellington in 1855 - that was 8.2 MM!


Two points. One, yes it is worth discussing the economic disaster and the way it will be handled following the Christchurch earthquake. Two. The anomaly that is the two earthquake events in Christchurch.


there's a difference betwen discussing the economic implications and suggesting that NZ shuold not do any mining whatsoever!

The first is quiet reasonable, as yuo say. the second is not, as I say.


The very fact the settlement hired architects of the gothic stone and brick buildings the place is famous for when they knew damn well they would be sitting on sand, silt, and gravel i.e. an alluvial bed should be evidence enough earthquakes were never expected in Christchurch. It does seem the MSN are instructed to repeat ad nauseum this totally untrue line, that Christchurch people are used to earthquakes. They are not. They were still in shock over the September 2010 event when the latest one hit them. In New Zealand and Australia, it is pretty well taken for granted one of the reasons people decide to live or particularly to retire in Christchurch, is to live in beautify NZ in a location where there is not the threat of earthquakes!!


thre is a difference to there being "no threat" from earthquakes, and no earthquakes at all.

I lived in Chch for 32 years until 1995, and I was quite used to earthquakes - they ahppen all the time - every year....but they happen in the Sthn Alps, on hte West Coast, in hte Nth Isdland - and what we felt was the tremors from those distant epicentres.

so as far as I am concerned yes christchurch IS used to earthquakes.


Even the most recent buildings in the CBD, the ones you see pancaked and tilting were not built with earthquakes in mind, and you must remember this is NZ the country with the most advanced anti earthquake building techniques put into use anywhere in the world, in Wellington. .


there was significant earthquake strengthening of the old english "Gothic" stone buildings through eh 1980's and 90's - but they were strengthened for the expected earthquakes - not for these ones.

And AFAIK it is the same with teh earthquake provisions of the modern buildings - they were built to a standard - and the standard has been well and truly beaten by recent events!

I expect the Standards in Chch will now be revised along the lines of Wellington's - maybe even stronger as it seems the Chch faults are much more active than the Wellington ones.

as far as I have seen the vast majority of the damage in Chch is to older buldings - brick construction in particular has proved utterly inadequate. I am not sure how old the CTV building is(was) - my impression is that is would be 30+ years from my dim memory of that corner....I may be wrong...., but the Forsyth Barr one that the stairs fell on is at least 20 years old. the PGG one was 30+ years.


The earth quakes in Christchurch were simply totally unexpected by authorities in NZ.


The MAGNITUDE of the earthquakes was unexpected (or ground acceleration or whatever the technical term is for how much the buildings actually moved/shook)....the existance of some shaking of Chch is well known.



edit on 23-2-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: crappy spelling



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
And the dark side of humanity doesn't take long to surface

Quake scam websites flourish

missing woman's house burgled

Phone generators stolen



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   


thre is a difference to there being "no threat" from earthquakes, and no earthquakes at all.




there's a difference betwen discussing the economic implications and suggesting that NZ shuold not do any mining whatsoever!

The first is quiet reasonable, as yuo say. the second is not, as I say.

Thanks for your reply.

I know Christchurch very well. I take your points but don't entirely agree with your conclusion. Earthquakes in Christchurch up until September last year were not expected. Yes, history shows they occured, but over 100 years they have been scarce, and relatively small. The largest occurred 70 years ago almost right under the city. It did some damage. Here's a general summary of earthquakes in the area.

www.nzherald.co.nz...

People choose to retire in Christchurch and other similarly supposed earthquake free areas in the South Island to avoid earthshaking events, amongst other reasons like lower living costs and the natural beauty. They also retire their to purchase the beautiful grand old houses that up until now are some of the oldest largest surviving examples in NZ. Maybe these people can be accused of being misinformed.

Yes, there are earthquakes near the alpine faultline. Early construction in settlements along the alpine fault reflect the possibilities of earthquakes in the vicinity. You don't find large stone or brick buildings in settlements along it for that reason. They are all wood.

Authorities obviously did not expect quakes at all.

That is not to say authorities should not have adequately prepared for quakes. They bloody well should have. Yes, the city is not so far from a very large fault line running along the Southern Alps. Those newer buildings you mentioned that have collapsed were built around or after the Beehive went up in Wellington, that was in 1969. Ask yourself why they didn't stand up? The buildings in Wellington built in the same era you would think would be designed to stand up at least to an earthquake or tsunami with similar horizontal force. Why not also in Christchurch. Why are the codes not uniform around the country for buildings of similar sizes and purposes?

In Christchurch at the time of building the old cathedral and its stone and brick counterparts earthquakes were not even a consideration. When they built the most recent buildings you see pancaked and tilting earthquakes were again not a consideration, at least not one taken seriously. Certainly not by those who review the building codes in Christchurch, or the architects who designed the buildings that collapsed so very badly. The sideways action of the earthquake is one of the reasons buildings in known earthquake prone areas such as Wellington are on rubber and bearing cushions. Those collapsed buildings in Christchurch were not.

The tilting of the Hotel Grand Chancellor is the result of the liquefaction. This is a phenomenon related to the type of soil base, usually it happens where there is a high sandy type content. Christchurch is sitting on sand, silt and gravel. That is just a fact. They knew about this composition when they built the Hotel Grand. They did not forsee earthquakes? No they simply did not want to fork money for the kind of safety measures they should have. They weighed up the likelihood and shrugged it off in the interest of a bigger profit from construction.

Any kind of earthquake resulting in a degree of liquefaction is counted as a threat to building construction and measures are taken. These building safety measures always allow for much higher level threats than are considered likely. These measures were just not considered when that hotel was built.

That is simply evident.

Which all goes to one of the main points I am making above. The implications this has for people in the affected region who now face hardship because they do not have the money repair their lives. The fault lies with the profit motive all along. This will make a lot of people uncomfortable but the question they should be asking is why have those newer buildings collapsed so utterly in a country prone to earthquakes. Because even though Christchurch was considered (wrongly as it turns out) to be safe from quakes the same building standards should be in place throughout the nation. It is after all not made up of states with their own governing bodies making their own rules as say is the case across the Tasman.

People need to ask the question why were the bulk of the people who have died killed in the 'NEW' buildings? In a country with some of the most rigorous earthquake safety standards in the world? They should have been strong enough to withstand this quake better. Note - I did not say withstand it full stop. They should not have pancaked. Should not be tilting.

The reason this disaster is so bad is because profit incentives were prioritised over the safety, no, the lives of people - and not because no one foresaw the possibility of such an earthquake.

BTW the mining disaster on the coast is precisely because of the same reason. Costs were cut right from the beginning. That is another thread though. If you want to start one up on the Pike River mine I will bring the evidence.


edit on 23-2-2011 by Tallone because: You included your own words as part of my quote at the top of your post I am replying to. Deleted that part.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I know I am not qualified to speak to the engineering in most of the buildings, however, the fact that -more- of the buildings are not pancaked; tells me the engineers knew what they were doing.

Were shortcuts taken in construction, only experts and time can say.

However, a horizontal load of one gravity due to the shallowness of the quake, is going to test any structure to it's limits. Since I've yet to hear say of any engineer coming out and saying 'We plan for that sort of load at any given time,' or not, I'd be doubtful that we'd fare any better.

Under such conditions, say the 1997 California, we got slammed with a 6.0+ with liquification just 6 months later... things would have been worse.

Until studies show that the engineers were negligent, saying they designed badly for the environment is foolish.

M.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tallone

People need to ask the question why were the bulk of the people who have died killed in the 'NEW' buildings?


AFAIK that is simply not true - the PGG bulding is at least 30 years old, and I think the CTV one is a simlar vintage if not older.



In a country with some of the most rigorous earthquake safety standards in the world? They should have been strong enough to withstand this quake better. Note - I did not say withstand it full stop. They should not have pancaked. Should not be tilting.


you provided your own answer already - nothing this strong has ever been experienced in Chch, and so chch's building code does not (did not) require as much earthquake strengthening as Wellington.

that said, some buildings are built to standards that sound similar to Wellingtons- the Airport control tower, for example (ie the tall building at he centre of the airport, not the radar centre 4 km away) is mounted on bearings and was completely unaffected - they did not evacuate or suffer any damage.

I don't know why you don't realise that you ahve provided your own answer!


The reason this disaster is so bad is because profit incentives were prioritised over the safety, no, the lives of people - and not because no one foresaw the possibility of such an earthquake.


That's just nonsense - where do you get he idea that an earthquake like this was expected?? you yourself have said it was not - make up your mind!!

building standards arpound New Zealand reflect what is expected in the immediate area - wher earthquakes are expected there is a much more rigorous standard relating to protecting from them - there is NO overall NZ earthquake standard - the relevant part of the building code (section B1.3.3) says

"Account shall be taken of all physical conditions likely to affect the stability of buildings, building elements and sitework, including:

(f) earthquake"

so there it is - you have to take into account the physical conditions "likely to affect" stability - given no nearby faultlines chch buildings weer not built to withstand strong earth movements even though the city does record a lot of shaking


This article sumis it up - yes you can build to withstand earthquakes - they do so in Chile, Japan and Southern California, and given the list I think New Zealand probably does not have the strictest codes in this regard!


BTW the mining disaster on the coast is precisely because of the same reason. Costs were cut right from the beginning. That is another thread though. If you want to start one up on the Pike River mine I will bring the evidence.


why don't you raise a new thread if you think so - it's got f-all to do with the earthquake so you should not try to hijack this one.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
- nothing this strong has ever been experienced in Chch, and so chch's building code does not (did not) require as much earthquake strengthening as Wellington.

that said, some buildings are built to standards that sound similar to Wellingtons- the Airport control tower, for example (ie the tall building at he centre of the airport, not the radar centre 4 km away) is mounted on bearings and was completely unaffected - they did not evacuate or suffer any damage.


Do you realize we are agreeing here on two points?

Refrain from misquoting me though. I did not say NZ has "the strictest codes". I said


In a country with some of the most rigorous earthquake safety standards in the world?


And I am correct. The NZ building codes are some of the most rigorous in the world.

"Expect" and 'know' are two entirely different things.

People did not expect an earthquake. Locals knew a moderate quake had happened 80 years ago but did not expect it again. Maybe they should have but that is simply the way it is. People prior to September 2010 have not expected an earthquake more than a tremor the result perhaps of a moderate quake from the Alpine fault. Much newer arrivals, people who chose to settle in ChCh do not expect an earthquake anything more than a tremor.

Authorities are a different matter. I am not necessarily pointing the finger at building expectors either. I mean the people who hold the purse strings in governing bodies and their own 'overlords' if you like.

They obviously did not expect an earthquake prior to September 2010, but they ought to have ensured buildings were up to scratch for one just in case. That is their job.

I stand corrected on the date of construction of the PGC and CTV buildings. They were actually built around 50 years ago. Well before the Beehive was constructed. But the point I wish to underline here is this. Authorities do checks on these buildings. In fact they only very recently completed a check on these after the September earthquake! The question must be asked very loudly why were these buildings declared safe?! After September authorities expected another big earthquake! Yet they okayed these buildings. Why? Its quite simple. It was more profitable to the city not to disrupt the ongoing flow of business to ensure people would be safe based on the worst scenerio. Now this question came up on Aussie TV last night. The Ngaire Button is ChCh deputy mayor and she was asked on Lateline this very question. And she simply said she did not know. Well someone does.

Since September 2010 scientists have been warning of a large magnitude quake in ChCh last year. You can find warnings from scientists on the Internet with google.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

You appear to think the hand of God smotes when and where it will and we simply accept. This is not what science says. We can prepare for these things to happen because we can know the likelihood and take measures. Unfortunately we have a system in place that ignores good scientific advice and rationalises on the basis of profit rather than the safety of citizens.

edit on 24-2-2011 by Tallone because: My baaaad grammar.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I realise mining in NZ creates jobs.....and it also kills people too. When this is all said and done there's a bombshell of information out there and the Kiwis (especially the population of CHCH) will have to make some tough decisions - jobs or lives?
edit on 24-2-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by karmajayne
 


There is always going to be that risk in any quake this size or bigger. I never give up hope for any survivors for up to 14 days after the fact. There is a company in Auckland making great strides on robotics and I think we should consider building this type of technology for quake search and rescue teams.

I'm not sure what the Japanese has brought with them but I'm sure they have some darn good technology on board.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 


Mount Cook is not a volcano.....

now someone correct me if I'm wrong but Lake Taupo is above a large crator and is probably the largest volcano in NZ (?); they say it's extinct but there was some movement under it just recently but no one probably noticed.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Lake Taupo IS the volcanic crater
or whats left of it after it went up around 26,000 years ago... it was an eruption that was off the charts more or less. Kinda scary considering its not actually extinct, and has violently erupted a number of times since then.

If it ever went off like it did back then with humans being still around, id say the North Island could kiss its backside good bye.



The 180 eruption was one of the largest in recorded history. The skies and sunsets formed from this eruption were noted by Roman and Chinese observers. Any possible climatic effects of the eruption would have been concentrated on the southern hemisphere due to the southerly position of Lake Taupo.


Kinda makes you rethink your mental image of 'home' somewhat thinking about it. Especially when like myself you live only about 100km drive from it.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Statistically Lake Taupo should erupt every 980 Yrs Last Eruption was in 186 AD (Research Hatepe eruption). So in the last 27,000 yrs we have had 28 Eruptions.

This also includes the worlds largest explosion in the last 70,000 yrs. About 24,500 BC.

Personally I would worry about places like, Indonesia, New Zealand, Iceland. Which do have some monster Calderas that do erupt very regular.


Don't forget White Island, where ,part of the crater wall is now at sea level. We all know what happens when water drops onto a frying pan with oil. I would not want to be in the Bay of Plenty when that goes.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tallone
[. In fact they only very recently completed a check on these after the September earthquake! The question must be asked very loudly why were these buildings declared safe?! After September authorities expected another big earthquake! Yet they okayed these buildings. Why? Its quite simple.


Yeah - ther was no obvious damage and they were as safe as could be established.


It was more profitable to the city not to disrupt the ongoing flow of business to ensure people would be safe based on the worst scenerio. Now this question came up on Aussie TV last night. The Ngaire Button is ChCh deputy mayor and she was asked on Lateline this very question. And she simply said she did not know. Well someone does.


god that is just so much bull# - by your logic no-one should have been allowed back at work in chch after September until every building was torn down and rebuilt so strong that it would nevver fall down.

You are a sensationalist muck raker.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   


enough said
edit on 24/2/2011 by Ashyr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
If only the Christchurch city council had a subscription to predictweather.com, they could have read this article on the 14th. Predict Weather Then kept people away from the big old building's until the 25th. Heaps of Christchurch people in Nelson now, the supermarkets were getting low last night and all the motels are full.
edit on 24-2-2011 by paddz420 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by paddz420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ashyr
 


That proves nothing, it's not empirical, gods it's not even circumstantial :/



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tallone
[Refrain from misquoting me though. I did not say NZ has "the strictest codes". I said


In a country with some of the most rigorous earthquake safety standards in the world?



I didn't quote you.


(the powers that be....) They obviously did not expect an earthquake prior to September 2010, but they ought to have ensured buildings were up to scratch for one just in case. That is their job.


what else should the poswers-that-be make sure we are protected from that they have no expectation of ever happening? Make all buildings up to 30km inland able to float away in case of tsunami perhaps? Or able to withstand a direct hit from a 100mt nuke - because we know one of those was built.....or perhaps 250mt just in case one gets built some time?? Why not build for high snow loadings in Northland - just in case there's a snowstrom in the sub-tropical north??

People berate beuaracrats for excessive requirements - and then you whine that mother nature generated something stronger than we ever expected??



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I just wanted to let Cch and all Kiwis know that this quake prone Californian is thinking of you and sending good vibes your way. I have family on the North and South Islands and it wrenches my heart to see this devastation. In fact I find it difficult to watch the coverage. We are all here just a short while, so we should love and care for each other while we can.

Much respect and admiration for the courageous Search and Rescue crews (dogs too!) and the medical personel.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join