reply to post by SunSword
I'm in agreement with this.
There APPEARS that are no plants within the old earthquake effected area. A few are on the outskirts, though.
Two things that are important to note though are, one. the New Madrid fault line is extensive and a quake could center anywhere along its hundreds of
miles, so the effected area of the previous quake is of less value than it may seem in evaluating future quake probable effect areas.
A second point, already alluded to is the earlier quake was a 6.0.
That is an extremely mild quake. I was only a mile from a 6.2 several years back near Riverside and it didn't even wake me up (and I was sleeping on
the floor).
For those not familiarized with the antilogarithm used in the Richter scale, just a small difference in the Richter value correlates to a huge
difference in the actual megatons of power. For example, when the Japan quake was upgraded from an 8.9 to a 9.1, that resulted in the megaton power
estimate going from 360 megatons (8.9) to 750 megatons (9.1). More than doubling the probable effects of the earthquake.
The earthquake in Haiti and Christchurch, New Zealand were roughly one half of a megaton or 1/1500th of the power of the Japan quake.
The earlier 6.0 quake in New Madrid was a tenth of a megaton, or 1/7500th of the power of the Japan quake.
So say we have a new quake at New Madrid that is a 7.0, that would be about 50 times the strength of the earlier 6.0, thus comparing the old New
Madrid quake to a new one is of limited value.
But it is of great value in pointing out just how huge the probable effect area would grow with a larger quake.
In regards to the tsunami, SunSword is right on.
Just like Katrina, the disaster there had little to do with the Hurricane, it was the result of the surge (and poor engineering).
Hawk
edit on 15-3-2011 by hawkmoon because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-3-2011 by hawkmoon because: (no reason given)