reply to post by PrinceDreamer
there have been continuous earth quakes in the UK for as long as earthquakes have been measured
There have been continuous earthquakes in Japan for quite a spell, too
Does that mean the 'land slip' and tsunami shouldn't have happened ?
Oh, but it did, allegedly
Who gains is the only issue
Who gains ?
And who'd gain if an 'unprecedented subterranean subsidance '
resulted in a crippled Sellafield ?
So easy to 'explain' after the fact. The programmed-to-fear masses will buy almost anything these days, won't they ?
For example, some years ago, there was an earthquake in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
In early 2007 a United States academic claimed that coal mining in the region triggered the earthquake, although earthquake
activity has been present in the area at least since white settlement first occurred. This is in addition to reports by the former head of
Geosciences Australia's earthquake monitoring group, Dr David Denholm, who stated that the Newcastle earthquake was some distance from mining
"The depths of the focus of the earthquake was about 13, 14 kilometres, whereas the ones associated with mining, they're actually right close to the
mine, because that's where the stress release takes place".
Wonder what that
what all about, huh ? Close to 20 years after the event
the United States
took it upon itself to
contradict the head of Australia's Geoscience re: the cause of the earthquake
We'll never know, will we ?
Just as most are unaware that during that same period (decades ago) the United States forced (according to reports) the Phillipines to host a nuclear
reactor. And if memory serves, the United States granted itself the contract to construct it. Only to find that the reactor had been constructed on
a rumbling volcano. This rendered the nuclear reactor unusable of course. But the report did go on to say that the Phillipino government was
compelled to pay millions of dollars per month to the United States contractors in interest alone. For of course the Phillipines had been forced to
take out a loan to pay for the nuclear facility they were forced to buy. Interesting, isn't it ?
But back to Newcastle. Some believe it was used as a form of ' persuasion ' by the United States of Israel against the much smaller, less powerful
Or, it may be that back in 1989 when the Newcastle earthquake occurred, they didn't quite have the level of expertise with HAARP and associated
technology as they have today. Who knows -- Newcastle is only 167 kilometres from Sydney
Strange sort of earthquake, too, all considered.
The 1989 Newcastle earthquake was a Richter magnitude 5.6 earthquake that occurred in Newcastle, New South Wales on 28 December 1989, at 10:27
am. It was one of Australia's most serious natural disasters, killing 13 people and injuring more than 160. The damage bill has been estimated at
A$4 billion (including an insured loss of about $1 billion). The Newcastle earthquake was the first Australian earthquake in recorded history to
claim human lives.
The effects were felt over an area of around 200,000 square kilometres (77,220 sq mi) in the state of New South Wales, with isolated reports of
movement in areas up to 800 kilometres (497 mi) from Newcastle. Damage to buildings and facilities was reported over an area of 9,000 km2 (3,475 sq
and ALL THAT caused ---- according to ' United States academic' --- by coal mining
Which would seem to support the OP's theory that shale drilling off the coast of Blackpool may well
be responsible for the recent and much
smaller quake experienced by Blackpool
Certainly worth keeping an eye on, anyway. And of course --- we will
edit on 1-4-2011 by Dock9 because: bit of general tidying up