Wow! significant small earthquakes all over U.S. West Coast last 36 hours

Already proven false as it dose not relieve stress.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

"You can prevent large earthquakes by making lots of small ones, or by "lubricating" the fault with water"

FICTION: Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are about 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5's, 1000 magnitude 4's, and 32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are far too few to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake. As for "lubricating" faults with water or some other substance, if anything, this would have the opposite effect. Injecting high- pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes—to cause them to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. This would be a dangerous pursuit in any populated area, as one might trigger a damaging earthquake.

That is only saying that lubricating them could be dangerous. Not that small quakes lead to large ones, which is what was being refuted. Smaller quakes DO relieve pressure on fault lines. It doesn't eliminate the need for faults to have larger slips, but no one is saying it is 'false' that they relieve pressure.

Originally posted by czygyny

Yep, been watching since around '98, the map looks normal to me...and you WANT lots of little quakes because that is pressure being released and not stored up for a big 'rip'.

location needs to be calculated in on this theory. If all your little quakes are on the San Andreas and south of Eureka, CA then it's actually increasing pressure on the Juan de Fuca and north Cal/Oregon subduction area.

reply to post by TheUniverse


Oh crap..thanks for posting this...I didn't realize I was smack dab in the middle of a nuclear clusterf**k....

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by czygyny

Yep, been watching since around '98, the map looks normal to me...and you WANT lots of little quakes because that is pressure being released and not stored up for a big 'rip'.

location needs to be calculated in on this theory. If all your little quakes are on the San Andreas and south of Eureka, CA then it's actually increasing pressure on the Juan de Fuca and north Cal/Oregon subduction area.

Yes, but I am speaking in generalities as it applies to the whole state. The number of quakes on the map at the moment looks about the same as an average week.

I also saw some minor activity on and about Mt. Shasta, recently, something I rarely ever see---and avidly watch considering it is not far from where I live--but even that has quieted down.

You should always be prepared for local disaster no matter what the flavor, but to be anxious all the time is deadly.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by dreamfox1

 

I agree. It's been interesting to watch the patterns day after day. There were small quakes moving gradually up the San Andreas but none north of Eureka (at the Mendocino Triple Junction). Then suddenly there were some 4s in Canada West Coast (north end of Juan de Fuca fault), now all over the region. I don't know enough about the trends to speculate with any validity but sure seems like it's leading to a major quake on Northern Cali coast to me.

It seems to me that the area you mentioned is due or should I say overdue . The ring of fire has been going off in a circular type motion and given the fact Alaska had a 7.3 about ten days ago it seems logical that they or northern cal will get the next big one but one never knows.

That is only saying that lubricating them could be dangerous. Not that small quakes lead to large ones, which is what was being refuted. Smaller quakes DO relieve pressure on fault lines. It doesn't eliminate the need for faults to have larger slips, but no one is saying it is 'false' that they relieve pressure.






The flip side of that coin is that the smaller quakes can cause more stress or binding in an area leading to a major quake.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Checking the live incident map since the 5.8 east coast quake, as I have been doing for months, and I can longer find the yellow, older earthquakes listed, just wondering why they disappeared then, when so many more people might be checking into the site for the first time, just seems odd.