Magnitude 4.1 Greater Los Angeles Area Saturday, February 13, 2010 at 01:39:06 PM EST

4.1 Ml - GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIF.
Preliminary Earthquake Report Magnitude 4.1 Ml
Date-Time

* 13 Feb 2010 21:39:06 UTC
* 13 Feb 2010 13:39:06 near epicenter
* 13 Feb 2010 16:39:06 standard time in your timezone

Location 34.012N 117.167W
Depth 2 km
Distances

* 5 km (3 miles) S (175 degrees) of Redlands, CA
* 7 km (4 miles) SW (216 degrees) of Mentone, CA
* 9 km (5 miles) ESE (118 degrees) of Loma Linda, CA
* 11 km (7 miles) NNE (31 degrees) of Moreno Valley, CA
* 100 km (62 miles) E (92 degrees) of Los Angeles Civic Center, CA

Location Uncertainty Horizontal: 0.2 km; Vertical 0.5 km
Parameters Nph = 141; Dmin = 6.0 km; Rmss = 0.42 seconds; Gp = 28°
M-type = Ml; Version = 1
Event ID CI 10541957

For updates, maps, and technical information, see: Event Page

There should be a rule about posting earthquakes.

6.0 or better. This isn't anything to worry about.

I believe I read that, and my sincerest apologies, my motivation was the area, being from Florida I've never felt an earthquake as it is.

There should be a rule about posting earthquakes. 6.0 or better. This isn't anything to worry about.

So just to gain some prospective if you don't mind, is 6.0 when they begin to achieve destructive properties?

The request you're suggesting makes perfect sense and I would be obliged to adhere to it.

It honestly depends on how far down the origin of the quake is. The closer it is to the surface the more destructive it is. However a 6.0 is still dangerous no matter how far down.

I guess a 4.1 could be dangerous if it were close to the service when it went off. Sorry if I came off as an a-hole. Long day :\

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Ear-Responsible]

Duly noted, I have my USGS email alert set to 4.0 or higher, I had it set at 6.0 originally, I think after your information I'll return it to 6.0. Thank you for the input.

It also depends on the location. For example, a M4.1 in a very populated area/city or a zone which is very rarely subject to earthquakes might be worth a thread. In most cases though, it's not, and for those there's the 2010 Quake Watch Thread in the Fragile Earth forum section main page.

reply to post by UberL33t


I actually was debating about starting a thread on this little swarm. Not due to the mag, but the cluster of quakes and the location.

I opted to raise the topic however on another quake thread for I figured there would be some responses similar to the one you got.

Granted, the energy released is not alarming but the trend of the quakes raises the question if it is building to something greater and I think it merits some attention.

There have been theories raised about the connection between swarms and the position of the moon. It was predicted for tectonic activity to pick up on the 13th/14th. Not only are we seeing increasing action around the globe, but at two different calderas. If nothing else, it raises some questions and I find it very fascinating.

S & F for you OP

To answer your question, no it does not have to be a 6.0 to be destructive. It depends on where it is, the depth and type of plates involved. There have been lots of damage and death in places from quakes in the 5.0 range. Mother nature is very powerful.

Originally posted by UberL33t
I believe I read that, and my sincerest apologies, my motivation was the area, being from Florida I've never felt an earthquake as it is.

A 4.- whatever earthquake pretty much feels like standing on a freeway overpass or bridge and heavily loaded semi truck rumbles by.



[edit on 13-2-2010 by ..5..]

Quite an interesting cluster too, all located within a few miles of each other and all just south of the San Andreas.

Magnitude, date, time, Lat, Long, Depth, Approximate Location
*1.3 2010/02/14 03:01:27 34.039 -117.330 2.6 3 km ( 2 mi) N of Highgrove, CA
*1.7 2010/02/14 02:14:41 33.984 -117.336 19.1 3 km ( 2 mi) S of Highgrove, CA
1.5 2010/02/14 01:32:07 33.995 -117.183 8.7 7 km ( 4 mi) S of Redlands, CA
1.6 2010/02/14 01:13:40 34.006 -117.189 8.4 6 km ( 4 mi) SSW of Redlands, CA
2.0 2010/02/14 00:48:52 34.006 -117.185 9.0 6 km ( 4 mi) SSW of Redlands, CA
1.7 2010/02/14 00:35:29 33.999 -117.181 6.4 6 km ( 4 mi) S of Redlands, CA
2.1 2010/02/13 23:25:41 34.007 -117.184 8.0 6 km ( 4 mi) SSW of Redlands, CA
1.6 2010/02/13 22:17:06 34.007 -117.272 18.1 5 km ( 3 mi) SSW of Loma Linda, CA
2.5 2010/02/13 22:09:03 34.008 -117.185 7.5 6 km ( 3 mi) SSW of Redlands, CA
1.5 2010/02/13 21:56:49 34.009 -117.175 7.6 5 km ( 3 mi) S of Redlands, CA
1.7 2010/02/13 21:55:21 33.994 -117.214 11.6 7 km ( 4 mi) SSE of Loma Linda, CA
2.5 2010/02/13 21:54:40 34.010 -117.189 5.0 5 km ( 3 mi) SSW of Redlands, CA
1.4 2010/02/13 21:47:24 34.005 -117.180 8.4 6 km ( 4 mi) S of Redlands, CA
1.5 2010/02/13 21:43:22 34.003 -117.188 8.3 6 km ( 4 mi) SSW of Redlands, CA
1.8 2010/02/13 21:42:05 33.970 -117.211 10.5 5 km ( 3 mi) NNE of Moreno Valley, CA
4.1 2010/02/13 21:39:06 34.004 -117.180 8.9 6 km ( 4 mi) S of Redlands, CA

There was one quake earlier near Mt. Baldy that has been removed from the list.

*quakes since 5:32 pm local time

[edit on 2/13/2010 by abecedarian]

[edit on 2/13/2010 by abecedarian]