Another 6.1 Alaska

Another good one in Alaska
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/923c77af35d0.png[/atsimg]

Looks like 2 again but USGS is reporting one so we'll leave it at that unless more info comes in.

quakes.globalincidentmap.com...
23 minutes ago
Magnitude: 6.1
DateTime: Saturday July 16 2011, 19:59:14 UTC
Region: Alaska Peninsula
Depth: 48.2 km

USGS:
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Magnitude 6.1
Location 54.895°N, 161.267°W
Depth 48.2 km (30.0 miles)
Region ALASKA PENINSULA
Distances 70 km (43 miles) SW of Sand Point, Alaska
98 km (60 miles) ESE of Cold Bay, Alaska
971 km (603 miles) SW of Anchorage, Alaska
1674 km (1040 miles) W of WHITEHORSE, Yukon Territory, Canada


No Tsunami Alert so far.
wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov...

Still noticing a slight increase in mag and freq on the Coast.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d95f21142f3e.png[/atsimg]

Yup, just had it on the weather channel cause a bad tstorm and it just broke. I live in the south, so I don't know how bad a 6.1 is.

Originally posted by JAGx1981
Yup, just had it on the weather channel cause a bad tstorm and it just broke. I live in the south, so I don't know how bad a 6.1 is.

It all depends on whether it's on land, depth, etc, but I always hope someone from the area can see the thread and give us a first hand report.

I've been through a couple of 6s (6.4-6.5) in Central California, near Coalinga. The shaking is pretty intense, and I remember one time I was sitting at a large round table, and it appeared the other side of the table was several feet above me. In my experience, 6s are kind of cool to experience, and there was no significant damage to anything in our area.

That is considered to be a moderate to large quake and has potential to cause damage depending on the location and depth. Alaska is certainly no stranger to large quakes...they consistently have 7's.

This one is quite deep out under the peninsula, so I would guess (yes, guess) that any damage would be minor.

Originally posted by westcoast
That is considered to be a moderate to large quake and has potential to cause damage depending on the location and depth. Alaska is certainly no stranger to large quakes...they consistently have 7's.

This one is quite deep out under the peninsula, so I would guess (yes, guess) that any damage would be minor.

Yeah, that area is also largely uninhabited as well so that's good.

I still have that icky (technical term?) feeling that those 6 and 7 mags are going to crawl down the West Coast soon tho.

Took this shot yesterday:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d1abaf37c0f5.png[/atsimg]

this is just my observation


sorry for the crappy art, but my interpretation is that all of the that stress being released in alaska and socal is funneling energy into juan de fuca

Originally posted by yourmaker
this is just my observation

sorry for the crappy art, but my interpretation is that all of the that stress being released in alaska and socal is funneling energy into juan de fuca

edit on 16-7-2011 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)

hmmm.

This was mine a week ago:

reply to post by jude11


So I'll share a couple of maps with you that I made. If you've gone over my putting it all together thread, you've already seen these.

Basically, I think that you are seeing it for what it is. People really need to 'pan out' when looking at quakes, and not only have a basic understanding of the known tectonics at work (which plates, etc) but also what COULD be possible. One of the best tools in geology is the past....really, the only one (IMO). The trick is to reading it right. No, I do not have any kind of degree in this, so please don't think I am an authority on anything. I'm just someone who has 'looked' at this area for quite awhile and have a basic education in geology and a vast interest.

So anyways, the following is a 'seismic/tsunami risk map' I made by going back over the historical quakes listed for the region for the past decade. I left off Alaska and California on this because a the time I was concentrating on my own coastline: (please keep in mind that this was my own creation. There are a bunch of formal maps put out there by agencies. This is just a connect the dots.)





So a day or two after making the above map, it aided in my 'lightbulb' moment. It suddenly made sense to me. Basically, my theory (again a disclaimer that I am sure I am not the first nor the last to think of this. In fact, I am quite certain that if accurate, the government is well aware of it. How could they NOT be? I am certainly no genius) is that the Cascadian Subduction Zone does not stop in Northern California, but continues UNDER california....all the way through and out the other side into the gulf of California, Mexico. I think that the San Andreas Fault is a symptom. The last mega thrust quake was off the coast of Washington, around the same time that they think the San Andreas formed. I believe that it is a stress fracture...caused by the upheaval of the land from the subducting plates beneath it. Here is another, very rough map showing where I think it is:



The red lines indicate where the currently accepted boundaries are for the subduction zone.

Now, take this concept into careful consideration and look at the current seismic map of the states from USGS:

USGS map

You have a clear line of quakes in California following the San Andreas Fault. Now...look just east of it. There is another, very clear line of quakes that follows my above map...right down through the gulf of California. Look at the world map and you'll see they have lots of quakes further south too...the lines goes on. Look at Nevada. More quakes clustered just east of where I think the subduction zone is. This would make sense.

I really feel that the next major, destructive mega thrust subduction quake is going to be right through the middle of california. I am not trying to fear monger with that comment, only convey a very, very strong feeling based on history, observation, and a gut feeling. This isn't complete quack science either. A bit of research will show that I am not alone in my thoughts...the problem though with the field of geology is that there are very few 'professionals' willing to step outside the box. Careers are quickly ended. Also, think about it. What do you think would happen if a USGS scientist, or the US Government came forward saying that there could be a seismic event at any time that would literally tear California in half? Say bye-bye to the US economy.