-
A new feature has been added to the Xenforo software - Shoutbox. A quick chat platform
- Weather and Chasing
- Earth Science
- Status
Jordan Hartley
Well nice to report activity has really dropped off over the last couple of days. After all, I started this thread to point out that we were going through an active time of big quakes. 8 major quakes within a 45 day time period is a swarm of big quakes. Similar to active periods of severe weather that we commonly have here in the United States. All I was trying to point out.Jordan Hartley
Magnitude 7.0 - LOYALTY ISLANDS
2011 January 13 16:16:41 UTC
This event has been reviewed by a seismologist. Magnitude 7.0 Date-Time Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 16:16:41 UTC Friday, January 14, 2011 at 03:16:41 AM at epicenter Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location 20.617°S, 168.489°E Depth 5.9 km (3.7 miles) Region LOYALTY ISLANDS Distances 125 km (80 miles) NNE of Tadine, Loyalty Islands, New Caledonia 135 km (85 miles) SSW of Isangel, Tanna, Vanuatu
285 km (180 miles) NE of NOUMEA, New Caledonia 1755 km (1090 miles) ENE of BRISBANE, Queensland, Australia Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 13.7 km (8.5 miles); depth +/- 0.5 km (0.3 miles)
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc00012cx/
Darren Addy
EF5
3 before the middle of the month of Jan. is a statistically torrid pace of 7.0 or greater quakes.Jordan Hartley
Indeed, want to point out that you have to go back to last month to see where it started. 7.0 earthquakes were occurring once every 25-35 days last year until Dec where there have been 9 significant earthquakes 6.5 or greater. 5 of which being 7.0+. U hit the nail right on the head Darren this is a torrid pace. The last 45 days have truly been something else
Luckily there has been no major loss of property or life... yet. If this trend continues its only a matter of time before a big one strikes near a populated area somewhere around the world which we all are hoping wont happen.Last edited by a moderator:Jordan Hartley
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110118...uX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA21hZ25pdHVkZTc0cQ--
Magnitude 7.4 - SOUTHWESTERN PAKISTAN
2011 January 18 20:23:18 UTC
Magnitude 7.4 (Preliminary magnitude — update expected within 15 minutes) Date-Time Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 20:23:18 UTC Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 01:23:18 AM at epicenter Location 28.940°N, 63.930°E
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program Region SOUTHWESTERN PAKISTAN Distances 55 km (34 miles) W (271°) from Dalbandin, Pakistan 263 km (164 miles) W (269°) from Kalat, Pakistan 301 km (187 miles) ESE (102°) from Zahedan, Iran 793 km (493 miles) NE (41°) from MUSCAT, Oman
Big quake strikes Pakistan. Make that 4 7.0 quakes since the beginning of the year. This is a horrible pace...
***Update***
Magnitude 7.2 - SOUTHWESTERN PAKISTAN
2011 January 18 20:23:26 UTC Depth 84 km (52.2 miles) set by location programLast edited by a moderator:Dennis Dennison
8 - 5.0 or above quakes yesterday worldwideJordan Hartley
Its been very quite in terms of big quakes across the world for a couple of weeks now with no 6.5 or greater quakes occurring since Jan 18. Which tells me there was something to this latest swarm that we just dont understand yet. I remember at the height of the swarm there were over 300 quakes that had occurred during a 7 day period so it was fairly active. Did want to mention a somewhat large quake occurred just off the west coast near Oregon within the last 24 hrs. Largest earthquake on the west coast for a while now at least.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/usb0001atx.php
Darren Addy
EF5
A 6.5 and a 6.7 at the same location (under the ocean) just 2-1/2 minutes apart. That coulda been a big one if it had been one single shift of the plates!
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/125_5.phpMatthewCarman
Earthquake swarms have occured in the past. The last time the New Madrid fault in the midwest really went active there was over 200 earthquakes in a 2 year period. Five of the quakes were 8.0 or higher. It is scary tot hink about that happening again.Jordan Hartley
Magnitude 6.8 - OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
2011 February 11 20:05:31 UTC
Magnitude6.8 Date-Time Friday, February 11, 2011 at 20:05:31 UTC Friday, February 11, 2011 at 05:05:31 PM at epicenter Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones Location 36.479°S, 73.000°W
Depth 28 km (17.4 miles) set by location program Region OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE Distances 45 km (30 miles) N of Concepcion, Bio-Bio, Chile 80 km (50 miles) SW of Cauquenes, Maule, Chile 85 km (55 miles) WNW of Chillan, Bio-Bio, Chile
395 km (245 miles) SSW of SANTIAGO, Region Metropolitana, Chile
So we go a couple of weeks without a big quake and then 3 within 24 hrs hehe funny how this stuff works. Pacific plate is very active right now. (Not that its ever not active that goes without saying of course)Last edited by a moderator:Jordan Hartley
I think its safe to go ahead and reset this thread after what has occurred in the last 48 hours. The before mentioned swarm was a very steep spike in big quakes across the world over a 30 day period. We then went about a month without a big quake, then we had the Christchurch, New Zealand quake last month and now the big one. There is something going on no one can argue this now. What it is exactly who knows. But if it walks, talks, eats, breaths, and ***** like a duck well then its a duck.
Edit: I guess there were a few other big quakes not mentioned above. Simply put you look at the numbers and it all lead to this. Sadly this could be the beginning of big quakes occurring all over the pacific more frequently in the coming months. After all its already happening. And you know this swarm goes back a lot further than a couple of months. This is 2 8.8 or greater earthquakes on opposite ends of the pacific plate within 13 months of each other.
Take a look at the pace were on right now. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Weberpal
EF5
Actually, we do know what it is. Plates are moving like they have been since they were created.
In 2010 there were 21 7.0-7.9 earthquakes, the average is 18; only 3 more than normal. The 10 years prior to 2010 were ALL below normal - things have a way of averaging out.
This isn't unprecedented; in 1970 and 1971 there were 20 and 19 major earthquakes respectively - it looks like we're in another similar period.
From the USGS:
The NEIC now locates about 12,000 to 14,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 50 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes. According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 18 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year. However, let's take a look at what has happened in the past 32 years, from 1969 through 2001, so far. Our records show that 1992, and 1995-1997 were the only years that we have reached or exceeded the long-term average number of major earthquakes since 1971. In 1970 and in 1971 we had 20 and 19 major earthquakes, respectively, but in other years the total was in many cases well below the 18 per year which we may expect based on the long-term average.
So according to the USGS, we've been below average for quite some time - the 21 7.0-7.9 earthquakes in 2010 was actually pretty close to the long-term average.
Also of interest:
Earthquake clustering and human psychology. While the average number of large earthquakes per year is fairly constant, earthquakes occur in clusters. This is predicted by various statistical models, and does not imply that earthquakes that are distant in location, but close in time, are causally related. But when such clusters occur, especially when they are widely reported in the media, they are noticed. However, during the equally anomalous periods during which no destructive earthquakes occur, no one deems this as remarkable.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=6&faqID=110
Jeff Snyder
EF5
Excellent point, Scott.
Imagine throwing 20 darts at a dart board. Let's just suppose we could make each throw "random" (say, someone is extremely terrible at darts). We should expect that some darts will be spaced relatively close to each other, while other darts will be more isolated. In completely random systems (EQs are not, but let's stick entirely with random statistics) with limited sample sizes, one should expect heterogeneity that results in clustering, particularly when the sample size is small. It does seem feasible, from a physical standpoint, that some EQs may cluster (in time or space) as a result of the interconnectedness of the fault and plate systems. Strong EQs happen, supervolcanoes happen, and EF5 tornadoes happen.Jordan Hartley
Say what? Also of interest: The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias
One location in Japan just moved 8 feet from its previous location. The earth's axis has shifted by 4" in the last 48 hrs. The west coast is directly affected by the Pacific plate and its activity. Its where all of this activity is occurring. This same thing could happen along the west coast of North America. Its one thing to try to downplay topics such as this when its not happening but things are going on and I feel the need to share whats going on. These big quakes are occurring all over the pacific except along the west coast of Central and North America. Its only a matter of time before it happens alot closer to home. Beings that the USGS cant predict earthquakes I find it interesting your willing to just throw your lot in with an observation-only based government funded agency that is as good at predicting and forecasting seismic activity as Charlie Sheen is trying to convince the world hes not on drugs and the rest of the world is crazyJordan Hartley
Cant argue with that Jeff and you actually make my point for me. These things happen randomly. One thing about "randomness" is this thing called the law of averages and we could be next. This could happen tomorrow, a year from, a 100 years from now im not here to debate it. But a big one just happened and this is why im reseting the thread.
One theory has been floating around out there for a long time now that says seismic activity is somewhat related to the Sun's affect on Earth's magnetic fields kinda of like wind sheer is just one of many things you need to come together for a good setup. There just happened to be activity recently on the Sun that did impact Earth and its magnetic field not just once but twice in the last couple of weeks, one just happened to be the largest solar flare in 4 years. Although leading scientist do not support the theory due to lack of scientific evidence and statistics that just dont show the two lining up together, I wonder if the effects are more long-term rather than short term like a building up affect. I know that if you look at earthquake data and compare it with a solar cycle the two do actually start to line up when it comes to larger quakes. Yes activity is balancing itself out when it comes to averages over a 10,25,50 year time period. Yet the same science that sets the standard on how we are to view the current events today in relation to the past is not the same science that was around 60 years ago. Technology has changed a lot of things. All we can do beyond 60 years is point to a quake and say this is when it happened, this is what it did. Today scientist are able to determine the most minute of details giving us almost a picture perfect view of the eq like we have never seen before. IMO, 50 years isnt a long enough period to rule out that the Sun has no affect on seismic activity at all. Its easier to say its not there rather than have to prove that it is.
My point exaclty hehe. http://spaceweather.com/Last edited by a moderator:
Darren Addy
EF5
The figure I found was an average of 15. But you also have to count the average earthquakes that are larger (if you are counting everything mag. 7 or larger). So 1 ave. mag 8 or greater (annually) makes a total of 16.
We are 72 days into 2011 and the needle has hit over mag 7 seven times already.
Scott Weberpal
EF5
Magnitude 6.8 - OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
2011 February 11 20:05:31 UTC
So we go a couple of weeks without a big quake and then 3 within 24 hrs hehe funny how this stuff works. Pacific plate is very active right now. (Not that its ever not active that goes without saying of course)
I can understand the confusion given the location of Chile, however, Chile does not border the Pacific plate. At Chile, the Nazca plate subducts under the South American plate. The Pacific plate is not involved with the earthquakes in Chile.
I based "18" off of this from the USGS - I guess someone in their stats department needs to sort this out, lol:
According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 18 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=6&faqID=110J Allen
EF1
Jordan,
If we got worried about these things then nobody in the world would get anything done...Earthquakes, Volcanics, Weather, Astronomic events, Pandemics...theres always something that could potentially wipe us out and you can't get hung up on it. The state of normalcy also has a factor referred to as the "living memory" phenomena, where a disaster is only recalled and prepared for as long as the human memory of the event remains. At the point of an events occurence its fresh in everyones minds, people take action, fund research, set up disaster management etc. Then people get edgy every time a smaller event happens, but gradually the devastating event that caused the action fades from memory, until the next major event comes along and "surprises" people disrupting them from normalcy. We see it time and time again in the Australian bushfire record...1939 Black Friday, 1967 Black Tuesday, 1983 Ash Wednesday, 2009 Black Saturday fires. All of these fires killed more than all the other events in the intervening period...and could be considered to be like an 8 plus magnitude earthquake, and yet despite all the supposed improvements to management the same thing happens, and more people die. The stupid thing about the living memory? The number of people killed by the SW change that is always associated with bushfire conditions, people know right after the event and forget over time...until it happens again.
Yes we know this quake released enough energy to power the world at current levels for 80 years (hint if anyone is smart enough work out a way to utilise that energy), but lets take a second here. Tectonic plates move at cms per year, gradually building stress until such time as there is an explosive release in the form of an earthquake. The problem? We can't predict them with any degree of certainty as the stresses that build are over vast areas which we can't actually monitor. This quake alone moved some 500 miles of crust over 200 miles of width. Thats one heck of a movement (evidenced by the change to the earths axis). One solution is we could relocate all the cities at risk (this includes the US west coast, all of Japan, most of the western pacific subduction zones, and the South American areas near the Andes), but realistically? It costs more to prevent the impact than for people to rebuild, and do some of the preparation necessary. There is going to be an Earthquake in Wellington for sure at some stage in the next 20-50 years, and I will guarantee you it will go 8+ on the Richter scale. But what are you going to do about it? Its impratical to relocate most of the population of NZ, so you just worry about it when it happens.
Realistically WRT to the Pacific plates I would be more concerned if we were seeing action over the Northern and Eastern margins. ATM there is actually a balance going on along the Northern edge of the Australian/Pacific margin. It started with the 2004 Boxing Day Quake, and is currently round to the mid Pacific islands around Tonga, and will eventually get down to NZ and probably trigger the megathrust event near Wellington (which lies astride the main fault plane). It will happen along the San Francisco fault, but as we have seen for Christchurch these things don't follow a particular timeline, and don't always follow known faults, much easier to worry when the time comes and just breathe and get on with life.
Note: Apologies for long and rambling post.Jordan Hartley
Im a little shocked im getting negative feedback on this one. There are nuclear power plants here in the US that are based upon the designs like the ones experiencing problems in Japan that were built on fault lines that have been found. If this happens on such a large scale as we have just seen here its DOOMSDAY for "us" folks. Indian Point here in the United States has 20 million people near its facility. This plant was built very near a fault with a 7.0 risk factor. Try evacuating that many people in a short amount of time and it results in grid lock. Truly you guys are hung up on this anti-doomsday thing and thats not what im here to talk about at all. Its not the end of the world, but we have counted on it not happening for too long. You guys are banking on that too and thats just not how I live. Better to be prepared then caught with your pants down.Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan McGinnis
EF5
I think you're getting negative feedback because you're equating a so-far minor nuclear emergency in Japan after a Mag 9 quake to DOOMSDAY for US. If we ever have quakes here large enough to damage nuke plants with a tsunami, we've got much bigger problems.
Ever notice how none of the buildings in St. Louis are designed for a magnitude 8 earthquake? And yet quakes strong enough to crack the sidewalks in Washington D.C. have happened in southeastern Missouri in recent history. If a quake that large ever struck again (and it will, eventually), would it potentially cause havoc with the nuclear power plants? Sure. But it'd also be knocking skyscrapers over in Kansas City. i.e., much bigger problems to deal with that we are currently underengineering.
Dan Robinson
EF5
The Fukushima plant's problems were caused by the tsunami taking out the backup generators for the coolant pumps. The facility seemed relativey undamaged by the quake itself, as it was designed. As long as the US plants have comparable earthquake resistance, I wouldn't expect a similar disaster. I agree with Ryan though - when the next major New Madrid event happens, it is going to make all of these recent quakes (Haiti, Japan, Chile, New Zealand) seem minor in comparison when a dozen Midwestern cities are in ruins.Jordan Hartley
Minor nuclear emergency? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/japan-quake-rods-idUSTKB00733720110314 Did you read everything I said. NO YOU DIDNT.
Once again I would like to point out the normalcy bias that runs rampant these days here in this country and with a few of you here on ST. We are facing a huge problem with these nuclear reactors. WE as a planet. Japan is an ally there nuclear problem is the worlds nuclear problem. Our own country is kinda scrambling to figure out what fully went wrong over there to prevent it from happening here.
Jeff Snyder
EF5
That's EXACTLY what should happen! You learn from the shortcomings and inadequacies that are uncovered, and you use these to improve what we have now. All power generation technologies (at least those that are feasible in large-scale production) have faced tough times -- heck, orders of magnitude more people die from coal production (mining, etc.) out year than die from nuclear technology. In the U.S., nuclear technology accounts for ~20% of U.S. electricity generation, compared to ~24% for nat gas and 45% for coal. Despite this, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor's Mining Safety and Health Administration, ~350 people have died in coal mines in the U.S. since 2000, and thousands die each year in China coal mines. Nat gas is fine, but it is not without it's casualties (e.g. 6 people died last year at an explosion at a Nat Gas plant in Connecticut).
I'm not sure this is the normalcy bias as much as being patient and using what we know to avoid getting caught up in "world-case scenarios". We KNOW that, statistically, the number of people who have died from nuclear technology is low compared to other generation technologies like coal. This is NOT to diminish the situation at hand -- this is just to put things into perspective. Calling for the ceasation of nuclear technology seems extraordinarily short-sighted -- it's one of the only technologies that can be deployed on a large enough scale to significantly affect coal production (and serve as a electricity generation to move more vehicles over to electricity to reduce oil and gas consumption).
All I ask is that we do an objective cost-benefit analysis. If safety really is our #1 concern, then we need to look at the safety of ALL current power generation technologies. Coal is a popular choice for electricity generation, but is it any safer than nuclear? Looking at the history of fatalities, I would think "no". In addition, fly ash is radioactive, so I'm interested to see a comparison between the total amount of radiation produced by the world's coal power plants compared to the radiation released by (a) all nuclear plants and (b) the current nuclear situation in Japan.
EDIT: We have some nuclear power generation posts across a couple of threads right now... Perhaps we can split these off into a separate thread so we can keep things organized. I enjoy these discussions, and there's plenty I have to learn, so it'd be good to keep things organized to help foster discussion.Last edited by a moderator:
Dave Gallaher
EF5
A friend of mine is friends with a retired nuclear engineer who has considerable experience in building, maintaining and operating plants. He offered the following:
"The primary risk in the short term is radioactive iodine. It has a half life of 8 days, so every 8 days that pass the amount left in the
fuel decreases by 1/2. By moving people away from the plants and giving them iodine tablets to saturate their bodies with iodine
the damage from this source will be significantly reduced.
The reactors in the news are boiling water reactors (BWR, GE design in the US), the Jenkinsville, SC, plant is a pressurized water
reactor (PWR developed by Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering and Babcock & Wilcox in the US). Both are completely
unlike Chernobyl (A large block of graphite full of holes). While we normally consider all the US designs similar in safety there are
significant differences that are important in the current situation. Both PWRs and BWRs contain the core in a large steel pressure
vessel, but things differ from that point.
PWR's keep the primary coolant from boiling in the reactor by maintaining high pressure, the water goes through Steam
Generators (boilers) to make steam for the turbine. As a result the steam going to the turbine does not normally contain any
significant amount of radioactivity and the turbine is located in a separate building. The PWR reactor and steam generators are
located in a containment building designed to contain internal pressures of 50, 60 psi or more.
BWRs boil water as it passes through the reactor and send it directly to the turbine. This probably offers better thermal efficiency
and eliminates the cost of steam generators, but I have always felt if was an inferior design from a safety standpoint. Since BWRs
produce steam that normally contains some radioactivity they put the turbine in a building with the reactor. This requires a large
building. As you could see these are not cylindrical buildings with domed lids like at Jenkinsville, but rectangular buildings that
cannot contain high pressures. To help cool and protect the reactor they were venting steam from the reactor system into the
building, hydrogen built up and eventually led to the explosions seen on TV. The reactor vessel is still intact and they are trying to
cool the core using fire trucks and seawater. This will probably mean the plants are trash in the long run, a financial disaster, but
should prevent a human disaster due to radiation. Every day that passes significantly reduces the amount of volatile radioactive
material that might be released, particularly iodine, the primary short term hazard. Radioiodine has a half life of 8 days so by next
Saturday half of this material will be gone, another 8 days only 1/4 will be left.
All the largest earthquakes from the last century are around the Pacific rim. The faults here are old and generally inactive. It is not
practical to design for every possibility, only for those of reasonable probability. So when Mother Nature decides to get nasty we
suffer. Typically most things are designed for the 100 year flood, or hurricane, not a direct hit by an asteroid. With regard to
earthquakes nuclear plants are designed to what we think is a reasonable earthquake for where each plant is located. From what I
know, even the Japanese plants did not fail due to the earthquake itself, rather external power was lost and the emergency diesel
generators failed, leaving them without operating power to pumps and valves. Control power typically comes from batteries running
inverters, but the power to turn motors comes from the grid or a diesel or gas turbine generator.
The situation is bad, but I suspect in the long run most of the nuclear related problems will be financial. The reactors being cooled
by firetrucks using seawater are in a condition beyond any design accident. However I would like to ask Rudy Mancke how he
envisions a "nuclear volcano" occurring. If the fuel melts it will release materials like iodine into the atmosphere. They know this
and are preparing by evacuating and being ready to give supplemental iodine so your body will be saturated with it. The rest of the
fuel will indeed melt and flow into a lump in the bottom of the reactor vessel and possibly (China Syndrome) melt through into the
concrete or rock underneath where it should encase itself in molten rock which will cool around it. There may be supplemental
cooling for a while, then they will probably just entomb it and build a sealed building over it until the heat load will allow for natural
cooling without melting, years, not eons. Since our government is unable to build a spent fuel repository we now store spent fuel in
containers that are air cooled via natural circulation after ten years or so.
Mancke studied Chernobyl, which is an entirely different animal. The core was a giant carbon block with holes punched through it
for fuel and cooling, plus there was no containment building and little other structure to contain the core in an accident. Once the
carbon ignited it burned (very hotly) and dispersed the materials of the core along with the combustion products.
I expect most, or all deaths, will be related to the tsunami and earthquake. There will be fear of increased cancers and such, but
likely not much to document. I remind people that by moving from Columbia to Denver you would double your annual radiation
dose without any documented increase in cancer. People tend to be irrational about radiation, how else can you explain the fear of
airport security scanners that produce a tiny fraction of the additional radiation you will get from the flight itself.
What should we do? The obvious answer, to me anyway, is to build new plants rather than put everything on hold. The two units
under construction near here are designed to cool themselves in an emergency without any cooling pumps whatsoever. No
emergency cooling pumps, no pump failures. The emphasis on new designs has been to simplify things so there are less things to
fail, less and easier maintenance and passive emergency cooling."- Status
Similar threads
