Mysterious tremors detected on San Andreas Fault

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Scientists have detected a spike in underground rumblings on a section of California's San Andreas Fault

They don't mention which section. The fault traverses most of the state, from SoCal through the Bay area and further north.

It would be interesting to know which section they are referring to.

i bet it's caused by ground tremors with an epicenter of scandal's house......

If you suddenly hear about major seismic activity in northeastern Illinois, you'll know why!

I was living in the Bay area when there was a moderate earthquake. I think it was this one.

There was another one near Santa Cruz that we also felt. That was enough California rock&roll for me.

That was a little baby one. Loma Prieta was the fun one. I got to build a ferry terminal in Alameda while they fixed the Bay Bridge.

I was not there for Loma Prieta. I was there about 6 months later, when much of the Marina district was still pretty shell shocked, plenty of orange tape around the houses. And sections of the 580 in the East Bay were still closed and pancaked. I can't say I'm sorry I missed being there for the "event".

Yeah, the only bad place to be was on a multi-level structure. I saw some of the after-engineering of the earthquake damage. Decades of accepted construction practice had to be thrown out the window. Needless to say, the cost of infrastructure construction post Loma Prieta skyrocketted. Unfortunately, there are many structures built on similarly loaded pilings in similar soil types all over the midwest.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

It must be nerve-wracking living in or near a seismically active area. Here is a really interesting link to a site that displays where earthquakes have happened every day as well as over the last few days (and historically). It is rather surprising to see that there are an average of a dozen or so earthquakes every single day - and interestingly - or ominously - the section along the US west coast which is know as a seismically active seems to have fewer quakes than almost everywhere else around the Ring of Fire.

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/

Edited July 9, 2009 by Kathryn41

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It must be nerve-wracking living in or near a seismically active area. Here is a really interesting link to a site that displays where earthquakes have happened every day as well as over the last few days (and historically). It is rather surprising to see that there are an average of a dozen or so earthquakes every single day - and interestingly - or ominously - the section along the US west coast which is know as a seismically active seems to have fewer quakes than almost everywhere else around the Ring of Fire.

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/

It has been quiet lately. Here is the USGS map of recent activity in California.

and here is a typical cluster around the Geysers Geothermal Field, near my neighborhood,

Edited July 9, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[scandal 951]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Scientists have detected a spike in underground rumblings on a section of California's San Andreas Fault

They don't mention which section. The fault traverses most of the state, from SoCal through the Bay area and further north.

It would be interesting to know which section they are referring to.

i bet it's caused by ground tremors with an epicenter of scandal's house......

If you suddenly hear about major seismic activity in northeastern Illinois, you'll know why!

I was living in the Bay area when there was a moderate earthquake. I think it was this one.

There was another one near Santa Cruz that we also felt. That was enough California rock&roll for me.

That was a little baby one. Loma Prieta was the fun one. I got to build a ferry terminal in Alameda while they fixed the Bay Bridge.

I was not there for Loma Prieta. I was there about 6 months later, when much of the Marina district was still pretty shell shocked, plenty of orange tape around the houses. And sections of the 580 in the East Bay were still closed and pancaked. I can't say I'm sorry I missed being there for the "event".

Yeah, the only bad place to be was on a multi-level structure. I saw some of the after-engineering of the earthquake damage. Decades of accepted construction practice had to be thrown out the window. Needless to say, the cost of infrastructure construction post Loma Prieta skyrocketted. Unfortunately, there are many structures built on similarly loaded pilings in similar soil types all over the midwest.

Yeah, but there are not the active fault lines in the midwest.

I think what always scared me most about Bay area earthquake scenarios is the liquification model, in which the entire Santa Clara valley basically turns to quicksand. Imagine all of Silicon Valley, including low-rise structures like the townhouse we used to own in Sunnyvale, suddenly not on terra firma any longer. My understanding is that the 1906 quake had that characteristic. I think the Peninsula is relatively speaking the safest place in a major quake in the Bay area, better than the South Bay or East Bay, especially the stretch in the hills from Palo Alto through Burlingame, Daly City area. Though "safe" of course is a relative term.

I think in terms of dangerous faults, in the Bay area the Hayward and Rogers Creek are considered even more worrisome than the San Andreas.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't see why tremours in the San Andreas fault are mysterious - expected would be my feeling

I also wonder why people have this notion that California will fall into the sea. If such a thing were possible (which obviously it is not) the whole world would be fvcked up in the tidal wave aftermath.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You can't trust scientists.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Scientists have detected a spike in underground rumblings on a section of California's San Andreas Fault

They don't mention which section. The fault traverses most of the state, from SoCal through the Bay area and further north.

It would be interesting to know which section they are referring to.

i bet it's caused by ground tremors with an epicenter of scandal's house......

If you suddenly hear about major seismic activity in northeastern Illinois, you'll know why!

I was living in the Bay area when there was a moderate earthquake. I think it was this one.

There was another one near Santa Cruz that we also felt. That was enough California rock&roll for me.

That was a little baby one. Loma Prieta was the fun one. I got to build a ferry terminal in Alameda while they fixed the Bay Bridge.

I was not there for Loma Prieta. I was there about 6 months later, when much of the Marina district was still pretty shell shocked, plenty of orange tape around the houses. And sections of the 580 in the East Bay were still closed and pancaked. I can't say I'm sorry I missed being there for the "event".

Yeah, the only bad place to be was on a multi-level structure. I saw some of the after-engineering of the earthquake damage. Decades of accepted construction practice had to be thrown out the window. Needless to say, the cost of infrastructure construction post Loma Prieta skyrocketted. Unfortunately, there are many structures built on similarly loaded pilings in similar soil types all over the midwest.

Yeah, but there are not the active fault lines in the midwest.

I think what always scared me most about Bay area earthquake scenarios is the liquification model, in which the entire Santa Clara valley basically turns to quicksand. Imagine all of Silicon Valley, including low-rise structures like the townhouse we used to own in Sunnyvale, suddenly not on terra firma any longer. My understanding is that the 1906 quake had that characteristic. I think the Peninsula is relatively speaking the safest place in a major quake in the Bay area, better than the South Bay or East Bay, especially the stretch in the hills from Palo Alto through Burlingame, Daly City area. Though "safe" of course is a relative term.

I think in terms of dangerous faults, in the Bay area the Hayward and Rogers Creek are considered even more worrisome than the San Andreas.

True that! Downtown Santa Rosa has been damaged/destroyed by earthquakes several times in the last century. We had a seismograph for the Rogers Creek fault in the Science Building at SSU. I used to check that every day as I walked by.

Every heard of the New Madrid Earthquakes?

Edited July 9, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[The_Dude 1,142]

I remember the big one in S.F., we felt it all the way down here in Los Angeles, albeit very minor. When L.A. had its big one, I was about 15 miles from the epicenter and that was scary.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I find the sense of doom about earthquakes a little strange. don't get me wrong, I would prefer not to have to be here when the "big one" comes but only 57 people died in Northridge. Which obviously is not good but when I lived in Chicago in 1995 during the famous heatwave and something like 600 people died in heat-related deaths. And then there is probably a lot of people who died during the winter due to the cold/ice-related car accidents

I just seems like there are far more weather-related deaths in a given winter or summer elsewhere in the country than there have been earthquake deaths in the past 50 years

[HAL 9000 96]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Scientists have detected a spike in underground rumblings on a section of California's San Andreas Fault

They don't mention which section. The fault traverses most of the state, from SoCal through the Bay area and further north.

It would be interesting to know which section they are referring to.

i bet it's caused by ground tremors with an epicenter of scandal's house......

If you suddenly hear about major seismic activity in northeastern Illinois, you'll know why!

I was living in the Bay area when there was a moderate earthquake. I think it was this one.

There was another one near Santa Cruz that we also felt. That was enough California rock&roll for me.

HAL 9000 is monitoring the seismology readouts in the area. I will let VJ know.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I find the sense of doom about earthquakes a little strange. don't get me wrong, I would prefer not to have to be here when the "big one" comes but only 57 people died in Northridge. Which obviously is not good but when I lived in Chicago in 1995 during the famous heatwave and something like 600 people died in heat-related deaths. And then there is probably a lot of people who died during the winter due to the cold/ice-related car accidents

I just seems like there are far more weather-related deaths in a given winter or summer elsewhere in the country than there have been earthquake deaths in the past 50 years

Some people would rather sit back and wait for life as we know it to cease, rather than actually try to leave a planet for their children's children they can live on. Science driven fantasies of doom feed into that idea.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[The_Dude 1,142]

I find the sense of doom about earthquakes a little strange. don't get me wrong, I would prefer not to have to be here when the "big one" comes but only 57 people died in Northridge. Which obviously is not good but when I lived in Chicago in 1995 during the famous heatwave and something like 600 people died in heat-related deaths. And then there is probably a lot of people who died during the winter due to the cold/ice-related car accidents

I just seems like there are far more weather-related deaths in a given winter or summer elsewhere in the country than there have been earthquake deaths in the past 50 years

I remember my freshman year in university, my roomate was from Wilmington N.C. and when I told him where I was from, he asked me how I could live there that It was crazy. What is more crazy, living where earthquakes happen once a generation (big ones at least) or living in a town where your house is blown down by a hurrican every 3-4 years?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I find the sense of doom about earthquakes a little strange. don't get me wrong, I would prefer not to have to be here when the "big one" comes but only 57 people died in Northridge. Which obviously is not good but when I lived in Chicago in 1995 during the famous heatwave and something like 600 people died in heat-related deaths. And then there is probably a lot of people who died during the winter due to the cold/ice-related car accidents

I just seems like there are far more weather-related deaths in a given winter or summer elsewhere in the country than there have been earthquake deaths in the past 50 years

I remember my freshman year in university, my roomate was from Wilmington N.C. and when I told him where I was from, he asked me how I could live there that It was crazy. What is more crazy, living where earthquakes happen once a generation (big ones at least) or living in a town where your house is blown down by a hurrican every 3-4 years?

Rob, we should do lunch sometime? Add Robin to that invite as well.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I find the sense of doom about earthquakes a little strange. don't get me wrong, I would prefer not to have to be here when the "big one" comes but only 57 people died in Northridge. Which obviously is not good but when I lived in Chicago in 1995 during the famous heatwave and something like 600 people died in heat-related deaths. And then there is probably a lot of people who died during the winter due to the cold/ice-related car accidents

I just seems like there are far more weather-related deaths in a given winter or summer elsewhere in the country than there have been earthquake deaths in the past 50 years

I remember my freshman year in university, my roomate was from Wilmington N.C. and when I told him where I was from, he asked me how I could live there that It was crazy. What is more crazy, living where earthquakes happen once a generation (big ones at least) or living in a town where your house is blown down by a hurrican every 3-4 years?

Rob, we should do lunch sometime? Add Robin to that invite as well.

Sounds good

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I find the sense of doom about earthquakes a little strange. don't get me wrong, I would prefer not to have to be here when the "big one" comes but only 57 people died in Northridge. Which obviously is not good but when I lived in Chicago in 1995 during the famous heatwave and something like 600 people died in heat-related deaths. And then there is probably a lot of people who died during the winter due to the cold/ice-related car accidents

I just seems like there are far more weather-related deaths in a given winter or summer elsewhere in the country than there have been earthquake deaths in the past 50 years

I remember my freshman year in university, my roomate was from Wilmington N.C. and when I told him where I was from, he asked me how I could live there that It was crazy. What is more crazy, living where earthquakes happen once a generation (big ones at least) or living in a town where your house is blown down by a hurrican every 3-4 years?

Rob, we should do lunch sometime? Add Robin to that invite as well.

Sounds good

We can laugh about all the nuts on VJ.