Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 6379

In Article <19970108004400.TAA17185@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
folsomman@aol.com (FolsomMan) wrote:
>e_rmwm@va.nmh.ac.uk (Roger Musson) wrote:
>
>>In article <32D0AD1E.40F2@iag.net> "Dana K."  writes:
>>>From: "Dana K." 
>>>Subject: map of fault lines
>>>Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 23:43:26 -0800
>
>>[ shortened ]
>
>>> I'm thinking of moving to Seattle but would like to know what my 
>>>chances are of being swallowed up by a giant crack in the earth - 
>
>>Nil is the answer. You should be worried about being hit on the head by 
>>falling masonry instead.
>
>or drowned by a tsunami, or buried and cooked in a lahar, but definitely
>not swallowed up by a crack.
>
Oh, gee, I can't resist anymore.  Yes, Virginia, it is barely possible to be
swallowed by a crack--though it takes some work.  Turnagin Heights in
Anchorage demonstrated how in 1964--you need serious landsliding most
probably associated with liquification, which is a risk in the Seattle area,
and you need serious bad luck.  Such features are not faults, though, so a
fault map won't help you out, and are not the "fault opening to eat people"
idea that the other posters are (properly) railing at.
Seismic risk in the Seattle area is a hot topic right now; several potential
faults (including one, the Seattle Fault, pretty much through Seattle) are
identified through the region at the surface, and paleoevents have been
inferred from drowned trees, tsunami deposits, sandblows, landslides into
lakes, etc.  The curious thing is that the faults seem to mainly be
east-west oriented.  The overall tectonics picture is a bit muddy in the
upper crust right now, but probably these things are accomodating both the
triple junction not far to the north and the termination of Basin and Range
extension going from south to north (plus, maybe, some other strains). 
These shallow faults are different from and an additional risk to the
megathrust under the city which has produced some historic seismicity.
So ground rupture is not a zero risk, but it is smaller than ground shaking
and liquification collapsing buildings or (the real disaster for Seattle) an
eruption and major mudflow or lahar off Mt. Rainier (which could be
associated with an earthquake--there's a hint of such an event Brian
Atwater's been looking at recently).
Craig Jones                                    cjones@mantle.colorado.edu
                     Research Associate, CIRES
         Research Asst. Professor, Dept. Geological Sciences
                  University of Colorado, Boulder
    WWW: http://cires.colorado.edu/people/jones.craig/CHJ_home.html

In article <5avb0d$na@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian
Sandle) wrote:
> I did ask because it was new to me. Do you deny changes in radio 
> transmission between night and day! Wouldn't that give some sort of 
> electromagnetic hiccup? As the ionosphere changes is there any current 
> which would effect the magnetic field?
EM transmissions of certain wavelengths are known to be transmitted though the 
ionosphere over much greater distances at night than during the day, but the
change is gradual and not sudden. The difference is in the ionosphere, which 
is waaaaaay up there. Right here, other than with better reception of
certain EM 
transmissions, you can't tell it happened. And earthquakes happen down there, 
underground. 
> : How do you know the whales don't just greet the sun or something? They 
> : have got eyes, you know.
> 
> I think that the program was about magnetic sensing of whales. There is 
> some about that on the web. They do know the `magnetoscape'. It is 
> possible to glean information from fewer dimensions, then more may be 
> confusing if one is temporarily confusing. Think of the hard of hearing 
> person who lip reads then is shown a language dubbed film.
Certain migratory birds also get lost when you strap magnets to their
heads. So some
animals can sense the direction (and presumably the strength) of magnetic
fields. 
But I'm not aware of any measurable change in the Earth's magnetic field at the 
terminator. 
Besides all of which, you haven't made any connection between the Earth's 
magnetic field and earthquakes.
-- 
Michael Roeder
Here's the Deal: You send me junk mail and you pay me $1500. Okay? 

On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 23:34:05 -0800, timberwoof@themall.net
(timberwoof)  laid this particular bit of profound wisdom and wit in
my face:
>In article <5apofh$ofb@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian
>Sandle) wrote:
>
>> In article <5adqdm$nfb@cnn.nas.nasa.gov> you wrote:
>
>> A few years ago I telephoned the Japanese embassy to say that I wondered 
>> whether whale strandings might happen a few days before a quake.
(snort!)  It's very simple; plain as the nose on your face;
The whales simply want their MTV is all!
(snik snik)

In article <5av99j$na@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian
Sandle) wrote:
> John Harper (harper@kauri.vuw.ac.nz) wrote:
> 
> What about sharing data? The way you are writing is quite confusing to 
> me, are you trying to say that it is hard to get funding for research?
> 
> : the numbers for (a) both events together
> 
> Though within a time window, and not necessarily gwographically.
> 
>  (b) eqks without strandings 
> 
> No because the whales may not have been in a problem area.
> 
> : (c) strandings without eqks. 
> 
> Yes.
The point was that since *you* are proposing the hypothesis (that there is 
a link between whale beachings and earthquakes), *you* need to come up
with the data to support it. 
The data need to include all three of the categories John Harper mentioned, 
and you need to account for whale migration patterns. In other words, 
how much of the time does a whale beaching predict an earthquake? How
much of the time was an earthquake *not* preceded by whale beachings, even
though there were whales present? How far away from an earthquake can
"predictive" whale beachings occur?
Here's a question I'd like to see an answer from you on, in your next post: 
What would you make of the statement, "Any whale beaching anywhere
in the world is guaranteed to be followed by a M6.0 or greater earthquake
somewhere in the world within a week"?
--timberwoof@themall.net
-
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610
-
Unsolicited commercial Email delivered to this address will be
subject to a $1500 charge. Emailing such items, whether manually or
automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms & conditions.

telsexto@indiana.edu (teresa lynn sexton) wrote:
>> This newsgroup is "SCI".geo.earthquakes.  "sci" stands for science.
>> 
>> Paul Oberlander
>> 
>
>
>Paul, please don't be such a "SCI"entific SNOB.  Just because someone 
>without scientific knowledge of earthquakes chooses to open a thread 
>discussing a theory - - doesn't mean you have to read it.
>
>Give the man a break for Christ's sake.  (no pun intended).
>
>
>Terri
Well thank you Terri for such a spirited defense  on my behalf :-)
How much do you charge per court-room hour?  I may have further
need!
My obscurely stated point--by including the prediction of Edgar
Cayce in this SCI group--was that when it comes to predicting
earthquakes with useful accuracy, clairivoyants and "SCI"entists
have an equal track record.  Not top notch in either case.
Mr Cayce's predictions suggests there is room for concern, indeed
alarm.  I suspect, by the increased pace of scientific measuremnt
throughout the fault line area of California, that his words are
echoed by the creaks and snaps coming back the seimic activity
sounding-lines, which are starting to ring alarm bells in the
heads of the listeners.
Unfortunately, SOME scientists, like goons and journalists, are up
for hire, ready to swing cudgels on either side of an argument for
cash on the barrel head.  
Those whose fortunes would be economically depressed by such news,
as in the case of real estate and newspapers (can you imagine a
newspaper advising its readers to move out of its circulation area
and then trying to sell ad space?) would not happy about the
noising about of such info and would work whatever influence they
have to suppress it.  Thus the alarm bells may not sound in time.
For those that dance daily in shaky California, perhaps they'd
better keep their own ear to the ground.
gg
aka George Graham, Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, Canada
George Graham
Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, Canada
"Good manners are made up of a lot of little sacrafices"
 --Ralph Waldo Emerson

I've heard that Accra was shaken by a magnitude 4.5 event yesterday morning. 
Does anyone have any more details? Given that a repeat of the 1939 Accra 
earthquake is to some extent expected, any resumption of activity might be 
viewed as cause for concern.
Roger Musson
r.musson@bgs.ac.uk 

timberwoof (timberwoof@themall.net) wrote:
: In article <5av99j$na@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian
: Sandle) wrote:
: 
: > John Harper (harper@kauri.vuw.ac.nz) wrote:
: > 
: > What about sharing data? The way you are writing is quite confusing to 
: > me, are you trying to say that it is hard to get funding for research?
: > 
: > : the numbers for (a) both events together
: > 
: > Though within a time window, and not necessarily gwographically.
: > 
: >  (b) eqks without strandings 
: > 
: > No because the whales may not have been in a problem area.
: > 
: > : (c) strandings without eqks. 
: > 
: > Yes.
: 
: The point was that since *you* are proposing the hypothesis (that there is 
: a link between whale beachings and earthquakes), *you* need to come up
: with the data to support it. 
Note that now the Gulf War Syndrome has been statistically analysed the 
illnesses fall into 3 groups, one linked more to use of flea collars, 
etc. Also synergy is involved. The current news articles do keep right 
off the topic of bio-engineered weapons as yet. It is hoped that that 
will be properly and openly excluded, though preliminary data suggest 
some connection, in that families and pets of the veterans are also 
suffering. Now it could be the flea collars on the pets, too, synergising 
with something else, too.
I think it was on the thread on sci.physics relating to the planetary 
positions and the solar electromagnetic nodes which said you must always 
have a reason or theory before you do correlation. That seems weird to 
me. Well at the p<0.05 level you will expect 1 result in 20 anyway? But I 
thought that noticing patterns, forming theories, then checking the data 
and modifying the theory if necessary were the way of science. In a 
mathematics book for 13 year olds we learnt that one of the activities in 
that subject is looking for patterns.
Now we have the conjecture by you and John that the whole process should
all be done by one researcher. Factors: pattern, theory, synergy. I have
tried to give a little of each.  Lack of co-ordinated action has stopped
the light for so many years in the Gulf War Syndrome example. Now you are
trying to jump on me for trying to get co-ordinated action going in this
case. 
In my first article, I said I thought I had noticed a little pattern. I 
asked for any data files which might be in existence. Promptly John is 
saying I must get the data myself. That seems very confused to me. Surely 
it is necessary to find out what research has been done before doing 
reasearch. Everyone does that. Perhaps John is just trying to lead 
non-scientists off the path. I gave some theory, which I extended upon in 
later articles. After all this started out as a question of biologic 
magnetosensitivity on the power lines thread.
 : 
: The data need to include all three of the categories John Harper mentioned, 
: and you need to account for whale migration patterns. In other words, 
: how much of the time does a whale beaching predict an earthquake?
I explained why (b) is not to be included.
You use the word `time' when another word would be more rigorous. Or are 
you trying to suggest time windows when the effect might be more likely 
to show up? A mechanism which might might show synergy between certain tides 
and the magnetic anomaly, say? That beaching will not occur if the tides 
work against it, even though the anomalies predict a quake?
 How
: much of the time was an earthquake *not* preceded by whale beachings, even
: though there were whales present?
Present where? On the planet? Not where the earthquake is. I said on the 
first article how I thought I was noticing a correlation between New 
Zealand strandings and Japanese quakes a few days later. So perhaps you 
are being rigorous and want me to find out if the whales were near the 
magnetic anomalies and did not beach, if it is magnetic anomalies which 
are involved. Where the whales are is going to be hard to know. Perhaps I 
should also have asked if there is a sightings file being kept.
 How far away from an earthquake can
: "predictive" whale beachings occur?
Is the implication in that that if it is far away then any cause should 
be looked on with suspicion?
We had one person saying that any magnetic pulse should be all round the 
earth - questioning the dawn pulse idea. Now you are suggesting that 
things should be only local?
: 
: Here's a question I'd like to see an answer from you on, in your next post: 
: What would you make of the statement, "Any whale beaching anywhere
: in the world is guaranteed to be followed by a M6.0 or greater earthquake
: somewhere in the world within a week"?
: 
: --timberwoof@themall.net
I feel that some import of your statement, I'm not sure if you intended 
it, is `What happens when someone spreads unnecessary alarm - what does 
the public do?' But to use that to quell interest in noticing patterns 
and chatting about theories is somewhat wrong?
And BTW I like the Modified Mercalli Intensity earthquake scale. It tells
how much surface movement will be at the point in question. The Richter
magnitude has to have a distance figure included, too, including depth.
I don't want to rule out the sort of beehive co-ordination of life
forms knowing how other parts of the life net are to be affected. 
Will John jump on me if I ask if anyone knows if any work has been done 
on world wide manetic readings and quakes?
Brian Sandle 

Brian Sandle (bsandle@southern.co.nz) wrote:
>timberwoof (timberwoof@themall.net) wrote:
>: 
>: Again, what magnetic pulse? Do you understand enough about electricity and
>: magnetism to understand how a pulse like that might behave, where it might
>: come from, and how you might measure it? 
>I did ask because it was new to me. Do you deny changes in radio 
>transmission between night and day! 
The ionosphere changes between night and day, yes, as a result of the
absence of solar XUV radiation on the night side. But the change isn't a 
discontinuity, any more than sunrise or sunset are visually. Less so, in 
fact, because it takes some time for the level of ionization to respond to 
the radiation level.
Non sequitur, anyway: why should that which causes changes
in the ionosphere also cause changes in the geomagnetic field?
>Wouldn't that give some sort of 
>electromagnetic hiccup? 
Define "hiccup". There's no simple systematically-observed change (earlier
you referred to it as a "pulse") in the geomagnetic field at dawn or dusk,
if that's what you mean.
>As the ionosphere changes is there any current 
>which would effect the magnetic field?
Probably. But now you are proposing a theory to explain what causes a 
phenomenon which doesn't actually exist.
>I think that the program was about magnetic sensing of whales. There is 
>some about that on the web. They do know the `magnetoscape'. It is 
>possible to glean information from fewer dimensions, then more may be 
>confusing if one is temporarily confusing. 
Pardon?
>Think of the hard of hearing 
>person who lip reads then is shown a language dubbed film.
After the previous sentence I'm beginning to feel like one.
-- 
Richard Herring      |  richard.herring@gecm.com | Speaking for myself
GEC-Marconi Research Centre                      | 

						January 9, 1997
		Weekly Earthquake Report for Southern California
		------------------------------------------------
        	              January 2 - 8, 1997
	Prepared by:  Kate Hutton, Seismological Laboratory
		      (kate@bombay.gps.caltech.edu)
		      Lucy Jones, U. S. Geological Survey
		      California Institute of Technology
	For further information, please contact the authors or the 
	Caltech Public Relations Office at 818-395-6327.  For daily 
	updates, call our Earthquake Information Hotline: 818-395-6977.
			--------------------------------
	This week's Report covers the time period from midnight Thursday
	morning, January 2, Universal Time (ie. GMT), to midnight 
	Wednesday night, January 8, Universal Time.  In local time, 
	the period of coverage is from 4 p.m., January 1, Pacific 
	Standard Time, to 4 p.m., January 8, Pacific Standard Time.
	We detected and processed 349 earthquakes during the seven-day
	period covered.
		Seismicity was slightly high this week due to a small
	swarm of aftershocks to the Nov. 27, 1996 Mw5.3 Coso earthquake.
	The largest of this week's events was a M3.8 on Saturday morning.
	An earthquake of this size is quite noticable and might have
	been felt, but we got no reports.  The epicentral area is 
	unpopulated.  The M3.8 had a M3.1 aftershock 27 minutes later,
	but otherwise there were no events above M3, and no events
	reported felt.
                Table 1 lists the quakes this week that were M2.0 or
        larger in the central part of the coverage area.  Times are local 
	times; if you want Greenwich Mean Time, add 7 hrs to the Pacific 
	Daylight Time or 8 hrs to the Pacific Standard Time listed.
	Table 1
	-------
	Date  Time      N Lat.   W Long.   Mag  
	-------------------------------------------------------------
         1/1   6:19 pm  33 33.7  118 11.0  2.5  11 mi. SSE of Pt. Fermin
         1/1   9:06 pm  34 17.7  118 33.3  2.0  3 mi. WNW of Granada 
						Hills
         1/2   6:38 am  36  5.4  117 39.4  2.5  16 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/3   4:05 am  32  0.5  115 45.0  2.5  48 mi. SSW of Calexico
         1/3   5:36 pm  32 56.7  117 40.6  2.0  24 mi. SW of Oceanside
         1/3   5:53 pm  36  3.8  117 38.7  2.7  16 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/3   6:10 pm  36  5.8  117 39.7  2.0  16 mi. E of Haiwee Reser-
						voir
         1/3  11:21 pm  36  4.0  117 38.9  2.2  16 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/4   2:15 am  36  4.1  117 38.8  2.6  	"
         1/4   4:52 am  36  3.8  117 40.4  2.2  15 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/4   6:58 am  36  4.1  117 38.9  3.8  16 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/4   7:00 am  36  4.1  117 38.5  2.0  17 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/4   7:25 am  36  3.8  117 38.7  3.1  	"
         1/4   8:17 am  36  3.8  117 38.4  2.2  	"
         1/4   9:00 am  36  4.2  117 39.1  2.5  16 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/4   9:26 am  36  4.6  117 38.9  2.0  	"
         1/4  10:02 am  36  3.8  117 38.6  2.5  17 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/4  10:49 am  36  3.8  117 38.7  2.6  	"
         1/4   2:48 pm  36  4.6  117 38.9  2.0  16 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/4   3:15 pm  36  4.0  117 38.4  2.3  17 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/4   4:07 pm  34 37.7  116 35.7  2.1  23 mi. ENE of Lucerne 
						Valley
         1/4   8:29 pm  36  4.8  117 39.2  2.0  16 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/4  10:49 pm  35 47.8  117 38.3  2.6  12 mi. N of Ridgecrest
         1/4  10:50 pm  34 19.3  118 31.3  2.0  3 mi. NNW of Granada 
						Hills
         1/5   2:07 am  36  4.0  117 38.8  2.3  16 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/5   3:52 am  33 21.5  116 17.0  2.0  8 mi. NE of Borrego 
						Springs
         1/5   3:52 am  33 21.7  116 17.1  2.1  	"
         1/5   5:48 am  36  3.8  117 38.6  2.1  17 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/6   8:25 am  36  3.8  117 38.7  2.0  	"
         1/6   9:04 am  33 42.9  118  1.8  2.0  1 mi. NNE of Bolsa Chica 
						Beach
         1/6  12:50 pm  32  7.8  115 34.0  2.9  37 mi. S of Calexico
         1/6   1:05 pm  36  3.4  117 37.5  2.4  18 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/7   5:56 pm  32 39.2  115 40.4  2.1  10 mi. W of Calexico
         1/8   1:54 am  36  3.6  117 37.7  2.0  17 mi. E of Coso Junction
         1/8   7:30 am  34  2.5  117 15.0  2.6  Under Loma Linda
         1/8   2:11 pm  36  4.8  117 39.1  2.5  16 mi. E of Coso Junction
	-------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Sandle (bsandle@southern.co.nz) wrote:
>But in case it is not that, I say that the ionospheric change as daylight 
>comes might have more detectable change, if any, on the magnetometers 
>close by.
It *might*. So why not find out if it *does*? The World Data Centres for
Solar-Terrestrial Physics have extensive records, and some of them are on 
the net. You could start by looking at
http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcmain/
and then follow the pointer to your nearest site.
-- 
Richard Herring      |  richard.herring@gecm.com | Speaking for myself
GEC-Marconi Research Centre                      |