Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 6559

Directory

------------64F84392249D1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
-- 2nd announcement –
Geological Society of America Penrose Conference  TECTONICS OF
CONTINENTAL INTERIORS
A Penrose Conference concerning the Tectonics of Continental Interiors
will be held September 23-28, 1997, at Brian Head Resort near Cedar
City, Utah.  The picturesque conference location lies at the boundary
between the Basin and Range rift and the Colorado Plateau, at the
gateway to the beautiful redrock canyons of Utah.
During the past quarter century, much of the research effort in
tectonics has focused on understanding the nature of geologic activity
in the Phanerozoic and Precambrian orogens that formed along former
continental margins. In contrast, there has been relatively little work
concerning the nature of tectonism in continental interiors.  Many of
these regions have been dismissed as being "stable," and of little
concern to tectonicists.  In fact, continental interiors are not
tectonically inactive, they simply behave differently from marginal
orogens.  We hope that by bringing together a diversity of people who
have worked on a variety of aspects of continental-interior geology,
participants will be able to develop a comprehensive image of what is
now known about continental-interiors, and can see interrelationships
among different geologic features.  The conference will provide a forum
for a multidisciplinary discussion of tectonic features in cratonic
areas, midcontinent platform regions, interior basins, "Laramide-style"
deformation provinces, and "continental-interior orogens."  Participants
will gain a new understanding of how continental interiors have
responded to plate interactions and to mantle dynamics through time.
Possible topics that the meeting will address include:  the origin and
"stabilization" of continental-interior regions  the nature of
continental-interior lithosphere and asthenosphere  the nature of
deformation in continental-interiors  controls and causes of
continental-interior orogeny  concepts of epeirogeny and
intracratonic-basin formation  reactivation of basement structures
neotectonics and seismicity of continental interiors
The meeting will be limited to 80 participants, and will be organized to
provide the maximum opportunity for discussion, especially with the goal
of understanding the linkages among various themes.  George Davis (Univ.
of Arizona) will organize a premeeting trip from Las Vegas to Cedar
Breaks as well as a mid-meeting trip in the Bryce Canyon region.
Keynote addresses during the meeting will include contributions by:
Larry Brown (Cornell Univ.)  Sierd Cloetingh (Inst. of Earth Studies,
Netherlands)  Michael Gurnis (Caltech)  Kurt Lambeck (Australian
National Univ.)  Leigh Royden (MIT)  Celal Sengör (Istanbul Teknik
Üniv.)  Mary Lou Zoback (U.S.G.S.).
Conveners   Stephen Marshak, Department of Geology University of
Illinois Urbana, IL  61801  USA smarshak@uiuc.edu FAX: 217-244-4996 TEL:
217-333-7705   Michael Hamburger, Dept. of Geological Sciences Indiana
University Bloomington, IN  47405 hamburg@indiana.edu FAX: 812-855-7899
TEL: 812-855-2934  Ben van der Pluijm, Dept. of Geological Sciences,
University of Michigan, MI 48109-1063, 313-764-8545, fax 313-763-4690,
E-mail: vdpluijm@umich.edu
Applications Michael Hamburger is handling the applications for the
meeting.  To apply, please send or E-mail Mike a letter indicating your
interest, your background, and the subject that you wish to discuss at
the meeting.  The  application deadline for this meeting is February 15,
1997.   We anticipate that the registration cost (which includes
lodging, the field trips, and some meals) for the meeting will not
exceed $700 and may be substantially; graduate students can receive
partial support toward the registration fee.
Website For additional information and updates, go to our website:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vdpluijm/penrose.htm
------------------------------
Ben A. van der Pluijm  --  Dept of Geological Sciences, University of
Michigan
2534 CC Little Bldg, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; (313)764-8545,
fax:(313)763-4690
vdpluijm@umich.edu  --  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vdpluijm
------------64F84392249D1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

-- 2nd announcement –
Geological Society of America Penrose Conference  TECTONICS OF
CONTINENTAL INTERIORS
A Penrose Conference concerning the Tectonics of Continental Interiors
will be held September 23-28, 1997, at Brian Head Resort near Cedar City,
Utah.  The picturesque conference location lies at the boundary between
the Basin and Range rift and the Colorado Plateau, at the gateway to the
beautiful redrock canyons of Utah.  
During the past quarter century, much of the research effort in tectonics
has focused on understanding the nature of geologic activity in the Phanerozoic
and Precambrian orogens that formed along former continental margins. In
contrast, there has been relatively little work concerning the nature of
tectonism in continental interiors.  Many of these regions have been
dismissed as being "stable," and of little concern to tectonicists. 
In fact, continental interiors are not tectonically inactive, they simply
behave differently from marginal orogens.  We hope that by bringing
together a diversity of people who have worked on a variety of aspects
of continental-interior geology, participants will be able to develop a
comprehensive image of what is now known about continental-interiors, and
can see interrelationships among different geologic features.  The
conference will provide a forum for a multidisciplinary discussion of tectonic
features in cratonic areas, midcontinent platform regions, interior basins,
"Laramide-style" deformation provinces, and "continental-interior
orogens."  Participants will gain a new understanding of how
continental interiors have responded to plate interactions and to mantle
dynamics through time.  
Possible topics that the meeting will address include:  the origin
and "stabilization" of continental-interior regions  the
nature of continental-interior lithosphere and asthenosphere  the
nature of deformation in continental-interiors  controls and causes
of continental-interior orogeny  concepts of epeirogeny and intracratonic-basin
formation  reactivation of basement structures  neotectonics
and seismicity of continental interiors
The meeting will be limited to 80 participants, and will be organized
to provide the maximum opportunity for discussion, especially with the
goal of understanding the linkages among various themes.  George Davis
(Univ. of Arizona) will organize a premeeting trip from Las Vegas to Cedar
Breaks as well as a mid-meeting trip in the Bryce Canyon region.  
Keynote addresses during the meeting will include contributions by: 
Larry Brown (Cornell Univ.)  Sierd Cloetingh (Inst. of Earth Studies,
Netherlands)  Michael Gurnis (Caltech)  Kurt Lambeck (Australian
National Univ.)  Leigh Royden (MIT)  Celal Sengör (Istanbul
Teknik Üniv.)  Mary Lou Zoback (U.S.G.S.).  
Conveners   Stephen Marshak, Department of Geology University
of Illinois Urbana, IL  61801  USA smarshak@uiuc.edu FAX: 217-244-4996
TEL: 217-333-7705   Michael Hamburger, Dept. of Geological Sciences
Indiana University Bloomington, IN  47405 hamburg@indiana.edu FAX:
812-855-7899 TEL: 812-855-2934  Ben van der Pluijm, Dept. of Geological
Sciences, University of Michigan, MI 48109-1063, 313-764-8545, fax 313-763-4690,
E-mail: vdpluijm@umich.edu
Applications Michael Hamburger is handling the applications for the
meeting.  To apply, please send or E-mail Mike a letter indicating
your interest, your background, and the subject that you wish to discuss
at the meeting.  The  application deadline for this meeting is
February 15, 1997.   We anticipate that the registration cost
(which includes lodging, the field trips, and some meals) for the meeting
will not exceed $700 and may be substantially; graduate students can receive
partial support toward the registration fee.
Website For additional information and updates, go to our website: 
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vdpluijm/penrose.htm 



------------------------------

Ben A. van der Pluijm  --  Dept of Geological Sciences, University
of Michigan

2534 CC Little Bldg, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; (313)764-8545, fax:(313)763-4690

vdpluijm@umich.edu  --  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vdpluijm

 


------------64F84392249D1--

In article <32E147F4.3C0E@nbn.com>, "Philip L. Fradkin"  writes:
[...]
>
>Could you, or anyone else out there, tell me if the theory of plate 
>tectonics is being questioned or challenged and if so, by whom and 
>where has he or she published such heresy.
In the seventies there was plenty of challenge (look for papers by the
Meyerhoffs, for example). The apparent Achilles heel of plate tectonics
then was the idea that plates must be rigid. Apparent non-rigid
deformation was found off the Pacific northwest and elsewhere. The idea
of propagating rifts soon killed that objection: the plates were indeed
rigid, but systematic transfer of material from one plate to the other
made them look deformable.
Plate tectonics is not now being seriously challenged, but that is
really because it is an incomplete theory. Plate tectonics is still
pretty much limited to describing what has happened at the surface.
Sure, if you want to assess earthquake hazard you can look at
accumulating strain along a plate margin, but the theory is still far
from able to predict when and why major plate reorientations occur (if
you want to start an argument among a bunch of tectonophysicists, just
ask them what happened 43 million years ago). Anyhow, plate tectonics
is still in the stage where it can pretty easily be modified to embrace
new information, so anyone who seriously attacks it is just sparring
with a crock of Jello. That plate tectonics is proving so robust,
incomplete as it is, is a sorry reflection on the inadequacy of
hypotheses that came before (geosynclines, expanding Earth, etc.).
>Since the theory of plate tectonics is only thirty years old, and 
>replaced a theory in its time, I would think some hypothesis (or 
>whatever the plural of that word is) is attempting to replace it. Am I 
>using the words correctly?
Yes, you are, though no new hypothesis has yet assembled much of a
challenge. The new concept that plate tectonics brought to geology was
the idea that there can be immense horizontal displacement of segments
of the crust (or strictly, lithosphere). That some horizontal motion
occurred was known from overthrusts in the Alps, the Canadian Rockies,
and the Appalachians, but plate tectonics provided a mechanism and
suggested that vastly greater horizontal displacements had occurred.
Before the revelation of huge horizontal displacements, the concept
that great slivers of Alaska are remnants of oceanic plateaus formed in
the southern hemisphere would have been inconceivable. Now it is
accepted as the simplest explanation for exotic terranes. Regardless of
what might come along to displace plate tectonics, I think the idea of
huge horizontal displacements, the very essence of plate tectonics, is
with us to stay.
Or perhaps not. Some of the most throught-provoking comments about the
birth and death of theories have been made by Jason Morgan of
Princeton, who himself contributed mightly to the development of plate
tectonics. Morgan's primary claim to fame is the fixed hotspot theory
(which he, with characteristic humility, has always referred to as an
hypothesis). Long before plate motions were known in any detail, Morgan
suggested that hotspots were somehow fixed relative to the Earth's
rotation axis and that variations in their tracks indicate plate motion
variations rather than relative motion between hotspots (he said a lot
more besides, of course, linking hotspots to the rifting of continents,
among other ideas). Now, absolutely spectacular work by Paul Wessel and
Loren Kroenke (presented last month at AGU--look for their cover story
in Nature in a month or two) has "proved" that Morgan was absolutely
correct, to the point where I suspect even he might be tempted to
use the word "theory." Yet if you ask Jason about hotspots he'll give
you a bemused look and tell you that it would really be fun to put
together a completely different theory to challenge the hotspot
concept.
Hypotheses may be advanced to theories, but we do our darndest to keep
theories vital, to stop them from degenerating into mere dogma. After
thirty years, plate tectonics still exhibits tremendous vitality.
-- 
Gerard Fryer      
gerard@hawaii.edu        http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~gerard/
Personal views only.

gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>
>Of course, if seismologists knew exactly what caused earthquakes
>wouldn't it follow that they should be able to predict them?  Its
>just currently accepted theory because of a lack of anything else
>better.  But I'm sure they're making great strides.
>
Short answer is NO.
Check out an article in a recent issue of Reviews of Geophysics.
Check out other previous articles as well that discuss the possibility
(a hypothesis, if you will) that while we might understand many of the
mechanisms, earthquakes may occur chaotically. We see this in many
natural processes and events. The underlying physical processes are
non-linear, and hence may be INHERENTLY unpredictable.
One example is magnetic reversals. While we have a fairly good 
explanation of how and why they occur, the underlying mathematical 
structures that can be used to quantitatively "predict" the evolution
of the Earth's magnetic field are non-linear. We can reproduce the form
and character of the paleomagnetic record, but we cannot PREDICT it.
Another example is weather prediction. We can "forecast" up to a few
days ahead, but the inherent non-linearity of the system precludes a
reliable long-term WEATHER forecast. (We are not talking about climate.)
So the same can be said for earthquakes. At this point, we have begun to
recognise certain statistical, stochastic properties of earthquakes, and
can say that there is increased risk in some areas, less in others. But
we cannot, in a regular repeatable way, predict INDIVIDUAL earthquakes.
Regards,
David Nobes

> "nearly linear" does not equal "linear". 
   True.  But then there is no such thing as perfectly linear.  For all
intends and purposes the line between .707 of max sinisoidal amplitude
is considered linear.  This paricular argument is pointless, as it's
simply a matter of sematics.
> Tides have everything to do with the moon's phases and the time of day. 
> The tides are caused by the moon and sun's gravitational attraction. The 
> time of dat and phase of moon will tell you precisely the current tide. 
    Please reread my posts.  I said MAX LOW TIDE.  This makes the
particlar phase of the moon meaningless.  Oh...and BTW...I am aware of
the effect of the moon's position on the tides, thank you.
> Well, since you haven't done the math and are merely suggesting the
> possibility, then am I wrong to brush off your suggestion as incredible? 
    Please, brush me off if you chose.  Then we can end this stupid
debate over semantics.  I have neither offered scientific theory or
suggested my ideas are fact, so I fail to understand your apparent
hostility, so if you don't have anything constructive to add, maybe you
could just keep your trap shut.
> If you don't know what tectonic plates exist on the planet, then how
> can you claim that those two are probably the largest? 
>  
    Oh...and I suppose you know every single slip/strike fault on the
planet.  BTW, I know the names of many of them, and I'm not aware of any
that are as large as the Pacific and North American plates AND form a
strike/slip plate fault along one of its margins.  Again, maybe someone
of your obviously enlightened intelligence would like to clue me, no?
> No, it's at least a coincidence.
> 
    That could very well be.  OTOH, maybe it's not.
    Look...really.  If all you're interested in character assination,
then why don't you do something more constructive?  Surely you've got
better things to do with your time.
-- 
                                 Bill

Bob Shannon (rshannon@comtch.iea.com) wrote:
: I have issued a prediction for the East and South Bay Areas of San
: Fransisco. This is based purely on NON-scientific data that is yet proven.
: In these areas it is important to keep certain items handy. #1 is water
: and food. #2 is your wits....If you had any wits you wouldn't be reading
: my prediction:->
:   This is a serious prediction and based on my 4 years of data and
: intuition which is also based on hypothesis....*however* I suggest that in
: the next 21 days, people who live within a 250km radius of Berkeley
: California take ordinary precations a bit more seriously.!
:   I will issue an "official" #1 prediction in  the next 4 days....Other
: wise you may wish to keep up this at:
: http://iea.com/~rshannon
:   We also have 9 other web sites which mirror our offical site.
: Bob Shannon
: Pinpoint Earthquake Newsletter
Being a resident of Berkeley, I'll be more alert over the next 21 days. 
However, why doesn't your alert include San Francisco, which is easily 
within 250 km of Berkeley? 
-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Tell me about your portfolio! Lie to me about your family!"
Cmdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5, while having "sex".
"Sometimes the segue actually makes sense."
Joe Bob Briggs, drive-in movie critic
                                             rbwelch@netcom.com

In article <32E38634.4029@nts.ohn.hydro.on.ca>, Harold.W.Asmis@hydro.on.ca
wrote:
Don't know about anybody else, but I like it.  :-)
>This could be an addition to our FAQ.
>
>People Categorization in sci.geo.earthquakes
>
>It takes all types to make a world, but contibutors to this group can be
>lumped into these crude categories, postive and negative.
>
>Positive Contributors
>
>People of Credibility - people who work for the USGS or a university. 
>Or anybody from the UK or New Zealand.  Of course, people of real
>credibility wouldn't be caught dead posting in this newsgroup.
>
>Hard Workers - people who have put up a good web site, compiled a
>reading list, or done something else that involves actual work.
>
>Wacky Predictors - these people never beat the House, with their
>predictions of Ancient Mystical Origin, but at least they're polite and
>try to formulate their predictions in a scientific manner.
>
>Anti-Science - upholders of the theory: 'All Scientists are Involved in
>a Massive Conspiracy to Keep Out New Ideas'.  These people usually cite
>things such as 'They laughed at Wegener too, when he proposed that
>continents plow through the crust like ocean liners.'  They represent
>public opinion, are usually polite, and keep the scientists honest.
>
>Negative Energy
>
>Trolls - characterized by using phoney names, and suddenly appearing,
>with immense power.  The trickiest trolls try to worm their way in by
>spouting off things they learned on television.  Trolls are totally
>self-centred and try to stir up debate for their own purposes.  The good
>thing about trolls is that they turn to stone when exposed by
>intellectural sunlight, and they can't type anymore.
>
>Undefined
>
>Canadian Humourist - extracts bizarre earthquake stories from Newsedge,
>and muses that the world's earthquake problems would be solved, if only
>everybody built basements.
>
>Moderator - someone who makes any attempt to moderate this wacky group.
>-- 
>Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
>tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
>Standard Disclaimers Apply

In article <5c0uut$dqn$1@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>, David Nobes
 wrote:
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>>
>>Of course, if seismologists knew exactly what caused earthquakes
>>wouldn't it follow that they should be able to predict them?  Its
>>just currently accepted theory because of a lack of anything else
>>better.  But I'm sure they're making great strides.
>>
>Short answer is NO.
I guess I should have said that more is being learned each day
and that one day, maybe...
>Check out an article in a recent issue of Reviews of Geophysics.
>Check out other previous articles as well that discuss the possibility
>(a hypothesis, if you will) that while we might understand many of the
>mechanisms, earthquakes may occur chaotically. We see this in many
>natural processes and events. The underlying physical processes are
>non-linear, and hence may be INHERENTLY unpredictable.
I agree entirely with this thought, although some people believe
that they happen with regularity.
This is also is the main reason why research projects looking for
patterns and the like haven't had a very good success rate.
Additionally, formulaes like the one by Reasonberg-Jones wouldn't
do so well in predicting future quakes.
But without a consistently present precursor prior to earthquakes
they may never be able to be predicted.
I would think that even though some of the known precursors do
not occur prior to all quakes, wouldn't those precursors still be
usable for some quakes as long as a quake occurs when that
particular precursor is observed?
Or is it that these precursors have varied so widely that the
the magnitude can't be reliable predicted yet you know that a
quake (whether small or big) is coming.
Just some thoughts.
Regards,
Dennis

In article , e_rmwm@va.nmh.ac.uk (Roger
Musson) wrote:
>
>< snip >
>
>Actually, one of the interesting things about Tim's hypothesis is that it is 
>more or less disprovable in a very definite manner. The hypothesis states that 
>(roughly speaking) some electrical phenomenon lifts the earth's surface at the 
>start of an earthquake. This is similar to the effect of an explosion, which 
>causes a lifting of the earth at the initiation of the release of wave energy. 
>As a result, all vertical seismometers recording an explosion record the first 
>wave arrival as an upwards motion. The same effect would be observed from an 
>EM earthquake. This follows absolutely from Tim's hypothesis. It isn't 
>observed in reality. Seismometers recording an earthquake record first 
>arrivals which can be either up or down, according to azimuth. Therefore a 
>huge amount of existing data, used routinely every day by seismologists the 
>world over, contradicts the EM hypothesis. 
Very nice rebuttal,  but...can the hypothesis be improved?  I think so.
>This illustrates the dangers of coming with hypotheses on fundamental aspects 
>of subjects that you have not studied. It also indicates why professional 
>scientists usually give amateurs short shrift. Amateur theorising usually 
>takes place without the knowledge of such things as basic seismometry, so the 
>chances of error are rather high.
Actually, seasoned professional scientists make the same mistakes.
Even myself, having worked in the computer industry for some 20 years,
I don't claim to know everything about computers.  If I come across
something that I don't know, I usually know where to find the answer.
Also, I'm sure seismology is like computerology (new word).  Things
keep changing so fast that within 5 years, most everything that you've
learned in school is outdated because of new technology.  So a person
has to be constantly on top of changes.
Well...enough of that.  Back to Tims theory:
Sure Tims hypothesis appears to need more work and your example
above was well taken.  But its a start.
It may very well be possible that instead of the epicentral area
being lifted up and dropped as the charges from the atmosphere
are being drained back into the earth (as Tim proposes), that
these alleged charges are actually working in the same manner
as Whiteside theorizes in regards to solar flares, where
the frictional coefficients of slipping systems can be changed
by applying electricity which in turn promotes sliding.
This may potentially be another theory for the increased magnetic
field prior to some, if not all, quakes.
Regards,
Dennis

Dennis Gentry  wrote:
> Of course, if seismologists knew exactly what caused earthquakes
> wouldn't it follow that they should be able to predict them? 
No, that does not follow viz. any phenomenon in which chaotic mechanisms
play a significant part.  
Russ

In article ,
 gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>
>   I wonder where all the rice paddies are here in the U.S.?
>
Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas
Jim Loftus
JimFL@aol.com

Hope someone reading this group might be able to help:
Problem: I have a triangle A, with known locations of 3 vertices and
angles lengths etc., and A' which is a deformed, translated, possibly
rotated version of A, of which I also know the requisite angles locations
etc etc.  Now how do I determine measures of strain for A' based upon this
known data.  I'm sure seismic problems involving GPS/triangulation have
the same *types* of data....
any thoughts, references, etc etc - post here and (if possible) email to 
stuart@geo.princeton.edu
cheers, stuart.
-- 
Dr. Stuart Hardy,
Dept. of Geology and Geophysics,
Guyot Hall,
Princeton University,
Princeton,
NJ 08544, USA

In article  gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>From: gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
>Subject: Re: Tidal Influence Time - West Coast
>Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:43:52 -0300
>Its that kind of mentality that kept people from looking further into
>Wegeners' theory.  Sure his theory about how the process worked was
>wrong, but he *was* on the right track.  Only thru other discoveries
>did Wegeners' theory get confirmed, although those other discoveries
>weren't intended for proving/disproving Wegeners' theory.
>Is the same thing happening here?
I'm getting the feeling there is an argument here along the lines of:
1) Wegener was an amateur (as far as geology goes, only)
2) Wegener turned out to be right
3) Therefore all amateurs are right.
Just because one can see a problem a mile high in some half-baked hypothesis 
doesn't mean one has a blinkered mentality.
Roger Musson
r.musson@bgs.ac.uk 

SAN FRANCISCO -- A fire nearly destroyed one of the city's oldest
churches early Sunday.
St. Peter's Catholic Church, dedicated in 1885, was one of the few
churches to survive the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.
The Mission District church's roof was destroyed in the three-hour
blaze. Engineers will be brought in to determine whether the building
can be saved.
-- 
Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
Standard Disclaimers Apply

texasai@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In article ,
>  gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
> 
> >
> >   I wonder where all the rice paddies are here in the U.S.?
> >
> 
> Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas
> 
> Jim Loftus
> JimFL@aol.com
And California
-- 
"There are only two races on earth: the decent and the indecent"  Viktor
Frankl

  GROUNDWATER   -    An Internet Forum
Please join our global discussion group on groundwater and related topics.
There are thousands of members worldwide, from over 60 different 
countries.
...............................................................
To subscribe to GROUNDWATER send e-mail to:
                   majordomo@ias.champlain.edu
In the body of the e-mail type the command:
                   subscribe GROUNDWATER
..........................................................
Some of the topics discussed on GROUNDWATER include:
Average Hydraulic Conductivity
visualisation
Hydrocarbon pollution problem
Risk Assessment Symposium
International Conference !
Global Perspective on Groundwater - Summary
BACTERIA AND ALUMINIUM MOBILITY
NALMS 1996 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
groundwater modeling books
Stability Index
SF6
CO-7 Process
Conference Announcement
Information requested Groundwater Resources in Rodonia, Brazil
Leakage detection methodology
Market Pricing of Groundwater
New Water/Wastewater Resource
FE reduction in atmospheric conditions
Internet address-Modflow
Re: Porous Media Reynolds Number
Re: GW Reynolds' number
siltation
Risk-Based Corrective Action Analysis
Theory Questions on Groundwater
Re:retardation factor for Na
Re: MODFLOW documentation
Clean Water = Primary Healthcare
On-Line Environmental Tradeshow
Pollute for a fee?
RE: Looking for Hydrogeologist lists
Agricultural Chemicals
Zone of influence drawdown value
---------------------------------------------------------------
For more information visit our web site.
We hope you will join our lively discussion on this interesting topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------
                    Kenneth E. Bannister
              BANNISTER RESEARCH & CONSULTING
 http://www.groundwater.com   kenbannister@groundwater.com
     RR1 Box 292, Bridport, Vermont  USA   05734
--------------------------------------------------------------

Dear AFTAC NDC:       FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Please tell me the duration between the last French Pacific 
nuclear weapon test before the deadly Mexican coastal 
earthquake of 15 September 1995.  Also, please report the 
cepstral parameters of both events, in particular the 
first derivative over time of the leading edge of the 
nuclear test's shock wave, in terms of change in momentum.
Please post a copy of youy reply to the USENET newsgroup 
"sci.geo.earthquakes".
It is generally accepted that earthquakes can induce other 
earthquakes, but the first derivative over time of 
nearly-instantanious nuclear weapons testing is not 
generally thought to match the impulse of more powerful 
earthquakes.  However, since implulse is defined as the 
change in momentum, I would think that the brief tests 
which expend most of their energy in an instant have a 
quite large first derivative, and thus impulse.  Such a 
change in momentum is quite likely to induce earthquakes.
Sincerely,
:James Salsman
hrefs:  http://www.tt.aftac.gov/ 
        http://www.nyx.net/~dcypser/induceq/induceq.nis.ref.html
        http://tgl.geology.muohio.edu/Focus/TheMexicanEarthquake.html
cc:  autodrm@www.tt.aftac.gov

timberwoof wrote:
> 
> There was an article in Sicentific American wihtin the past six months that
> talked about the plate boundaries in the Pacific Northwest and how they
It is in fact in the December, 1995 issue.  Also, the 1700 data for
the last great quake there has been confirmed by tree ring data.
--
----------*Note munged address. Remove "-bitbucket" to reply.*---------
Stan Schwarz         |     "I just want to live like Yogi Bear
stan@cco.caltech.edu |        He kicks ass on the average bear."
-------------------------------------------- -Stukas Over Bedrock -----