Subject: Re: MAKE MONEY NOW
From: Steve Rencontre
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:27:32 +0100
STOP POSTING THIS CRAP.
In message , Rymar Viktor said:
> Path:
dstrip.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer
sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.stealth.net!demos!news1.relcom.ru!satisfy.kiae.su
!gl
> ukr!info.elvisti.kiev.ua!tecomua!newsserv
> From: Rymar Viktor
> Newsgroups:
sci.environment,sci.fractals,sci.geo.fluids,sci.geo.geology,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.image.proce
ssing,sci.lang,sci.lang.japan,sci.logic,sci.materials
> Subject: MAKE MONEY NOW
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 14:10:23 +0300
> Distribution: su
> Organization: State Employment Centre, Rivne, Ukraine
> Message-ID:
> Sender: news-server@tecom.rovno.ua
> Reply-To: rmr@sec.rovno.ua
> X-Return-Path: secua!sec.rovno.ua!rmr
> Lines: 136
> Xref: news.demon.co.uk sci.environment:50962 sci.fractals:4040 sci.geo.fluids:1570
sci.geo.geology:18740 sci.geo.meteorology:14531 sci.image.processing:10426 sci.lang:23987
sci.lang.japan:14033 sci.l
> ogic:10156 sci.materials:11159
>
>
>
>
> Take five minutes to read this and it WILL change your life.
>
> I just read an article in an internet newsgroup describing how
> to make $50,000.00 in only one month from a $5.00 investment.
>
> Of course I thought this was rediculous ,or some type of pyramid.
> I talked it over with my family, an attorney, and my friends, and
> they all agreed it was some sort of scam.I hate scams because
> usually someone gets burned, and I didn't want it to be me!
> I blew it off for a few weeks then saw another one in a
> newsgroup I go to alot and thought, "Maybe this is legitimate!".
> Besides, whats $5.00 , I spend more than that in the morning on
> my way to work on coffee and cigs for the day.
>
>
> Well, two weeks later,I began recieving money in the mail!
> I couldn't believe it! Not just a little , I mean big bucks!
> At first only a few hundred dollars, then a week later, a
> couple of thousand , then BOOM . By the end of the fourth
> week , I had recieved nearly $47,000.00. It came from all
> over the world.And every bit of it perfectly legal and on the
> up and up. I've been able to pay off all my bills and still had
> enough left over for a nice vacation for me and my family.
>
> Not only does it work for me, it works for other folks as well.
> Markus Valppu says he made $57,883 in four weeks. Dave Manning claims
> he
> made $53,664 in the same amount of time. Dan Shepstone says it was only
> $17,000 for him. Do I know these folks? No, but when I read how they
> say they did it, it made sense to me. Enough sense that I'm taking a
> similar chance with $5 of my own money. Not a big chance, I admit--but
> one with incredible potential, because $5 is all anyone ever invests in
> this system. Period. That's all Markus, Dave, or Dan invested, yet
> their $5 netted them tens of thousands of dollars each, in a safe,
> legal,
> completely legitimate way. Here's how it works in 3 easy steps:
>
> STEP 1.
>
> Invest your $5 by writing your name and address on five seperate pieces
> of paper along with the words, "PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR MAILING LIST."
> (In
> this way, you're not just sending a dollar to someone; you're paying
> for
> a legitimate service.) Fold a $1 bill, money order, or bank note inside
> each paper, and mail them by standard U. S. Mail to the following five
> addresses:
>
>
>
> 1. Bill Brown
> 148 South Downlen #796
> Beaumont, Tx. 77707
>
> 2. Marco Monet
> 409 N.E. 107 St.
> Miami, Florida, USA 33161
>
> 3. Alain Renaud
> 2638 Augustin-Cantin
> Montreal, QC,Canada
> H3K 1E1
>
> 4. Davin Greenfield
> 7715 152 b ave
> Edmonton, Ab, Canada
> T5C-3M3
>
> 5. Victor Rymar
> 10/2 Zhukovskogo street
> Rivne 266002 Ukraine
>
> STEP 2.
>
> Now remove the top name from the list, and move the
> other names up.This way, #5 becomes #4 and so on.
> Put your name in as the fifth one on the list.
>
>
> STEP 3.
>
> Post the article to at least 200 newsgroups. There are at
> least 17000 newsgroups at any given moment in time.
> Try posting to as many newsgroups as you can.Remember
> the more groups you post to, the more people will see your
> article and send you cash!
>
>
> STEP 4.
>
> You are now in business for yourself, and should start seeing
> returns within 7 to 14 days! Remember, the internet is new
> and huge. There is no way you can lose.
>
> Now here is how and why this system works:
>
> Out of every block of 200 posts I made, I got back 5 responses.
> Yes, thats right,only 5. You make $5.00 in cash, not checks or
> money orders, but real cash with your name at #5.
>
> Each additional person who sent you $1.00 now also makes 200
> additional postings with your name at #4, 1000 postings.On
> average then, 50 people will send you $1.00 with your name at
> #4,....$50.00 in your pocket!
>
> Now these 50 new people will make 200 postings each with your
> name at #3 or 10,000 postings. Average return, 500 people= $500.
> They make 200 postings each with your name at #2= 100,000
> postings=5000 returns at $1.00 each=$5,000.00 in cash!
>
> Finally, 5,000 people make 200 postings each with your name at
> #1 and you get a return of $50,000 before your name drops off
> the list.And that's only if everyone down the line makes only 200
> postings each! Your total income for this one cycle is $55,000.
>
> From time to time when you see your name is no longer on the list,
> you take the latest posting you can find and start all over again.
>
> So thats it. Pretty simple sounding stuff, huh? But believe me, it
> works. There are millions of people surfing the net every day, all
> day, all over the world. And 100,000 new people get on the net
> every day. You know that, you've seen the stories in the paper.
> So, my friend, read and follow the simple instructions and play
> fair. Thats the key, and thats all there is to it.Print this out
> right now so you can refer back to this article easily.Try to keep
> an eye on all the postings you made to make sure everyone is
> playing fairly. You know where your name should be.
>
> REMEMBER....HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY.YOU DON'T
> NEED TO CHEAT THE BASIC IDEA TO MAKE THE MONEY!
> GOOD LUCK TO ALL,AND PLEASE PLAY FAIR AND YOU WILL
> WIN AND MAKE SOME REAL INSTANT FREE CASH!
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rencontre | steve@dstrip.demon.co.uk (business)
If it works, it's obsolete. | steveren@cix.compulink.co.uk (private)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: group moderation - free speech and defamation issues (subject adjusted)
From: Richard Adams
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:33:53 -0700
Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>
> In article <323FBF7D.79AD@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
> >
> >
> >I'm curious about the possibility of redress through the courts you've
> >suggested. Who would be the defendant(s)? What would be the cause of
> >action? Why does what was proposed lend itself to more exposure than
> >other systems already in use?
>
> Wow! I hadn't thought of that objection.
>
> You were proposing that a person could be ejected from a public forum just
> because the majority didn't like what they were saying. Now that would
> probably be OK over here in the UK where we have no real rights, but I
> thought you USAians held the concept of free speech very highly. Is it
> illegal over there to prevent somebody from speaking out if it breaks no
> other laws?
>
> --
> -- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
> Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
> Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com or fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
> These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
> sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
> team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.
Caution - I'm not an attorney so check this all for yourself.
The free speech concept is rooted in the US constitution which
prevents the government from making a law to prevent free speech.
This is often misunderstood and wrongly applied to other
situations where it has no force of law at all. The constitution
doesn't prevent individuals from making a set of rules for a meeting
area such as a news group. So long as the government doesn't
make the law, the indiviuals are free to make what ever rules
they want to allow or disallow participants in their meeting
areas. News group moderation is legal so long as the government
hasn't been involved in making the rules.
Now to a more interesting aspect of the discussion. I observe
many people making false statements about others on the net
which go beyond opinions. Are these false statements protected
by "free speech"? NO, absolutely not. This is a very big problem
for the net. Here we have people who make false defamatory
statements and back it up saying its free speech. Somewhere the
education system really failed these people as they have an
enourmous misconception.
Here are some things to consider. If you make a false statement
on the internet and this causes someone harm, you can be sued
and loose big time. There are situations where people have
a priviledge and legal protection to make false statements, such
as in a company board room meeting, but a news group is not a
place for privileged discussions. Every false statement you make
can be used against you. It usually doesn't matter if you knew
it was false or not. You have a duty to speak the truth.
What about the news servers? There is case law in 1991 involving
Compuserve where Compuserve was found not liable since they didn't
have knowledge of the false statements. What if a news server was
made aware and didn't take action to stop it? Would they be liable
in that case? Perhaps. I haven't found case law on this, but
it doesn't mean cases haven't been settled out of court on this
application of the reverse.
With this in mind, here are reasons why there isn't a mass
of lawsuits with all this going on.
A. Although false statements are made, they may not be
"actionable" meaning that the didn't really cause
someone to be damaged & loose money. If you make a
false statement that causes someone to loose their
job, you could be sued and loose.
B. Many people that make false statements aren't worth
suing. You have to look at law suits from the back
end; what do you expect to get at the end? If the
person you're suing has no assets to take, you might
have less than you started with after paying your
attorney, so you loose even though you've won. Many
people that step up to the microphone on the net have
nothing to loose, and there are bankruptcy and
homestead laws to protect those that have assets.
C. If the target of the false statement is a public
official, it is much harder for a public official
to win damages in a defamation case.
Conclusion: the real legal issue about news group moderation
isn't about "free speech". The REAL legal issue concerns
whether someone is damaged because of false statements.
Richard
Subject: A View of Oxygen Isotope Ratios
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 19 Sep 1996 21:27:43 GMT
A friend sent me this email note, which relates to
the terrestrial origin of ALH84001:
9/18/96
Bob:
I was looking for a copy of William Butler Yeats Selected Poetry in
my stored RV trailer and ran across the following (expensive) book I had
forgotten:
Kieffer, H. H. et al., editors (1992) MARS, Tucson, AZ,
The University of Arizona Press, 1498 pp.
This is obviously a huge sucker (I can hardly lift it!!). There
are at least three Chapters that should interest you: Chaps. 4, 6, and 18.
These chapters devote much discussion to the SNC meteorites. Most of it
is the same-o, same-o as you have hashed over many times. Chap. 18 has a
brief discussion of the oxygen isotopes and shows a plot of O(18)/O(16) vs.
O(17)/O(16) in units of SMOW (!!!!), from R. N. Clayton and T. K. Mayeda
(1983) "Oxygen isotopes in eucrites, shergottites, nakhlites and
chassignites," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 62, pp. 1-6. See
also same authors in Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta, v. 52, pp. 925-927
(1988), "Isotopic composition of carbonate in EETA79001 and its relation to
parent body volatiles."
I am just more bewildered than ever about what O-Isotopes might
mean. They can not be simply a function of planetary mass, because the
ratios for "eucrite meteorites" (anorthite-augite mineralogy), an extreme
end-member of the "gabbroic" terrestrial mantle-type or lunar-type rocks,
which also is found in meteorites, plot on one side of the "terrestrial
line," whereas SNCs plot on the other. [This is not an authoritative
description of eucrites (e.g., see Asteroids II, pp. 723ff, and Index,
etc., which describes eucrites as having variable "basaltic" compositions;
gabbro is the coarse-grained 'equivalent' of basalt, which is, by
definition, a volcanic rock)].
Everyone speaks glibly of O-Isotope "reservoirs." Well, that works
for Earth's surface rocks because there really is a reservoir, the
PRESENT-DAY ocean (SMOW). But what's the "reservoir" on a solid-state
planetesimal?? Molten rock (magma) is the only LIQUID state---unless one
wants to imagine a pervasive volatile phase or liquid water phase
percolating ubiquitously through the object (no way Jose). So I
insist---until I see alternative proof---that the O-Isotope signature has
to be relative to LOCAL reservoirs; i.e., within local mineralogical,
plus-or-minus partial melting, assemblages.
And herein may be part of the problem in trying to compare
different assemblages---like the SNCs---with the "terrestrial fractionation
line." Maybe the subparallel nature of the trends is OK (I really doubt
it), but the terrrestrial trend refers to Earth's present outer
mineralogical states. A more appropriate comparison would have to refer to
those terrestrial rocks that were typical of Earth's Archean mantle
partial-melting events and compositions.
Banin et al. (in MARS, Chap. 18, p. 604) observe that: "The closest
terrestrial analogues to the nakhlites are pyroxene cumulate layers in
different picrite and komatiite flows."
Now, the latter names--picrite and komatiite--are supposedly
examples of condtions so hot in the early Earth that the normally
solid-state compositions of mantle rocks were subjected to virtually
complete melting and volcanic eruption--in a weird sort of flat volcano
that vents incandescent, quiescent, and very low-viscosity lavas so hot
that you couldn't get close enough to look at them without solar
eye-glasses. In order to recreate such a condition today, one would have
to stick a super-incandescent probe into the sub-asthenospheric mantle and
pour on the power until you got a 'magma chamber' of nearly pure ultramafic
rock composition.
Thus, it would seem more logical to compare the O-Isotope trends of
THOSE rocks with the SNCs!!!! Frankly I have no idea of what is known
about picrite-komatiite flows, and/or their cumulate phases. Knowing the
disorganized helter-skelter ways of most isotope chemists, such data may be
lying fallow somewhere. I suppose a start could be made by scanning the
cumulative Indexes of Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta.
Subject: Re: Chicxulub structure and dinosaur extinction
From: stephen_ma@mindlink.net (Stephen Ma)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:12:11 -0700
Now for the summary of what I've learned, as promised.
The idea that a bolide impact might have triggered the Deccan Traps is
not new, at least not in the sense of having just appeared in Usenet a
week ago. This was being discussed as far back as [Alvarez 1982].
See also [Courtillot 1986], [Alt 1988], and [Rampino 1993].
One paper presenting contrary evidence, and alluded to by Gerard Fryer
in an earlier message, is [Bhandari 1995]. In this paper, the authors
report the first detection of an iridium anomaly in the Deccan Traps.
They carefully date the anomaly at the KT boundary and leave little
doubt that this is the same band of excess iridium as the one
discovered by [Alvarez 1980] and subsequently identified world-wide.
The important news is that the anomaly occurs not within a layer of
basalt, as one would expect if an eruption were underway at the time
of deposition, but about midway between layers III and IV. A rough
picture emerges:
(a) Eruption: creation of trap layer III.
(b) A relatively peaceful interval of perhaps 5,000 to 50,000
years of sedimentation, complete with fossilized dinosaur eggs.
(c) The iridium anomaly.
(d) Another peaceful interval of similar length, also leaving
fossils but alas dinosaurless this time.
(e) Eruption: creation of trap layer IV.
The conclusion is that the bolide impact, if that was what produced
the iridium anomaly, very probably did not trigger either eruption.
Furthermore, because of the surrounding peaceful intervals, the
authors conclude that the excess iridium is unlikely to have been
produced by a Deccan eruption. This gives little comfort to those,
such as [Courtillot 1986], who would prefer a volcanic origin for the
anomaly. Also, [Murali 1990] suggest that there is an order of
magnitude too little iridium in Deccan magma to account for the global
excess at the KT boundary.
There is more in [Bhandari 1995], such as an intriguing hint that
there may have been more than one impact. But this posting is already
too long.
* * * *
[Alt 1988] Alt, D.; Sears, J.M.; and Hyndman, D.W. "Terrestrial
maria: The origins of large basalt plateaus, hot spot tracks and
spreading ridges." Journal of Geology 96 (1988), pp. 647-662.
[Alvarez 1980] Alvarez, L.; Alvarez, W.; Asaro, F.; and Michel, H.V.
"Extraterrestrial causes of the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction."
Science 208 (1980), pages 1095-1108.
[Alvarez 1982] Alvarez, L.; Alvarez, W.; Asaro, F.; and Michel, H.V.
"Current status of the impact theory for the terminal Cretaceous-
Tertiary extinction." Geological Society of America Special Paper
190, pp. 305-315.
[Bhandari 1995] Bhandari, N.; Shukla, P.N.; Ghevariya, Z.G.; and
Sundaram, S.M. "Impact did not trigger Deccan volcanism: Evidence
from Anjar K/T boundary intertrappean sediments.". Geophysical
Research Letters 25:4 (February 1995), pp. 433-436.
[Courtillot 1986] Courtillot, V.; Besse, J.; Vandamme, D.; Montigny,
R.; Jaeger, J.; and Cappetta, H. "Deccan flood basalts at the
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary." Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 80 (1986), pp. 361-374.
[Murali 1990] Murali, A.V. and Blanchard, D.P. "Deccan volcanism,
India: a witness, but not the cause of the K-T biotic
extinctions." EOS: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union
71:43 (1990), page 1713.
[Rampino 1993] Rampino, M.R. and Caldeira, K. "Major episodes of
geological change: correlations, time structures, and possible
causes." Earth and Planetary Science Letters 114 (1993), pp.
215-227.
---------------------------------------
Stephen Ma
Subject: Re: PRAYER 15/9, Jesus give the Schroedinger Equation on the Cross
From: jimmy
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:00:13 -0600
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> I believe that happening of Jesus crucifixion was a normal human who
> was 1 in thousands who were crucified but that a myth story was written
> about him. He performed no miracles that violated physics or biology
> science laws. Point blank he was a normal human that was crucified and
> this myth story of son of god was manufactured around him.
>
> If he , Jesus were a diety, then he could have forwarned humanity in a
> spectacular way. On the cross , instead of saying empty words he could
> have shouted F = MA
>
> or better yet the Schroedinger Equation
>
> or something like e^(i x pi) = -1
>
> Why is the Bible utterly deplete of the best wisdom that humanity
> has-- science or physics? Why? Because Jesus was another normal
> ordinary revolutionary against the Romans who was crucified.
>
> If Jesus's message was to get believers, surely , he could have
> persuaded the whole world by broadcasting or made to be broadcast some
> science that was 2 millenium ahead of his time. But no. There are only
> secondary accounts of Jesus performing questionable miracles.
>
> If Jesus had given us the Schroedinger Equation on the cross, then
> this man was really superhuman, but he did not
>
> The PU theory holds that god= Atom. And that all thoughts , deeds ,
> actions are ordered up by the Nucleus of 231Pu. For good reason, the
> 231Pu atom ordered up that humans would mythologize Jesus and distort
> his real human life so way out of proportion and out of truth. But now
> that humanity has the PU theory, science subsumes religion.What Jesus said
I think Jesus may have been trying to say that we are all the same
person.Genetics and socialization aside as crucial variables,I think a
useful argument can be made for all of us being identical.Certainly in
that case we would all live forever in this world and this world would
be perfectly just.(so long as one lives,'all' live;what you do to
another ,you do to yourself)
Of course,I only think Jesus may have been trying to say that if I also
think Jesus was a scientist.In any case,if we were all the same person
the kingdom of heaven would be at hand.
Subject: Re: Questions for Flood style creationists
From: soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 03:50:13 GMT
At 09:59 PM 9/18/96 -0400, ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <3240a534.93241723@newshost.capecod.net>, soliver@capecod.net
>(Suzane Oliver) wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:43:22 -0400, ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>> >-In article <51nntp$juc@texas.nwlink.com>, dickc@nwlink.com (Dick
>Craven) wrote:
>> >-> The soft ash, and sediments from Mt. St.Helens do not in any
>> >-> way shape or form equal the hard, solid, firm and extreme wear
>> >-> resistance that make up the Grand Canyon. So you can make all
>> >-> the pictures you want, you and others have been told time after time
>> >-> on this group that Mt StHelens does not equal the grand canyon.
>> >-> give it up!
>> >-Face the FACTS. The canyon was formed in a way similar to the grand
>> >-canyon. Sorry, but it happened. ITS BEEN PROVEN. CASE CLOSED.
>> Karl, go down to the local builders supply and get a few bricks and a bag of
>> builders sand. Take your garden hose and let the water drip on the bricks and
>> then run off onto the sand. The bricks are what the Grand Canyon is made out
>> of, the sand is what Mt St Helen's left behind. If you wait long enough the
>> bricks will wear through, just like the Grand Canyon. The sand will wear thru
>> much faster, just like the ash and debris from Mt St Helens. Got it? Good.
>Suzane, go down to the local brick house and get a brick before it is
>dried. You can leave your sand in your sandbox for the last thursday cat
>to scratch in.
>Now when you let your garden hose drip on it it will wear down faster.
>Just like Mt.St Helens and the Grand Canyon Did.
>The layers were still soft. Got It? Good
Still soft??? What a novel idea. When and how did they get hard then???
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
In view of your manner of spending your days
I hope you may learn, before ending them,
that the effort you spend in defending your ways
could better be spent on amending them. Piet Hein, 1969
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Subject: Re: group moderation - free speech and defamation issues (subject adjusted)
From: *starship@3rdplanet.com* (Rich Tietjens)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 20:08:38 GMT
In article <3241A021.1842@oro.net>, Richard Adams wrote:
What about the news servers? There is case law in 1991 involving
>Compuserve where Compuserve was found not liable since they didn't
>have knowledge of the false statements. What if a news server was
>made aware and didn't take action to stop it? Would they be liable
>in that case? Perhaps. I haven't found case law on this, but
>it doesn't mean cases haven't been settled out of court on this
>application of the reverse.
FWIW, Prodigy has already been named as a co-defendent and lost in a case
(I beleive it was February last year) becasue, unlike most on-line services
and ISPs, they engage in "publishing" according to the judge - that is,
they determine what to post and what not to post based on /content/ rather
than technical criteria; they had at that time (I have no idea what they do
now) "volunteer" moderators who would remove articles and so forth. By
engaging in publishing, as opposed to providing an open service as a common
carrier, the judge found them liable for damages caused by messages posted
from their service. Had they simply permitted anyone to post anything at
all, regardless of content, the case against them would have been dismissed
out-of-hand (although the person who posted the damaging messages would
still have been liable).
As far as I know, there has not been a test case regarding a moderated
newsgroup. I don't hanker to be the first victim, er, guinea pig, of a
techo-blind legal system, either. Anything I cancel in the groups I
retro-moderate is cancelled based on clearly technical grounds, as outlined
in the FAQ which is posted every two weeks. I shudder to think what might
happen to moderators who must uphold a content-based charter... And yet
they are within their charter to refuse postings. It's the ones that slip
through with damaging flase allegations that are going raise Hell
eventually.
My bookmarks: http://www.3rdplanet.com/~starship/atari.htm
Remove the * (inserted to foil spambots) from my address to reply.
*!* Opinions expressed herein are those of the writer only and *!*
*!* probably frightening to my employer and other authorities. *!*
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: ted.smith@mtnswest.com (Ted Smith)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 01:39:00 GMT
Murray Forster wrote in a private message to Ted
Smith:
(forwarded with permission)
F>You have probably seen the current controversy in s.g.g. regarding
>the plans of Richard Adams. At least he is trying, but it would help
>to have prior experience. It could be unfortunate to stir up
>opinions against moderation, before various alternatives can be
>discussed.
[snip]
F>I would interested in the possibilities for a moderated geology
>newsgroup, with a carefully considered but liberal moderation
>policy, and a few human moderators (say 6), any of which could
>approve a post. The current s.g.g. newsgroup would be left
>unchanged. It likely would be a problem to find a few volunteers
>who would be willing and would be accepted etc.
F>Some people are arguing to maintain the status quo while some others
>think the geology newsgroup has gone to the dogs. But since there
>are now 10 sci.geo.* newsgroups, maybe it is time for people to
>start considering the addition of a moderated geology newsgroup?
I've remained quiet on the topic, preferring to mull it over for a
time. For those who don't know me, I'm a gummint geologist who has
been lurking around the Internet and creating and managing geoscience
BBSes/networks since 1988, moderator of two e-mail lists (GEOSCI-JOBS
and MET-JOBS), co-author of ORES with Bill Thoen, and original proponent
of the sci.geo.earthquakes newsgroup. From time to time I've been
involved in subbing as moderator for other mail lists. So I've been
around for a while and have seen thing evolve, sometimes operating
well and sometimes falling into disarray.
Even as I was writing my reply to you, I was slowly changing my mind.
Having moderated mail lists, managed archive sites and web indexes, all
while holding down a full-time job, I doubt that I have time to moderate
a newsgroup, even as a shared responsibility. It probably wouldn't be as
time-consuming as managing a mailing list though (all those sub/unsub
commands do tend to eat up a good chunk of my time). I'm also not
certain whether it would be possible to set up such a 6-moderator beast
without potentially ending up with duplicate posts, approval
controversies, etc. I think I agree with Bill Thoen that if anyone
really wants a top-notch s.g.g/s.g.e newsgroup, they're probably going
to have to set up one or more moderated/gated mail lists that forward
the cream and omits the chaff.
Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that converting
sci.geo.geology and/or sci.geo.earthquakes to a moderated newsgroup is
the right thing to do. I feel that individual (reader-based) kill files
are the way to go. That's what I use now; as a result, I don't ever see
Archimedes' messages any more, for example. If we start the process of
converting s.g.g and s.g.e to moderated newsgroups, my guess is that the
same sort of mess will eventually occur in s.g.petroleum,
s.bio.paleontology, s.engr.mining, etc. Probably 98% of the problem can
be taken care of today by mail-reader twit files without imposing
moderation.
I don't particularly like the idea of preventing people from
expressing their opinions, even if they seem rather loony. I'd prefer
that messages to stay on topic; to the extent that moderation could
weed out off-topic messages or direct flamers to use private e-mail,
I'd support it. However, the automated bot moderation proposals
(preventing posts by identified "routine offenders") are outright
censorship and likely would be held by any reasonable court to be a
violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. [Yeah, I know
that s.g.g and s.g.e are world-wide, but if the poster and the
moderater were both US citizens, the courts would probably permit a
lawsuit. Who could reasonably declare that a perpetual "offender" should
be prohibited from posting an occassional on-topic message?] I also
feel that the Turi's (and other wacko-branded predictors) of the world
should be allowed to argue their views, embarrass themselves, or
whatever. Why not let them do it by killing electrons instead of
trees? [BTW, I use the term "wacko" to refer those who have hypotheses
that are not widely accepted by mainstream scientists; thus, Wegener
was, in his time, a "wacko".]
About the only thing that I might possibly support in the way of
changes to s.g.g and s.g.e as suggested thus far is creation of
sci.geo.earthquake.predictions. Although moderation of that proposed
newsgroup might be desirable, there is a danger that moderation could
also perpetuate the "wacko" posts being sent sci.geo.earthquakes
[assuming it remained unmoderated]-- it really depends on who the
moderator is and how the moderation is implemented. In fact, that's
the crux of the whole moderation issue. IMHO, the only thing that the
moderator should not approve being posted are (1) SPAM (make money
fast, most mass marketing messages, etc.); messages that are clearly
off-topic; and, as indicated in the newsgroup scope statement,
messages on topics that are not acceptable here but belong elsewhere
(creation vs evolution). The moderator's only other role might be to
indicate that flames aren't acceptable and return such messages to
senders for rewriting prior to posting or that any flame be sent by
private e-mail. Everything else is appropriate. I suppose that I could
support moderation of sci.geo.geology and sci.geo.earthquakes if a
reasonable and willing moderator could be found. [Even then, perhaps
there's a need for sci.geo.moderators.abuse (unmoderated) where anyone
could post a complaint about the moderation being exercised.] Because
of all the flack raised, I suspect that any proposal that calls for the
moderator to be someone that has been involved in the reorg topic thus
far probably would garner more nays than ayes for the proposals. [I'd
probably vote nay, I'm afraid.]
While I'm on my soapbox, my understanding of the RFD process calls for
the proponent to send the RFD to the moderated news.groups.announce,
listing the other newsgroups and mail lists to which it will be sent
by the news.groups.announce moderator when approved. Typically the
moderator makes useful suggestions, asks questions, etc., before the
RFD is released. When I put together the sci.geo.earthquakes proposal,
the RFD approval process took about three weeks. During that time, the
proposal was rewritten as a result of comments, questions, and
suggestions by some of the usenet gurus. The fact that the s.g.g/s.g.e
reorg RFD was sent directly by the proponent to the affected
newsgroups and hasn't yet appeared in news.groups.announce is, IMHO,
regrettable. _All_ the reorg discussion really belongs in news.groups
and not in the affected individual newsgroups (where it is, by
convention and definition, off topic). Common courtesy also dictates
that inflammatory messages, admonishments, and related responses not
be made in a public newsgroup, but be moved to a private e-mail venue.
Given the recent discussion, if a CFV were issued as proposed in the
current draft RFD, I think it probably would be defeated.
-- Ted (Yeah, I know my sig violates the widely accepted 4-line limit)
Follow-ups to news.groups. Flames to me personally, please.
+===========================================================================+
| Ted Smith [Mountains West Consulting] |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GEOSCI-JOBS@eskimo.com: Geoscience Employment Opportunities |
| Send Sub/Unsub requests to GEOSCI-JOBS-REQUEST@eskimo.com |
| With SUBJECT: SUBSCRIBE or SUBJECT: UNSUBSCRIBE (message text is ignored) |
| Archive Index: http://www.calweb.com/~tcsmith/mail/gsj-arc.html |
|Online Resources for Earth Scientists: http://www.calweb.com/~tcsmith/ores/|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: (Morty)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 05:16:57 GMT
walter@physics7.berkeley.edu (Walter K. Stockwell) wrote:
>What does the existance of many species have to do with entropy?
>The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the number of species or
>the types of life. Do you know what the laws of thermodynamics actually
>say beyond some vague statement like "things tend to revert to higher
>entropy . . ." How do you do physics with that?
Yes, I am aware of their traditional textbook verbiage:
LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS:
1. The change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the heat
transferred to the system minus the work done by the system.
2. It is impossible to construct a heat engine operating in a cycle
that extracts heat from a reservoir and delivers an equal amount
of work.
3. It is impossible to reach absolute zero in a finite number of
steps.
It should be noted that these are traditional textbook forms of the
laws used to illustrate applications. (The second, for instance is
also referred to as the "Kelvin-Planck statement", and you will find
that Carnot's and Clausius' restatements of the law are also
frequently used.
If you wish me to elaborate on all that these laws imply, and why they
are pertinent, I can do so in another post upon request...
>And do you think living things really violate the second law? That when
>we eat food, extract energy from it, and excrete the waste, we are
>somehow pulling some cosmic trick, and violating thermodynamics?
Thank you for bringing this up! I LOVE that topic, although you may
not care for my conclusions...
Yes, I think that certain living things violate this in a sense. More
specifically, THINKING things go against the tendency that this law
describes. I used an example of this in my previous post. I, for
instance can stack items (such as grains of salt in my previous
analogy) in an orderly manner. The ability to choose, and think seems
also to be the ability to oppose this entropic tendency. Sort of the
"equal and opposite force" to randomness if you will let me play
semantics with physical laws....
>Entropy has a well defined meaning, and I doubt you could in any way stretch
>it to include some notion of the validity of evolution.
Yup. Entropy: A mathematical factor which is a measure of the
unavailable energy in a thermodynamic system.
-Morty
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: Richard Adams
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:44:08 -0700
Ted Smith wrote:
> ...However, the automated bot moderation proposals
> (preventing posts by identified "routine offenders") are outright
> censorship and likely would be held by any reasonable court to be a
> violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. [Yeah, I know
> that s.g.g and s.g.e are world-wide, but if the poster and the
> moderater were both US citizens, the courts would probably permit a
> lawsuit.
Below is the entire text of the US constitution's first
amendment you are referring to. For your reference, the
first 10 amendments to the constitution are called the
Bill of Rights, and they are dated 1791.
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to
assembly, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances."
Historical perspective is that the authors of the constitution
were trying to limit the power of the GOVERNMENT. Remember,
they revolted against governments they did not like, and
wanted to limit the power of the government they were forming.
Notice that the amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law".
It does not say what groups of people can or cannot do, it
limits the power of the government, not of the people.
Since when is it illegal for any non-government group of
people to establish rules for what they accept or won't
accept as topics in their meeting areas, i.e. news groups?
Since when are the members of news groups or the news groups
administrators the Congress of the United States such that
the rules of moderation are like laws passed by congress?
How could a cause of action in a lawsuit brought against
a moderator claim a violation of constitutional laws, when
the constitution only states what the the government cannot
do, and the moderator is not the government?
Isn't the cause for action likely to instead be one of
defamation, i.e. false statements which cause damages?
What relevance does this have to "free speech" in the
constitution? Don't the tort laws of defamation promote
a control of speech and the press, requiring a duty to
tell the TRUTH, rather than a freedom to speak or publish
in a defamatory manner?
There is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH on the internet. There is
no constitutional basis for claiming this. The rights
you have to access the internet are in accordance with
whatever commercial agreement (contract) you have with
your internet service provider.
For many news group participants, the groups have become
a place where people feel a false sense of impunity.
They proclaim a freedom of speech which does not exist,
and then fail to practice their real legal duty to speak
truthfully. They distort and destroy the true meaning of
the constitution to justify their lies.
Richard
Subject: Re: NOAH'S FLOOD vs. EVOLUTION
From: lmccaw@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Lucas McCaw)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 06:09:20 GMT
On 19 Sep 1996 15:15:26 GMT, virtfit@ix.netcom.com(ORRIN J SUNDQUIST)
wrote:
>QUESTIONS FOR:
>GEOLOGISTS, ARCHAELOGISTS, PALENTOLOGISTS,SCRIPTURAL SCHOLARS
>
>(1) What about Dr. Gentry's halos formed and frozen in minutes (not
>millions of years)on Uranium, suggesting the bedrock of granite could
>also be formed in the same timeframe?
Who cares about Uranus. Earth is a hell of a lot different
from a planet that far away from the sun.
>(2) Why there are sea dwelling fossils in large quantities on top of
>mountains all over the world, if the whole world was not under water as
>would occur in a Great Deluge?
Plate tectonics. As continental plates move, they collide with
oceanic plates. Here, one of the plates is pushed under the other, or
they can both be pushed up, forming mountain ranges. The fossils you
see are from the animals that once lived on the ocean floor.
>(3) The geologic column of strata containing only fossils which are
>fully developed kind(s) (certainly with variation in a specie), but
>there are no birddogs, flying frogs, etc., only gaps, excluding all of
>the needed transition forms -- each transition would require at least
>hundreds of changes just for each improvement, with millions of fossil
>remains in the subsequent strata(s) documenting the change
>(particularly since millions of years would produce millons of fossils
>and millions of transition fossils, is a very clever geologic column
>indeed? Where are they? And how did strata after strata bury the
>fossils we do find (not just sedementary layers which contain fossils,
>but non-sedentary strata that contain them)? A fossil maple leaf (Acer
>monspessulanum) found in the Tertiary rock in southern France, is
>supposed to be millions of years old. Yet the same species
>(virtually identical) today lives around the Mediterranean. Isn't the
>overwhelming message of the fossil record is one of staying the same,
>not evolving?
Not everything has to evolve. Natural selection only takes
place when pressures are placed on an ecosystem, otherwise there is no
need for an organism to change.
>
>Couldn't a Great Deluge which was 20 feet above the highest mountain,
>covering the whole earth and completely redepositing strata and
>different random orders on the earth be possible?
There is no way that that much water could have existed on
earth at one time, and there is no evidence of it even being here.
Even if all the ice caps melted, there wouldn't be enough water to
cover K-2 (highest mountain).
>11. Why has the horseshoe crab 'Limilus' which is found in
>Triassic rocks 205 to 230 MY old remained essentially unchanged in "all
>that time"?
>
>12. At least four saltwater brachiopods have not changed since Cambrian
>rocks were deposited. These include Lingulella, Dicellomus, Lingulepis
>and Acothele. Supposedly 500 to 600 MY old. Why?
Like I said before, just because evolution occurs, doesn't
mean it has to affect every single organism on Earth.
Lucas
Subject: Re: PRAYER 15/9, Jesus give the Schroedinger Equation on the Cross
From: Ed_Uber@netcom.com
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:12:18 -0700
Mahipal Singh Virdy wrote:
>
> In article <51kl6u$j5r@news.tuwien.ac.at>,
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> >
> >jesus tried to tell us something that's worth much more than
> >Quantum-physics, Mathematics, kosmology, and other parts of science ...
>
> Poetry and poetic justice may be *more* worthwhile than many parts of
> science. But without the science of evolution, the Bible as you
> understand it, would IN FACT not exist. Isn't it grand how the quantum
> physics makes the WWW possible so that the Bible can be distributed
> electronically, perfectly, fast, and all the while perserving Earth's
> natural resourses of trees? Isn't science poetically just? ;-)
>
> Think about it. Perhaps all those trees saved might be used otherwise in
> manufacturing crosses! Always look on the bright side of Brian's Life...
>
> >he tried to convince people to be peaceful, but many people were and
> >are still too dumb to get that message ...
>
> Now wouldn't it be a modern day miracle if all followers of Jesus|Jesvs
> would actually learn how to *implement* the message of peace. Let me
> tell you something, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a quantum
> physicist to understand that peace is a good thing. But last I heard, it
> was the Christian Scientists teaching young high school students that
> they must be ready to battle with the Evilutionists.
>
> And how clever these war mongers can be. Where ever do you suppose they
> so serendipitously arrived at a word like Evilution? Hey Jesus, got any
> clues? .... .... yes... ah ha... yes... Thanks much. Bye now.
Err... I think your phrasing is a little off there, Mahipal. The Bible
doesn't owe it's existence in any way I can conceive to the _Science_ of
Evolution. To evolution, quite arguably, but to the Science of
Evolution? Nah.
Ed (not related to other Ed's in this group) Uber
Subject: Weekly USGS Quake Report 9/12-18/96
From: root@garlock.wr.usgs.gov (Operator)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:58:45 GMT
NOTE: 5 or more maps will follow this post.
If you don't want to read them all the subjects include
the phrase "USGS Quake Map" for your killing convenience.
DISCLAIMER -- THIS IS NOT AN EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION OR WARNING!
The commentary provided with these map(s) is for INFORMATIONAL
USE ONLY, and SHOULD NOT be construed as an earthquake prediction,
warning, or advisory. Responsibility for such warnings rests with
the Office of Emergency Services of the State of California.
PLEASE REMEMBER -- THESE ARE PRELIMINARY DATA
Releasing these summaries on a timely basis requires that the
data, analysis, and interpretations presented are PRELIMINARY. Of
necessity they can only reflect the views of the seismologists who
prepared them, and DO NOT carry the endorsement of the U.S.G.S.
Thus while every effort is made to ensure that the information is
accurate, nothing contained in this report is to be construed as
and earthquake prediction, warning, advisory, or official policy
statement of any kind, of the U.S. Geological Survey, or the
U.S. Government.
FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS REPORT
Send e-mail to michael@andreas.wr.usgs.gov
DO NOT SEND EMAIL TO weekly@garlock.wr.usgs.gov It will not be read.
Seismicity Report for Northern California,
the Nation, and the World for the week of
September 12 - 18, 1996
Stephen R. Walter
U.S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Rd. MS-977, Menlo Park, CA 94025
San Francisco Bay Area
Activity remained light with a few more events than last week but only
two of which were as large as M2. During the seven-day period ending at
midnight on September 18, 1996, the U.S. Geological Survey office in Menlo
Park recorded 31 earthquakes of magnitude one (M1) and greater within the
San Francisco Bay area shown in Figure 1. This total compares to 27
earthquakes during the previous seven-day period (September 5 - 11), five
of which were as large as M2.
There were scattered M1 earthquakes along the Calaveras fault, the
largest a M2.0 on Monday about seven miles northwest of Hollister (#3/1).
Similarly, the scattered activity on the San Andreas was capped by a M2.0
early Saturday morning about 13 miles southeast of Hollister (#2/1).
Small events in interesting areas included a M1.2 on the northern
Hayward fault beneath the Berkeley Hills (#1/1) and a M1.6 on the San
Andreas about two miles offshore of San Francisco (#4/1).
Northern & Central California
The largest earthquakes in the region were a pair of M3.2's off the
north coast. The first occurred early Saturday morning along the
Mendocino fracture zone about ten miles west of Petrolia (#7/2). It was
one of eleven M2+ events to occur along the fracture zone during the week,
seven of which occurred during a 30-hour period on Saturday/Sunday. The
second M3.2 occurred late Tuesday night about 110 miles west of Crescent
City in the central Gorda Plate (#9/2). Onshore, two M2 events occurred
within the subducted Gorda Plate (#3/2). The first was a M2.2 that
occurred last Thursday 27 miles northwest of Hayfork at a depth of about
31 km. It was followed by a 34-km-deep M2.4 on Monday that was located
about 15 miles north of Hayfork.
Interestingly, a pair of 30-km-deep earthquakes also occurred beneath
the central Sierra Nevada during the week. First was a 31-km-deep M2.2
that occurred last Friday about 22 miles northwest of Yosemite Village
(#6/2). It was followed on Tuesday evening by a 33-km-deep M2.2 about 32
miles southeast of Yosemite Village (#8/2). Deep earthquakes in this part
of the Sierra Nevada are not uncommon, the most recent example a 42-km-
deep M2.2 in March of this year. However, since active subduction
presumably ceased 2 to 3 million years ago, the cause of these deep
earthquakes remains an open question.
Aside from a pair of small M2's at the Geysers, Coast Range activity
was limited to a M2.2 about eight miles northeast of Napa and a M2.7 about
eleven miles east of Napa (#2/2).
Activity in central California was up a bit from that of recent
weeks. The San Andreas experienced four M2 events along the creeping
segment and one M2.2 near the north end of the Parkfield segment (#5/2).
The Coalinga area experienced a M3.2 early in the week followed by a trio
of M2's on Tuesday/Wednesday (#1/2). Similarly, a M3.0 on the Big Sur
Coast about 17 miles northwest of San Simeon was followed pair of M2's
later in the week (#4/2).
Long Valley Caldera
The only earthquake as large as M2 in the Long Valley area was a M2.1
last Thursday afternoon along the south side of the caldera about seven
miles east of Mammoth Lakes (#1/3).
USA Seismicity (September 10 - 18)
The National Earthquake Information Center reported no notable
earthquakes in the lower 48 states outside of the California area. In
this area they reported a M3.6 in the eastern LA Basin that was felt in
the Riverside area (#1/4) and a M3.0 along the California/Nevada border
about 25 miles south of Tonopah Junction, NV (#2/4).
The Planet Earth (September 10 - 18)
Damaging aftershocks continued along the Adriatic coast of Croatia,
site of a M6.0 on September 5. A M4.3 on Sept. 10 damaged buildings at
Banovina, Croatia with a M5.3 on the 17th producing additional damage in
the Slano and Ston area (#1/5). A M6.0 near the east coast of Honshu,
Japan was as far away as Tokyo but apparently produced no significant
damage (#2/5). Similarly, neither a M6.0 in the Santa Cruz Islands (#3/5)
nor a M5.9 near the north coast of New Guinea (#4/5) apparently produced
any damage.
Table 1. Northern & Central California Seismicity (M>1.0)
--ORIGIN TIME (UT)-- -LAT N-- --LON W-- DEPTH N N RMS ERH ERZ DUR
YR MON DA HRMN SEC DEG MIN DEG MIN KM RD S SEC KM KM REMKS MAG
96 SEP 12 718 39.42 37 32.50 118 52.67 9.26 22 .08 .4 .7 MOR 1.4
96 SEP 12 740 16.53 39 22.85 123 16.89 10.96 12 .14 .4 2.1 MAA 1.5
96 SEP 12 828 40.08 36 43.06 121 10.62 2.54 20 .17 .5 .9 PAI# 1.0
96 SEP 12 1107 22.36 38 49.28 122 47.88 4.43 10 .02 .4 .6 GEY 1.6
96 SEP 12 1115 15.01 36 16.96 120 27.65 10.36 54 2 .12 .2 .3 COA 3.3
96 SEP 12 1204 11.70 37 34.68 118 51.39 8.00 23 .08 .3 .5 MOR 1.4
96 SEP 12 1226 4.96 37 26.11 118 33.39 11.93 14 .13 .5 1.9 RVL 1.4
96 SEP 12 1230 15.70 36 16.63 120 27.46 9.42 17 .18 .6 .9 COA 1.6
96 SEP 12 1453 33.53 37 33.76 118 51.67 6.51 22 .10 .3 .6 MOR 1.7
96 SEP 12 1538 21.50 37 32.06 118 51.39 9.50 12 .09 .5 1.1 MOR 1.2
96 SEP 12 1547 18.87 36 38.24 121 14.84 6.42 46 .07 .2 .5 STN 2.1
96 SEP 12 1603 20.10 37 37.73 119 2.65 4.40 12 .08 .6 1.0 MAM 1.2
96 SEP 12 1642 23.82 37 33.64 118 51.79 6.29 24 .09 .3 .5 MOR 1.6
96 SEP 12 1728 29.19 40 24.29 121 58.94 22.32 12 1 .19 .7 2.0 SHA 2.2
96 SEP 12 1750 8.96 38 47.52 122 48.41 4.74 31 .05 .2 .4 GEY 2.2
96 SEP 12 1807 54.85 37 5.88 121 49.90 3.72 15 .04 .3 .5 LOM 1.3
96 SEP 12 1811 31.00 38 16.29 122 4.28 0.02 8 2 .44 1.6 2.8 GVL # 1.5
96 SEP 12 1836 55.59 38 23.83 122 11.83 7.05 39 1 .24 .4 .9 GVL# 2.2
96 SEP 12 2038 56.99 40 53.28 123 27.31 31.36 8 2 .05 .5 1.5 KLA 2.2
96 SEP 12 2102 9.54 37 37.43 118 51.13 9.54 28 1 .06 .3 .5 SMO 2.3
96 SEP 12 2124 58.36 36 58.19 121 27.74 4.01 37 .12 .2 .6 CYS 1.7
96 SEP 12 2140 33.94 36 57.90 121 27.28 3.08 18 .05 .2 .7 CYS 1.3
96 SEP 12 2224 11.81 37 37.25 118 51.22 9.46 11 .08 .5 1.0 SMO 1.3
96 SEP 12 2300 3.96 38 49.39 122 47.98 3.47 9 .05 .3 .9 GEY 1.4
96 SEP 13 3 6.06 38 49.36 122 47.79 3.68 8 .03 .4 .8 GEY 1.2
96 SEP 13 102 17.76 38 54.98 123 11.44 0.17 7 .03 .5 1.3 PAR 1.3
96 SEP 13 142 53.62 36 38.19 121 15.19 7.09 19 .06 .3 .8 STN 1.1
96 SEP 13 210 4.79 38 27.43 122 38.56 8.82 26 2 .17 .3 1.2 ROG 1.5
96 SEP 13 331 13.18 40 37.46 124 15.66 18.22 7 .05 .9 .9 EUR 1.8
96 SEP 13 442 53.28 37 55.44 118 10.72 1.44 40 .20 1.510.8 NEV # 3.0
96 SEP 13 505 27.19 37 34.24 118 50.35 5.13 10 .03 .4 .7 MOR 1.3
96 SEP 13 531 25.38 38 45.67 122 42.77 1.33 11 .09 .4 .4 GEY# 1.5
96 SEP 13 607 35.24 37 34.66 118 50.23 1.60 8 .03 .5 .4 MOR 1.4
96 SEP 13 628 44.16 35 50.91 121 20.54 9.38 45 .07 .2 .4 SSM 2.9
96 SEP 13 635 3.99 37 30.52 118 52.78 6.11 10 .10 .6 .6 MOR 1.0
96 SEP 13 637 56.85 37 30.69 118 40.28 11.55 12 .07 .5 2.2 WCN 1.4
96 SEP 13 724 28.55 36 46.43 121 17.35 8.33 53 1 .06 .2 .3 PAI 1.8
96 SEP 13 836 0.17 36 59.47 121 44.31 13.43 28 .07 .3 .6 SAR 1.0
96 SEP 13 849 5.07 37 34.26 118 50.26 5.76 11 .05 .4 .7 MOR 1.1
96 SEP 13 940 20.41 38 47.48 122 44.97 2.30 7 .03 .4 1.1 GEY 1.3
96 SEP 13 947 1.57 36 38.31 121 15.25 6.75 29 .06 .2 .5 STN 1.6
96 SEP 13 1058 41.05 36 0.58 120 52.28 11.90 23 .06 .3 1.2 ROB 1.7
96 SEP 13 1113 53.38 40 20.49 124 55.97 13.77 10 1 .24 2.6 1.3 MEN 2.1
96 SEP 13 1314 59.71 37 23.14 121 44.47 6.51 30 1 .04 .2 .5 ALU 1.4
96 SEP 13 1341 10.43 35 42.37 121 31.81 0.16 17 .30 2.6 8.1 SSM # 2.0
--ORIGIN TIME (UT)-- -LAT N-- --LON W-- DEPTH N N RMS ERH ERZ DUR
YR MON DA HRMN SEC DEG MIN DEG MIN KM RD S SEC KM KM REMKS MAG
96 SEP 13 1532 59.71 37 22.61 118 41.67 16.37 22 .07 .5 1.1 KAI 2.0
96 SEP 13 1604 32.34 36 52.26 121 35.90 5.01 18 .12 .4 .5 SJB 1.4
96 SEP 13 1712 7.97 35 50.67 121 20.65 9.30 30 1 .07 .3 .5 SSM 2.2
96 SEP 13 1822 24.83 36 22.40 121 1.26 0.24 10 .08 .4 .5 BIT 1.4
96 SEP 13 1834 56.49 38 48.07 122 46.23 0.49 7 .03 .3 .9 GEY 1.1
96 SEP 13 1907 6.30 36 47.24 121 18.10 8.00 39 .06 .2 .4 PAI 1.6
96 SEP 13 2250 35.66 35 55.80 120 28.69 5.60 41 2 .08 .2 .2 MID 2.3
96 SEP 13 2359 53.23 36 33.59 121 9.08 3.05 14 .05 .2 .6 PIN 1.3
96 SEP 14 127 34.59 35 55.80 120 28.52 5.68 27 .06 .3 .3 MID 1.7
96 SEP 14 200 47.56 37 49.31 119 59.79 30.88 16 2 .14 .6 .9 YOS 2.2
96 SEP 14 417 11.56 37 24.26 118 35.26 13.45 10 .06 .6 1.6 RVL 2.0
96 SEP 14 610 5.46 36 16.96 120 25.61 13.45 8 2 .10 1.7 2.3 COA 1.2
96 SEP 14 631 25.17 36 26.33 121 0.71 5.70 10 .04 .5 .8 BIT 1.3
96 SEP 14 632 37.41 38 16.91 122 5.51 8.48 42 .24 .4 .9 GVL 2.9
96 SEP 14 805 59.44 37 52.39 122 13.93 9.38 11 1 .11 .4 .6 HAY 1.3
96 SEP 14 856 34.39 36 53.96 121 29.05 5.04 53 .20 .3 .6 BUS 1.9
96 SEP 14 910 6.91 37 15.41 121 57.91 2.59 12 .18 .5 3.4 SCV # 1.1
96 SEP 14 922 56.12 36 40.95 121 18.62 5.52 51 .08 .2 .4 STN 2.1
96 SEP 14 1010 10.56 40 18.23 124 28.88 7.80 21 1 .08 .7 .3 MEN 3.0
96 SEP 14 1014 51.10 37 39.03 118 51.61 4.18 8 .09 .5 .8 DOM 1.1
96 SEP 14 1052 49.04 37 34.75 118 51.80 6.19 8 .11 .8 1.2 MOR 1.2
96 SEP 14 1115 28.44 40 18.23 124 28.68 7.74 21 1 .09 .8 .3 MEN 3.2
96 SEP 14 1129 2.91 40 18.72 124 27.14 7.51 12 .05 1.1 .5 MEN 2.4
96 SEP 14 1250 58.66 40 18.22 124 29.77 7.09 11 2 .04 .5 .4 MEN 2.1
96 SEP 14 1313 42.52 36 34.73 121 6.53 8.62 23 .11 .3 .7 BVL 1.5
96 SEP 14 1401 55.76 37 9.96 121 36.57 5.50 11 1 .08 .5 .5 CYN 1.0
96 SEP 14 1528 13.90 37 36.97 118 50.87 8.04 23 1 .10 .3 .5 SMO 1.6
96 SEP 14 1530 9.11 40 18.41 124 28.93 7.01 10 2 .04 .5 .6 MEN 1.9
96 SEP 14 1536 42.82 40 18.41 124 28.79 6.85 12 1 .07 .7 .5 MEN 2.1
96 SEP 14 1539 58.40 38 47.43 122 45.09 1.47 16 .04 .2 .7 GEY 1.8
96 SEP 14 1608 49.60 36 11.52 120 45.49 3.90 21 1 .11 .3 .7 BIT# 1.8
96 SEP 14 1832 24.83 36 6.29 120 39.33 8.69 10 .09 .9 .6 SLA 1.4
96 SEP 14 1846 40.71 37 33.69 118 45.63 5.50 15 .07 .3 .8 WCN 1.3
96 SEP 14 1858 3.79 36 6.37 120 38.95 7.34 7 2 .02 1.3 .7 SLA 1.2
96 SEP 14 2030 19.63 40 13.60 124 9.72 12.26 13 1 .13 .6 .7 MEN 1.9
96 SEP 14 2050 29.15 36 47.05 121 20.71 2.23 14 1 .06 .3 .5 HOL 1.3
96 SEP 14 2051 43.79 36 47.09 121 20.58 2.62 24 1 .07 .2 .4 HOL 1.6
96 SEP 14 2125 39.42 38 49.48 122 50.66 0.85 8 .10 .5 1.2 GEY 1.0
96 SEP 14 2154 24.03 37 30.78 121 53.17 5.72 13 1 .06 .3 .5 MIS 1.1
96 SEP 15 48 54.36 36 29.73 121 4.28 3.72 14 .05 .3 .4 BIT 1.2
96 SEP 15 130 55.29 40 18.52 124 28.91 7.43 11 1 .03 1.0 .6 MEN 1.9
96 SEP 15 519 44.17 38 48.62 122 46.26 2.36 14 .03 .2 .5 GEY 1.6
96 SEP 15 526 58.82 36 38.16 121 15.25 7.15 12 .03 .4 .8 STN .9
96 SEP 15 529 37.47 37 41.91 121 54.21 7.39 12 .05 .3 .9 DAN 1.1
96 SEP 15 530 33.37 37 41.90 121 54.12 8.72 15 .07 .3 .6 DAN 1.3
--ORIGIN TIME (UT)-- -LAT N-- --LON W-- DEPTH N N RMS ERH ERZ DUR
YR MON DA HRMN SEC DEG MIN DEG MIN KM RD S SEC KM KM REMKS MAG
96 SEP 15 625 20.92 37 18.67 119 24.25 30.51 7 2 .07 .7 1.3 KAI 2.1
96 SEP 15 739 59.11 37 17.08 119 23.52 27.98 11 2 .10 .6 1.3 KAI # 2.0
96 SEP 15 1009 26.15 40 13.92 124 10.15 11.93 14 1 .14 .6 .8 MEN 2.2
96 SEP 15 1223 31.34 37 36.90 118 50.98 4.01 18 .08 .3 .4 SMO 1.4
96 SEP 15 1226 57.15 37 34.78 119 2.50 4.86 8 .04 .9 1.0 SIL 1.3
96 SEP 15 1318 9.59 40 18.52 124 27.82 7.90 15 .05 1.1 .4 MEN 2.4
96 SEP 15 1348 31.67 37 27.61 121 48.26 6.31 23 .06 .2 .5 ALU 1.3
96 SEP 15 1437 16.09 40 18.33 124 28.58 8.22 17 1 .04 .7 .3 MEN 2.6
96 SEP 15 1510 50.23 36 28.17 121 2.57 5.57 20 .06 .3 .6 BIT 1.3
96 SEP 15 2009 37.87 37 59.70 118 44.38 20.54 11 .20 .9 2.5 MOL 1.8
96 SEP 15 2133 43.42 40 17.46 124 37.18 22.17 9 1 .06 2.8 .9 MEN 2.7
96 SEP 15 2319 5.79 38 49.41 122 48.53 3.77 7 .02 .4 .8 GEY 1.0
96 SEP 15 2342 37.73 36 38.69 121 15.46 5.70 43 1 .07 .2 .5 STN 2.0
96 SEP 16 238 42.17 37 34.46 118 51.61 5.97 10 .06 .5 .8 MOR 1.1
96 SEP 16 251 28.90 37 39.26 119 1.11 2.55 13 .06 .4 1.1 MAM 1.3
96 SEP 16 607 52.61 38 46.33 122 44.01 1.63 7 .05 .4 .7 GEY 1.3
96 SEP 16 609 45.06 37 8.75 121 59.11 12.76 29 2 .07 .3 .4 LOM 1.3
96 SEP 16 654 35.65 36 0.40 120 52.29 11.74 15 1 .06 .3 1.9 ROB 1.7
96 SEP 16 704 7.16 38 50.20 122 52.12 0.04 14 .64 1.3 3.9 GEY## 1.4
96 SEP 16 738 24.98 40 46.46 123 10.57 33.66 16 1 .14 .6 1.3 KLA 2.6
96 SEP 16 829 11.13 36 28.37 121 2.69 5.59 41 1 .07 .2 .5 BIT 2.0
96 SEP 16 848 57.56 37 45.61 118 20.02 7.79 14 .19 1.0 1.7 WHI 1.8
96 SEP 16 908 6.61 37 36.07 118 48.77 6.98 25 .07 .3 .5 HCF 2.0
96 SEP 16 908 46.45 37 37.40 118 50.72 7.05 14 .12 .5 .7 SMO 1.3
96 SEP 16 921 22.20 37 33.90 121 41.86 5.75 25 1 .07 .2 .6 HAM 1.2
96 SEP 16 934 56.96 36 39.98 121 17.11 5.96 52 .07 .2 .4 STN 2.1
96 SEP 16 1148 13.10 38 49.49 122 47.53 3.67 9 .04 .3 .8 GEY 1.4
96 SEP 16 1159 38.93 36 32.95 121 8.11 2.87 36 1 .07 .2 .5 PIN 2.1
96 SEP 16 1310 2.96 38 31.41 118 28.86 8.48 31 .08 1.3 2.5 MOL 2.6
96 SEP 16 1316 28.62 37 9.60 121 33.26 4.79 10 .06 .3 1.2 CYN 1.2
96 SEP 16 1433 31.59 40 13.82 124 9.88 12.92 10 1 .10 .4 .7 MEN 1.9
96 SEP 16 1454 19.11 38 31.74 118 28.57 8.53 36 .10 1.4 2.8 MOL 2.7
96 SEP 16 1538 11.88 38 47.99 122 48.80 4.68 27 .05 .2 .4 GEY 2.3
96 SEP 16 1545 5.33 38 47.99 122 48.75 4.28 7 .03 .4 .9 GEY 1.2
96 SEP 16 1616 12.06 38 49.51 122 47.94 3.98 7 .02 .4 .8 GEY 1.0
96 SEP 16 1622 43.77 38 49.35 122 47.92 4.16 19 1 .04 .2 .5 GEY 1.7
96 SEP 16 1657 11.11 36 38.60 121 15.55 5.57 21 .05 .2 .7 STN 1.7
96 SEP 16 2031 36.88 36 37.33 121 13.50 4.62 28 1 .06 .2 .5 PIN 1.7
96 SEP 16 2314 29.84 36 56.59 121 26.26 3.32 61 1 .12 .2 .5 HOL 2.1
96 SEP 16 2323 11.32 38 50.35 122 51.28 1.89 7 .05 .4 1.1 GEY 1.1
96 SEP 17 152 19.46 36 9.79 120 40.34 0.01 7 2 .08 .5 .5 BIT # 1.3
96 SEP 17 512 2.22 35 45.81 118 12.79 12.23 7 .06 .8 .9 WWF 1.5
96 SEP 17 630 15.57 37 37.77 118 53.51 6.47 21 .10 .3 .5 SMO 1.7
96 SEP 17 727 47.45 38 47.72 122 47.51 0.52 7 .04 .3 .8 GEY 1.2
96 SEP 17 803 52.31 36 47.81 121 22.72 3.61 16 .06 .3 .7 HOL 1.1
--ORIGIN TIME (UT)-- -LAT N-- --LON W-- DEPTH N N RMS ERH ERZ DUR
YR MON DA HRMN SEC DEG MIN DEG MIN KM RD S SEC KM KM REMKS MAG
96 SEP 17 921 56.15 37 45.65 122 34.11 12.52 16 2 .06 .5 .6 SFP 1.3
96 SEP 17 1022 53.10 37 18.73 121 40.92 6.63 21 2 .08 .2 .8 SFL 1.3
96 SEP 17 1038 13.11 37 36.93 118 50.99 8.70 16 1 .08 .3 .5 SMO 1.0
96 SEP 17 1155 27.32 40 23.50 124 59.45 0.63 9 .4514.622.5 MEN - 2.1
96 SEP 17 1619 48.40 36 59.12 121 38.72 2.86 15 .05 .3 1.4 SAR 1.0
96 SEP 17 1654 9.27 40 22.86 125 4.85 2.99 10 .2912.712.5 MEN - 2.7
96 SEP 17 1712 43.86 37 38.32 119 2.88 2.31 8 .03 6.4 5.2 MAM - 1.3
96 SEP 17 1747 3.17 38 50.23 122 52.71 2.83 7 .02 .5 1.6 GEY 1.0
96 SEP 17 1755 41.86 36 41.93 121 4.26 0.58 16 .23 .6 2.5 PAN # 1.2
96 SEP 17 2039 12.86 37 37.67 118 53.24 5.74 10 .08 .4 .7 SMO 1.2
96 SEP 17 2202 49.58 38 45.87 122 43.11 1.13 9 .07 .3 .5 GEY 1.6
96 SEP 17 2234 21.82 36 22.46 121 1.29 0.80 15 .04 .3 .6 BIT 1.3
96 SEP 17 2340 4.53 38 49.21 122 48.50 4.29 8 .03 .4 .9 GEY 1.3
96 SEP 18 29 4.19 39 43.26 123 28.99 12.36 10 .03 .4 .4 MAA 1.7
96 SEP 18 54 46.00 36 17.05 120 27.19 10.92 12 1 .07 .5 .7 COA 1.6
96 SEP 18 59 10.52 36 16.68 120 26.84 11.21 10 .07 .6 1.1 COA 2.2
96 SEP 18 59 44.17 36 16.79 120 27.85 8.23 38 .19 .3 .6 COA 2.6
96 SEP 18 111 18.85 37 18.42 119 24.17 32.57 19 2 .09 .6 1.1 KAI# 2.5
96 SEP 18 136 27.81 38 34.51 122 39.58 8.30 12 1 .05 .3 .8 NAP 1.4
96 SEP 18 237 53.70 36 46.23 121 28.24 4.48 28 .14 .3 .8 SJB 1.5
96 SEP 18 255 14.28 37 34.48 118 50.89 9.03 17 .11 .4 .9 MOR 1.3
96 SEP 18 303 48.59 37 34.08 118 51.05 8.57 22 .09 .3 .6 MOR 1.6
96 SEP 18 307 57.73 37 34.48 118 51.01 9.84 14 .11 .4 1.0 MOR 1.1
96 SEP 18 449 38.63 36 34.41 121 7.35 10.36 18 .06 .3 .8 BVL 1.1
96 SEP 18 524 5.03 39 23.23 120 12.99 0.63 11 1 .13 1.2 5.7 WAK 2.0
96 SEP 18 615 23.67 37 36.86 118 48.86 5.63 9 .10 .5 .8 HCF 1.1
96 SEP 18 629 41.68 36 45.05 121 21.09 7.51 10 .02 .4 .8 PAI .9
96 SEP 18 729 17.57 41 47.52 126 23.97 4.99 29 .17 3.713.1 PON - 3.0
96 SEP 18 743 3.83 37 30.47 118 48.53 13.13 9 .06 .7 2.1 MOR 1.2
96 SEP 18 804 7.96 36 18.38 120 26.88 10.99 9 .06 .6 1.1 COA 1.7
96 SEP 18 805 37.29 36 18.86 120 26.16 13.35 7 .03 .9 1.3 COA 1.7
96 SEP 18 816 35.10 36 18.78 120 26.19 12.91 9 .06 .7 1.2 COA 1.7
96 SEP 18 849 53.86 36 58.27 121 27.47 4.09 21 .06 .2 .6 CYS 1.4
96 SEP 18 918 45.06 36 18.30 120 26.43 12.10 44 .13 .2 .3 COA 2.5
96 SEP 18 935 32.23 35 32.54 120 46.90 2.81 38 1 .08 .2 1.0 SSM 2.4
96 SEP 18 954 19.47 37 38.38 118 52.87 7.52 7 .07 .8 1.2 SMO 1.3
96 SEP 18 1050 36.90 37 29.06 118 49.10 3.53 27 .08 .3 .7 MOR 2.3
96 SEP 18 1349 16.87 38 48.86 122 50.50 1.44 15 .05 .2 .6 GEY 1.8
96 SEP 18 2305 50.77 37 40.79 118 57.87 2.17 8 .05 .3 .4 WMO 1.2
TABLE 2.
Data from National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC)
UTC TIME LAT LONG DEP GS MAGS SD STA REGION AND COMMENTS
HRMNSEC MB Msz USED
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEP 10
002047.0 8.493N 126.141E 33N 4.9 0.8 27 MINDANAO, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
020556.0* 7.531S 126.646E 110G 4.9 0.5 9 BANDA SEA
022650.3* 4.447N 76.526W 115 4.3 0.9 20 COLOMBIA
023415.9 1.000N 120.095E 33N 5.4 5.0 1.1 62 MINAHASSA PENINSULA, SULAWESI
042536.8 30.163S 179.691W 412 4.4 0.7 41 KERMADEC ISLANDS REGION
050925.7 45.444N 16.244E 10G 4.3 1.2 85 NORTHWESTERN BALKAN REGION. ML
4.7 (VIE), 4.3 (LDG), 4.3 (LJU). Some buildings damaged at Banovina,
Croatia. Felt (VII) at Petrinja and Sisak; (VI) at Zagreb, Croatia. Felt
at Bjelovar, Koprivnica, Krizevci and as far as Dubrovnik, Croatia. Also
felt in Slovenia.
062053.0 1.075N 120.226E 33N 5.3 0.9 48 MINAHASSA PENINSULA, SULAWESI
071505.4 35.091N 117.516W 5G 0.3 9 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. ML 2.9 (GS).
085259.4* 2.887N 127.274E 33N 5.0 1.0 16 NORTHERN MOLUCCA SEA
101016.9* 7.055S 155.655E 33N 4.8 1.3 20 SOLOMON ISLANDS
110413.0% 58.401N 154.436W 10G 1.0 11 ALASKA PENINSULA. ML 3.2 (PMR).
124032.9 4.833N 125.378E 100G 5.0 1.2 43 TALAUD ISLANDS, INDONESIA
132330.0* 7.299S 127.696E 33N 4.6 1.4 11 BANDA SEA
133147.4 37.664N 138.781E 204 4.6 0.8 27 NEAR WEST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
135541.0* 23.612S 179.549E 620? 4.4 0.7 21 SOUTH OF FIJI ISLANDS
143854.6 7.941S 74.338W 150D 4.8 0.8 61 PERU-BRAZIL BORDER REGION
151611.2* 0.980N 120.355E 33N 4.8 0.8 13 MINAHASSA PENINSULA, SULAWESI
155907.0 42.920N 17.914E 10G 1.4 25 ADRIATIC SEA. ML 3.3 (ROM).
180804.6* 58.251N 154.757W 33N 0.9 12 ALASKA PENINSULA. ML 3.7 (GS).
225449.4* 42.779N 17.907E 10G 4.3 1.8 47 ADRIATIC SEA. ML 3.4 (ROM), 3.8
232910.9* 5.396S 146.963E 194D 4.2 0.7 17 EASTERN NEW GUINEA REG., P.N.G.
SEP 11
005200.5 42.814N 17.906E 10G 4.5 1.0 55 ADRIATIC SEA. ML 3.8 (ROM).
023715.5 35.548N 140.939E 60 6.0 0.9 296 NEAR EAST COAST OF HONSHU,
JAPAN.
Felt (V JMA) at Sawara; (IV) in northeast and northwest Chiba Prefecture;
(III) at Tokyo, parts of Kanagawa Prefecture and on the Izu Peninsula.
030448.8* 21.771N 121.355E 33N 4.3 1.2 11 TAIWAN REGION
034126.3 9.983N 93.868E 33N 5.1 1.0 43 NICOBAR ISLANDS, INDIA
043321.9* 0.295S 124.257E 33N 4.5 1.8 13 SOUTHERN MOLUCCA SEA
044117.9* 35.267S 107.523W 10G 4.8 0.8 12 SOUTHERN EAST PACIFIC RISE
045312.9? 13.15 N 121.31 E 33N 4.8 1.1 12 MINDORO, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
052132.5 35.452N 141.379E 33N 4.3 0.5 13 NEAR EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
062845.8 4.248N 76.625W 109D 5.2 0.8 113 COLOMBIA
125558.8? 23.27 S 179.99 W 550G 4.2 1.2 19 SOUTH OF FIJI ISLANDS
132554.0* 20.200S 174.096W 33N 4.7 1.1 14 TONGA ISLANDS
141058.6 61.657N 150.137W 33N 0.6 8 SOUTHERN ALASKA. ML 2.8 (GS).
142124.6* 7.427S 128.730E 125? 4.1 1.4 13 BANDA SEA
155212.5* 9.944N 94.077E 33N 4.8 1.2 9 NICOBAR ISLANDS, INDIA
164252.7* 10.442S 78.596W 33N 4.8 1.1 15 NEAR COAST OF PERU
174951.1* 5.283S 129.980E 197? 4.4 1.1 13 BANDA SEA
190247.9* 21.474N 121.603E 33N 4.4 0.8 10 TAIWAN REGION
200600.4* 8.910S 157.832E 33N 4.7 1.2 20 SOLOMON ISLANDS
203930.9 42.862N 17.990E 10G 4.5 0.9 41 ADRIATIC SEA. ML 3.6 (ROM).
230708.9* 40.795N 143.069E 33N 4.6 1.0 13 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
231414.9* 27.454N 92.616E 33N 4.6 1.4 13 EASTERN XIZANG-INDIA BORDER REG.
SEP 12
031727.5 63.547N 151.005W 10G 1.1 48 CENTRAL ALASKA. ML 2.7 (AEIC).
033229.3 42.859N 17.993E 10G 4.6 1.2 73 ADRIATIC SEA. ML 4.4 (VIE).
061941.2 60.435N 147.759W 10G 1.0 49 SOUTHERN ALASKA. ML 3.0 (AEIC).
081659.2 55.723N 161.188E 33N 4.6 1.0 46 NEAR EAST COAST OF KAMCHATKA
092226.5* 6.642S 155.138E 40D 4.6 0.8 23 SOLOMON ISLANDS
095228.6 34.630N 116.634W 5G 1.0 25 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. ML 3.0
111515.2 36.294N 120.438W 10G 1.0 56 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. ML 3.3 (GS).
113245.4* 42.878N 18.135E 10G 4.4 0.6 15 NORTHWEST BALKAN REGION. ML 3.4
132127.2? 46.31 N 12.53 E 27* 0.9 7 NORTHERN ITALY. ML 3.0 (VIE).
184657.0 42.890N 18.096E 10G 1.0 52 NORTHWEST BALKAN REGION. ML 3.8
211252.8* 14.035S 167.494E 33N 5.1 1.3 20 VANUATU ISLANDS
211817.5 33.886N 117.148W 15G 0.7 46 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. ML 3.6
(GS). Felt in the Riverside area.
SEP 13
000952.1 38.261N 141.953E 48D 4.8 1.0 24 NEAR EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
034108.2* 10.513S 165.687E 157D 5.0 0.5 33 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
044253.6 37.939N 118.210W 5G 0.8 23 CALIFORNIA-NEVADA BORDER. ML 3.0
050436.2 2.705N 96.063E 33N 5.0 4.5 0.8 38 NORTHERN SUMATERA, INDONESIA
062842.9 35.803N 121.383W 10G 0.8 30 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. ML 3.0 (GS).
134111.3 51.461N 178.591W 33N 5.2 0.9 79 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS.
Felt on Adak.
154507.4* 58.651N 157.957E 10G 4.9 0.7 27 KAMCHATKA
213255.9 51.613N 174.007W 33N 4.8 0.6 43 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS.
SEP 14
025325.0 0.016N 122.832E 184 5.4 0.9 58 MINAHASSA PENINSULA, SULAWESI
063236.9 38.313N 122.057W 10G 1.0 44 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. ML 2.9
(GS). Felt at Fairfield.
080103.4 35.993N 70.636E 118D 5.3 0.8 64 HINDU KUSH REGION, AFGHANISTAN.
101006.6 40.270N 124.791W 10G 0.7 18 NEAR COAST-NORTHERN CALIF. ML 3.0
111524.4 40.272N 124.805W 10G 0.8 22 NEAR COAST-NORTHERN CALIF. ML 3.3
125036.8 51.466N 174.075W 33N 5.0 0.7 67 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS.
130335.1* 10.039N 125.350E 210* 5.0 1.0 34 LEYTE, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
131053.2 10.845S 165.952E 66D 6.0 0.8 109 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS. Mw 6.4 (GS),
135656.1* 30.426N 131.343E 33N 4.9 1.1 13 KYUSHU, JAPAN
SEP 15
092541.7 24.315S 179.930E 493D 4.7 0.6 30 SOUTH OF FIJI ISLANDS
122652.4* 2.795N 126.966E 33N 5.0 0.7 9 NORTHERN MOLUCCA SEA
181738.9 6.456S 154.632E 53D 5.7 0.6 58 SOLOMON ISLANDS. Mw 5.9 (GS),
SEP 16
013811.5 34.878N 4.346W 10G 4.4 0.8 26 MOROCCO. mbLg 3.9 (MDD).
031748.7? 11.81 N 87.69 W 33N 4.7 0.8 21 NEAR COAST OF NICARAGUA
054731.1* 3.184S 145.495E 33N 5.5 5.9 0.7 21 NEAR N COAST OF NEW GUINEA, PNG.
121615.3* 13.372N 125.783E 33N 5.0 1.0 18 PHILIPPINE ISLANDS REGION
152659.2* 59.225S 27.326W 33N 5.3 5.1 0.7 8 SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION
205203.8* 67.339N 166.081W 10G 4.2 1.3 20 BERING STRAIT
214517.1* 1.273S 102.100E 259G 4.6 1.2 15 SOUTHERN SUMATERA, INDONESIA
SEP 17
055938.6? 12.28 N 88.13 W 33N 4.9 1.0 47 OFF COAST OF CENTRAL AMERICA
134522.3 42.891N 18.011E 10G 5.3 5.1 1.2 93 NORTHWESTERN BALKAN REGION.
Additional damage in the Slano and Ston area. Felt at Dubrovnik and on
Korcula; also felt on the Peljesac Peninsula, Croatia.
SEP 18
041140 Q 20.0 S 168.8 E 33N 5.5 0.9 22 LOYALTY ISLANDS
173419 Q 11.3 N 85.6 W 190 5.5 1.1 90 NICARAGUA
Note: Computer users can get faster access to the Weekly Seismicity
Reports in any of three ways:
1. World-Wide-Web (WWW) access: http://quake.wr.usgs.gov
2. Anonymous FTP access: quake.wr.usgs.gov
(in pub/www/QUAKES/WEEKREPS)
3. Email Access: (send email to michael@andreas.wr.usgs.gov)
Notes for Table 1:
Origin time in the list is in GMT, in the text and on maps
it is in local time.
N RD: is the number of readings used to locate the event.
N S: is the number of S waves in N RD.
RMS SEC: is the root mean squared residual misfit for the
location is seconds, the lower the better, over 0.3
to 0.5 seconds is getting bad, but this is machine,
not hand timed, data.
ERH: is the estimated horizontal error in kilometers.
ERZ: is the estimated vertical error in kilometers.
N FM: is the number of readings used to compute the magnitude.
REMKS: obtuse region codes that denote the velocity model
used to locate the event.
DUR MAG: is the magnitude as determined from the duration of
the seismograms, not the amplitude. Sort of like
going to echo canyon and measuring how loud your
yell is by counting echos.
FIG: denotes the figure/event number in the maps posted separately.