Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Central U.S. Earthquake Info

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the rock-and-roll dept.

Science 120

ronbo142 writes "The United States Geological Survey site has real time (or close to it) information on the now two significant events of the day. Check out their site to enter your experience and view other event specific information."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Heh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120586)

Researchers from the University of Manchester have created some of the smallest transistors ever, measuring only one atom by 10 atoms.
In other news, researchers have created a microscopic transistor that is still 100 times the size of Rob Malda's penis.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23124560)

*golf clap*

Click-through (4, Informative)

saveth (416302) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120596)

With the supplied link, you need to click through to the Illinois data set.

Or, just click this one: http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/cus/ [usgs.gov]

Foreshocks, or is that it? (1)

Erioll (229536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121470)

Any thoughts been expressed yet on if these are foreshocks to something greater, or if these are just it?

Re:Foreshocks, or is that it? (3, Informative)

node 3 (115640) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122724)

Foreshocks only become foreshocks once the main quake happens.

Or, put differently, to know these are foreshocks before the main quake happens requires a level of earthquake prediction we do not yet have.

Re:Foreshocks, or is that it? (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122816)

Any thoughts been expressed yet on if these are foreshocks to something greater, or if these are just it?
How many millenia wide is the acceptable timespan?

Re:Foreshocks, or is that it? (1)

mudetroit (855132) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123854)

Millenia might be a bit of a stretch as this is a known active seismic zone [wikipedia.org] , though obviously a bit less then our friends out west are used to.

It woke me up (2, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120654)

I woke up at about 5:40 to the bed vibrating a little bit. I live in south central Michigan near the Ohio/Indiana boarders. At first I thought the cat jumped up on the bed, but he didn't then I thought maybe my wife was shaking, but she was still. It sort of felt like the massaging neck pillow I have, but all over the bed. I got up and took a shower. My wife came down a little later and I said "I think we had an Earthquake." She told me I was crazy, then she saw it in the news a little later in the day, and sent me a link for the USGS. I filled out my info earlier this morning.

Oh noes we'll be Yellowstowned! (4, Funny)

FatSean (18753) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120746)

That giant ring of fire is on it's way, just like TV predicted!

Re:It woke me up (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120912)

I woke up at about 5:40 to the bed vibrating a little bit.

So how much did the Magic Fingers attachment set you back?

Re:It woke me up (4, Funny)

mitchellsoft (239895) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121140)

So how much did the Magic Fingers attachment set you back?
16 years, 2 kids, a divorce and a house payment. Isn't that what it costs everybody?

Re:It woke me up (1)

NathanWoodruff (966362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121262)

I felt it this morning and I live in the North East Metro Atlanta Georgia area. I really felt the quake Aug 24, 2005. I have a dresser that has a drawer pulls similar to a door knocker, it is a u shape a attaches in two places. The august 24th quake I woke up with these drawer pulls clinking about 20 times and the bed slowly shaking about 10 times. This morning, these drawer pulls clinked two or three times and the bed shook twice. I woke up from it and thought there was another earthquake. It was much less than the Tennessee quake but I did feel it all the way to Atlanta. Nathan

Re:It woke me up (0)

luder (923306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23124460)

At first I thought the cat jumped up on the bed, but he didn't then I thought maybe my wife was shaking, but she was still. [...] My wife came down a little later and I said "I think we had an Earthquake." She told me I was crazy, then she saw it in the news a little later in the day, and sent me a link for the USGS.
Wooha, talk about imaginary girlfriends... Translation:

At first I thought the cat jumped up on the bed, but he didn't then I thought maybe my sex doll was shaking, but she was still. [...] My man-pretending-to-be-a-woman-who-I-like-to-call-wife came online a little later and I wrote "I think we had an Earthquake." He said I was crazy, then he saw it in the news a little later in the day, and sent me a link for the USGS.

Re:It woke me up (1)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 6 years ago | (#23124492)

I live a bit north of you. There have been earthquakes here in the last couple decades, but they were all from over by Cleveland. It woke me up, as my bedroom mirror was periodically bumping the wall. I live near a lake and looked to see if there were ripples, but even in the reflections in the water, it was still. But the throbbing persisted. It had to be an earthquake. But in this area, that meant only 3 possibilities:
  1. A 5-er over by Cleveland
  2. A big one at the New Madrid
  3. An asteroid strike somewhere on the earth.
I scanned the crystal clear sky for a meteor shower... nope... not this time.

Bed Shaking Fun (2)

danbert8 (1024253) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120672)

My girlfriend claims her bed shook from the earthquake last night and woke her up... I couldn't break the truth that it was really me! (zing)
 
Seriously though, it did wake her up and we live in Dayton, OH.
 
(note: I know no one will believe me that a slashdot person has a girlfriend, but she is a civil engineering major, and thus also a geek)

Re:Bed Shaking Fun (0, Offtopic)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120748)

she is a civil engineering major, and thus also a geek
You ass. ;)

Re:Bed Shaking Fun (1)

Gefion (1271090) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121062)

Actually I was thinking that my wife snuck up on me in the wee hours of the morning, so to speak.

In my half-awake stupor, my little 3-year old daughter jumped into our bed with this crazy story about how monsters were in her room and had shaken her bed. Of course, I consoled her with the white lie that there aren't any monsters and only realized on my drive into work that she was not completely imagining the situation! Oh, well. Another less-than-perfect answer from Daddy.

God is a Civil Engineer (2, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121080)

See if she's heard this one. A mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, and a civil engineer are discussing God. They all agree he must be an engineer, but what kind? They each present their case. The mechanical engineer says, "look at the human body, the perfection of the joints, bones and muscle. Obviously, God is a mechanical engineer." To which the electrical engineer counters, "But look at the human mind and nervous system! Surely God is an electrical engineer!" They both look at the civil engineer, who shrugs and says, "Who else would put the sewer outflow in the middle of the entertainment district?"

Only one moderate quake and an aftershock (5, Informative)

Somegeek (624100) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120676)

The summary makes it seem like there have been two different big quakes. In actuality there was a moderate 5.2 followed by what is apparently a 4.6 aftershock.

Re:Only one moderate quake and an aftershock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121276)

the earthquake was felt at Network Solution's [networksolutions.com] Belleville, IL location

Re:Only one moderate quake and an aftershock (1)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121868)

The summary is rather skimpy on details, but a 5.2 is, all things considered, fairly significant for the region, even if it would be a blip on the map on the coast. I've been in the midwest (ohio and illinois) my whole life and this is the first quake I've ever actually felt.

Re:Only one moderate quake and an aftershock (2, Insightful)

jonadab (583620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122574)

> The summary makes it seem like there have been two different big quakes.
> In actuality there was a moderate 5.2 followed by what is apparently a 4.6 aftershock.

In the midwest, a 4.6 is a pretty big quake. There aren't any fault lines in the area, so we don't often get much above a 3. 5.2 is record-books stuff, no fooling.

We don't get hurricanes either. Our primary form of "natural disaster", in terms of frequency, is probably either ice storm or flood, though of course the first thing everybody thinks when you say "natural disaster" is tornado. We had a blizzard in '78...

But an earthquake big enough that you can actually _feel_ it, even if it just feels like an especially large truck drove down the street past your house, and even if only a small percentage of the population feels it at the time, is the stuff of legend. People who think they might have felt the tremor will talk about it for _years_, I kid you not.

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120744)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
Check out the site to enter your experience [goatse.ch]

"two significant events" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120758)

The submitter is talking about two earthquakes [nytimes.com] today in the US.

I slept right through it (2, Funny)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120784)

Which proves what I already suspected. My snoring is worse than an earthquake!

Didn't feel anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120808)

20 min south of the loop (downtown Chicago), I didn't feel any earthquakes, and I've been up working all night/morning.

However, suburbs north of the loop (Evanston, Wilmette, etc) definitely felt it.

Odd--not exactly a common occurrence in Illinois!

Felt both and it brought back memories (1)

eaddict (148006) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120820)

I live just west of St Louis. My kids showed up in the doorway while the first one was happening. The news didn't bother to report it until almost 20 min later. The second one happened while I was sitting at my desk at work. The crap on one of our bookcases started to rattle. USGS shows the 2 that I felt and a bunch that didn't seem to make it all the way.

Sort of brought me back to the days I lived in Bremerton WA.

I Survived the Great Quake of 2008 (2, Informative)

dunezone (899268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120834)

I actually live 30 minutes outside of Chicago in the Joliet area. It was definitely one of those "WTF" moments, you didn't think earthquake because most of them out here go unnoticed and it was such a gentle rocking back and forth. There have been several aftershocks since the first one early in the morning. My roommate said around 11pm central time there was nice aftershock.

PS, I honestly thought there was a monster under my bed last night during the initial shake.

Re:I Survived the Great Quake of 2008 (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122204)

My roommate said around 11pm central time there was nice aftershock.
It was actually at around 11AM EDT (10AM local time at the epicenter). I am in indianapolis, and the morning one I thought the dog was having a bad dream and shaking the bed. I didn't know it was an earthquake until I logged in and went to google news.

The large aftershock happened while I was at work, and it was amusing seeing the heads slowly pop out of the cubical farm one by one like gophers from their burrows while it was happening.

Re:I Survived the Great Quake of 2008 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122334)

I live 35 miles outside of Chicago. What earthquake?

When will people listen? (5, Funny)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120854)

I've been saying all along, it's only a matter of time before the entire state of Illinois slides into Lake Michigan.

Re:When will people listen? (1)

Gefion (1271090) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120998)

Well, I think that was pretty darn funny even if I can't mod you up right now. LOL. :)

Re:When will people listen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122430)

Actually, I heard that it was Illinois trying to get away from Indiana.

Iben Browning was right! (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120880)

So I guess this makes Iben Browning [showme.net] right!



17 years late. And off by a magnitude of 3.



5.2 is not a big quake (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120882)

is it? Why the fuss? Was it not 5.2?

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (3, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120984)

I'll admit, my first thought as a lifelong Californian was, "What, only 5.2?"

Of course, when we get half an inch of rain here, the TV starts blathering about STORMWATCH 2008. It's all about what's typical for the region.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

IorDMUX (870522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121572)

Agreed.

I just moved to Columbus from Cleveland, a whole 140 miles south... now, suddenly, when six inches of snow hits, they declare it the "Blizzard of '08" and shut down the city. *sigh*

I used to walk to school in that much snow.

Uphill.

Both ways.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122568)

That's because everybody's gone soft. Hell, I grew up in Columbus and I walked to school in a foot of snow! We didn't shut down the city in '78 when the coal froze, by golly. These wussy little punks today shut down everything if a couple of inches ... I don't care if it's time for my medicine, I'm lecturing the punks. In my day ... no, I don't want to go back to my room. No, I've got my walker. Sigh.
Punk.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

IorDMUX (870522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122838)

Oh boy... this is going to turn into a UID pissfest any moment, now...

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (2, Funny)

Traxxas (20074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123012)

good day high UIDs

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123032)

Cleveland's weather IS terrible, though. I live in Columbus and the only thing that can convince me to drive up there is Steve Nash playing vs. LeBron. ^^

But yeah, it's all about what people are used to. I lived in the UK a bit and when weather dropped to around freezing the response was a lot like what it is here when it's 20 below.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121672)

Yeah...I've slept through bigger quakes.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122044)

I've slept through bigger earthquakes in England!

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122322)

California has had so many earthquakes that the plate doesn't transmit energy as well. In the midwest, its essentially a virgin plate - earthquakes are felt a LONG ways.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123608)

I've seen people trying to drive in the rain when the road surface is wet and visibilty is reduced - they drive at exactly the same speed as they would when the road is dry and visibility is at it's best.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120990)

Because a 5.2 magnitude earthquake in the Midwest is the equivalent of California sliding into the Pacific Ocean for said residents. It makes for one crazy day where no one gets any work done on the job.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

ObjetDart (700355) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122188)

It makes for one crazy day where no one gets any work done on the job.
Sounds like a typical day at my office.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (4, Interesting)

Thumper_SVX (239525) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121106)

Becuase although on the global scale it's pretty small, on the local scale of Southern Illinois it's a doozy. I live in St. Louis, and for many of my peers (being in my mid 30's) it's the first quake that's been felt in living memory. Sure there have been smaller magnitude 2 or 3 quakes, but the last 5.x quake in the area was in 1968... before I was even born. Granted, I'm not a St. Louis native, either.

I have to admit though, the first one I probably would have slept through had it not been for my wife panicking and connecting her elbow with my face, but the second I felt as I was sitting at my desk at work and watched my monitors wobble back and forth. The second I could've easily mistaken for a large convoy of trucks going past the office if only our office was on a bridge over the highway. The first, once I was standing up (thanks to the expedient of body parts) was enough to shake the entire house and toppled a table lamp. Other than that at first my rather groggy brain started to wonder if it was just something freaky happening with my house until I opened the back door to let my dog out and heard what sounded like a rioting zoo in the woods behind my house. Then I knew it was a quake, and then it was just a matter of going to USGS website and seeing what the magnitude was.

Really quite an odd experience. Although they talk a lot about the New Madrid fault and how an earthquake of 7+ magnitude is overdue, you don't really think about it much until a quake really hits. On the bright side, maybe this mornings tremors will make people think more about earthquakes and the effect they can have.

5.2 is a big quake to those who've never felt one before. My personal high is a 6.8 but that wasn't in St. Louis, either :)

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122108)

Yes, most people's first 5.0+ is memorable. But looking at the "did you feel it" map is just silly. There are people reporting intensity VI (Strong) over a hundred miles from the epicenter. If you're more than 100 miles from a 5.x quake and you feel something moving you either a truck went by or you have gas.

(If a Midwesterner wants to get back at a Californian for being pussies about earthquakes, all they have to do is mention tornados. Or even just thunderstorms. On a business trip to Milwaukee two clients from CA literally crying and trying to hide under the hotel bed after a nearby lightning strike.)

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

nrjyzerbuny (141033) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122298)

It also has a lot to do with the way that earthquakes propagate in the region.

Consider this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NMSZ_Vergleich.jpg [wikipedia.org]

I'm not saying that people who just experienced their first earthquake are going to be rational in their reporting. But the local geology makes a big difference.
I live in Peoria, probably 200 miles away and the first woke me out of a sound sleep. Myself and my co-workers felt the aftershock later on.
People in St. Louis (128 miles away from the epicenter according to the USGS) were woken up too.

It's not just the power, it's how well that energy is transmitted.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (2, Insightful)

Thumper_SVX (239525) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122638)

I agree with most of your comments, but the bit about being more than 100 miles from the epicenter and not feeling it... there I disagree.

I live in St. Charles, 160 miles from the epicenter of this morning's quakes... as the crow flies. I definitely felt it both times, as did my wife and kids. As did a number of people as most of the neighborhood were up in pretty short order after the quake (I could see a number of TV's on, trying to watch the news). The timing was also too perfect to be coincidence, twice.

The fact is a quake's ability to shake things over distance depends precisely on what the ground is made of. Some materials soak up the shockwaves quickly (like the rocks of California), whereas others will transmit the waves over massive distances with very little dissipation (like the rocks in the Midwest). There are a lot more factors than just distance and even rock consitution, but you get my drift.

At the epicenter, it was a 5.2. On instruments in downtown St. Louis it registered 5.1 at its peak and rumbled for up to two minutes from the initial shock. That's 140 miles as the crow flies and little to no dissipation.

Now, another friend of mine who works at the USGS in Rolla, MO (about another 70 miles) says they picked up barely 4.0, so it's clear it dissipated quickly through Missouri but transmitted nicely through Illinois.

Still, it's all relatively academic at this point. More knowledgeable people than me are looking at the results from todays quake, and I'm sure they're finding more interesting stuff than I can with just two datapoints... and besides, I'm not a geologist :)

As for your final comment though...agreed there. I've had the (mis)fortune to be involved in all kinds of natural disasters in my life, mostly because I traveled a lot in my youth. I've encountered quakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and survived to tell the tale... and wouldn't trade the experience for anything. It means sometimes to my friends I have a rather carefree attitude to these things, but experience has taught me to respect nature... not fear it.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

BoyIHateMicrosoft! (1044838) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123852)

I'm gonna echo what a couple other said that although it wasn't a big quake by some standards, it was big for us here in the silly, boring ol' Midwest. I live in Springfield, IL ( about 176 miles from the epicenter) but it shook my bed hard enough to wake me. I think the reason that quakes in the Midwest are felt over a larger area is because of the geography of the region. I might be wrong in this but I heard it's because this portion of the earth is older and a bit less cracked than say, out in California. It is also a lot less rocky underground here so the "blast radius" so to speak is less broken up less as it travels father away. Also Illinois is basically just a giant corn field so nothing really to stop the flow so to speak like mountains or anything. Sorry if us Midwesterners sound silly today but it was unique for us. Well it was unique for me.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#23124190)

Yes, most people's first 5.0+ is memorable. But looking at the "did you feel it" map is just silly. There are people reporting intensity VI (Strong) over a hundred miles from the epicenter. If you're more than 100 miles from a 5.x quake and you feel something moving you either a truck went by or you have gas.

It should be mentioned that there are two different scales at play here. The VI reported above is on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, [wikipedia.org] which measures the intensity of a quake as reported by eyewitnesses and damage surveys, and tends to be a fairly subjective reading of the event. The 5.2 is on the more commonly cited Richter Scale, [wikipedia.org] which is a more precise measurement of the energy released by the earthquake event. It's quite easy for things to fall off shelves 100+ miles away from the epicenter of a 5.0+ quake.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23123330)

It was not a big quake. It was a little quake. But since we midwesterners do not feel quakes often at all, it was unusual. I live in Champaign, IL (just south of it actually) and until the internet news told me at around noon today there had been a quake, the unusual rumbling that woke me up and the intensive but short-lived vibration at around 10 AM seemed like my neighbor (I live in a condo) doing something stupid and inconsiderate with their washing machine. That is how "big" this little quake felt.

The news and people's reports about this seem really sensationalized. I guess that is also part of living in the boring Midwest.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

suso (153703) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121502)

is it? Why the fuss? Was it not 5.2?

While it might not be high on the scale, earthquakes from southern Illinois typically have a much wider effect than those in California. Its not uncommon for quakes here to be felt over 1000 miles away. The New Madrid Quake of 1812 was supposibly felt over 1 million square miles while the San Francisco 1906 quake was only felt over 6000 square miles. See this image [wikipedia.org]

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

Tanmi-Daiow (802793) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121958)

Exactly, the bedrock under the central US is much harder than what is in California, I believe. That is why the waves get perpetuated for much farther distance. Hell, I slept through the first quake, but I felt the 2nd one and I live in Cedar Rapids, IA. That's a long ways away from the earthquakes.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122860)

5.2 is big enough to be widely felt, and to cause some minor damage, pretty much no matter where you live.

Where do you live where 5.2 is of no significance? California? Oregon, Washington and Alaska all have earthquakes stronger than is even *possible* for the entire state of California, so don't go making a big deal about your next 8.0.

And don't let's even bring up Yellowstone...

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123150)

I (OP) live in Oregon, but I've not experienced any strong quakes here, just a couple of 4 point somethings.

I was about 3 years old when a strong earthquake hit So. California where I lived and I remember it.
OK, I just looked it up 'cuz I was thinking it was 1969 but it was actually 1971 [usgs.gov] , so I was four -- it was a 6.6. I lived in No. Hollywood.
I liked this sentence about that quake: "The newly built, earthquake-resistant buildings at the Olive View Hospital in Sylmar were destroyed - four five-story wings pulled away from the main building and three stair towers toppled."
Probably that sentence is one of those occasions where you could put "earthquake-resistant" in quotes, huh?

  I didn't think 5.2 was of NO significance but I thought it not a big one. I guess it is on the low end of being a big one.

I was interested by the map someone linked to a couple of posts up showing the difference in geographic range between two essentially equally intense quakes, in in So. Calif. and one at New Madrid. I wanted to mod that interesting, but I'd already commented.

Re:5.2 is not a big quake (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123820)

In the 40's, Washington had at least two magnitude 7 or greater quakes. Alaska has had well over half a dozen magnitude 8+ quakes during the 20th century, including one 9.2 in 1964. Oregon had a 6.8 in 1910 and a 6.0 in 1993.

The above information is taken from:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/ [usgs.gov]
and
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/state_largest.php [usgs.gov]

However, Alaska, Washington and Oregon all have faults capable of creating earthquakes larger than is possible in California.

For some context, no fault on the planet can create a 10.0. Alaska can have (and did have less than 50 years ago) greater than 9.0. California tops out at around 7.9-8.1. Oregon and Washington both have faults capable of reaching or exceeding 8.5.

One of the largest in recent history. (2, Informative)

suso (153703) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120888)

Apparently this is the largest one in the Midwest since the magnitude 5.4 one in 1968 that was also in Southern Illinois.

Re:One of the largest in recent history. (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121186)

I'm just waiting for the next 8.0 plus quake [wikipedia.org] in that area.

The tinfoil on my head says.... (0)

Durrok (912509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120896)

... maybe this is just a buildup to a bigger mega-quake as some of the wonderful reporters on CNN were suggesting. I mean really though, what are the odds of that hap

Re:The tinfoil on my head says.... (2, Informative)

cromar (1103585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121624)

In 1811 there was a major earthquake of 7-8 on the richter scale (estimated). It actually caused the Mississippi to run backwards [showme.net] . Hopefully the New Madrid is not going to have another such earthquake for a long time, but who knows!

Quake felt as far as... (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120906)

Reports state that the quake was felt as far away as Chicago. Speaking with everyone I work with, it was only felt by people who live in tall buildings above the 5th floor. I live on the ground floor of my building and didn't notice a thing.

Re:Quake felt as far as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122610)

My wife felt the initial quake, and we are in Rockford, IL. She was woke up by the quake, I slept through it.

I didn't notice the aftershock, though.

Re:Quake felt as far as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23123206)

I live 45 miles due west of Chicago, and the quake was felt hard enough to wake my wife and I up. That was in a single family home on the 2nd floor.

Webicorders? (3, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120964)

In the Pacific Northwest, there are webicorders [washington.edu] - online seismographs for the volcanos and other potentially unstable regions. The major earthquake that caused the devastating 26 Dec (Boxing Day) tsunami a few years back showed up extremely clearly on these. The shockwaves were not just large enough to register, but large enough to show up as a massive feature. If those graphs are still online, they would make for good material in a basic course on geology.

What I don't know is whether there is anything comparable in the areas affected by these central US tremors. A description of experiences is useful, but plenty of reports will have those. Those are easy to come by. Much rarer is actual raw data, actual hard information on the nature of the quake. A quantitative experience, rather than a qualitative one. There will be much more to the story than what could be felt or described through experience, and that "more" bit is the bit that seperates understanding from simply witnessing. The latter facilitates understanding but is not a substitute for it.

Re:Webicorders? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121010)

What I don't know is whether there is anything comparable in the areas affected by these central US tremors. A description of experiences is useful, but plenty of reports will have those. Those are easy to come by. Much rarer is actual raw data, actual hard information on the nature of the quake. A quantitative experience, rather than a qualitative one. There will be much more to the story than what could be felt or described through experience, and that "more" bit is the bit that seperates understanding from simply witnessing. The latter facilitates understanding but is not a substitute for it.

You say that as if there isn't a huge seismograph network covering the US. That's part of what the US Geological Survey does, and believe me, there is a whole lot of raw data readily available to those who know where to find it.

Re:Webicorders? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121644)

who know where to find it

I believe you completely, but the phrase above is the key part. I wouldn't be looking if I knew where to find it, and as there isn't uniform coverage (not everywhere gets earthquakes) it's impossible to know if there's coverage unless you do know where to find it. This isn't intended as a criticism of your comments, which are genuinely helpful, but it is intended as a criticism of the US Geological Survey, the various seismic network websites I have accessed (web navigation hell) and the media for complicating the finding of such data.

Re:Webicorders? (1)

Tyger (126248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121130)

Modern earthquake data is surprisingly easy to find [usgs.gov] online without much looking.

Re:Webicorders? (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121152)

How about this one? [usgs.gov]

HDIS stands for Hopedale, Illinois, a tiny town on the bluffs of the Illinois River north of Peoria. But apparently, they have a seismographic station. Weird.

Also interesting to note is the absence of seismographic stations immediately around the New Madrid fault zone, here [usgs.gov]

Re:Webicorders? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121468)

Also interesting to note is the absence of seismographic stations immediately around the New Madrid fault zone, here [usgs.gov]

Well, we can't have detailed information about any dangerous activity there possibly causing a panic, or maybe causing citizens to move away from the area and deprive businesses of workers and income, or $Deity-forbid, insist the government take actions to insist that building codes are updated and cost the construction and real-estate development industries money! Besides, it's just "fly-over country". Nobody that matters lives there, right?

Yes, that was sarcasm.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Webicorders? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121542)

The webicorder you gave was most interesting. There was either a much smaller shock further away at the same time, or the two shocks travelled at different speeds. The gap between the smaller initial peak and the much larger second peak appears to increase with distance. Some of the stations are overlapping - I assume distance down is proportional to distance away, which would be a reasonable way to plot but it would be easier to read if they stretched the Y scale a little more, as it's hard for me to see if that really is the first peak I'm seeing or simply a product of the graphing.

Re:Webicorders? (1)

Jack Greenbaum (7020) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122034)

There was either a much smaller shock further away at the same time, or the two shocks travelled at different speeds.
Those would be the S and P waves [matter.org.uk] .

Re:Webicorders? (1)

Jack Greenbaum (7020) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122060)

I meant P and S waves :-)

Re:Webicorders? (0, Redundant)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122796)

Thanks for the link, it's much appreciated. Again, this is truly interesting stuff that would be hard to find if you don't know what to look for, rarely (if ever) gets referenced by media coverage, and is far better pointed out by a post such as yours (and covered by the website you linked to, which is nicely presented, making a distinct change from many accademic sites) than by trying to hunt through a textbook (most of which have a worse layout than the accademic websites I detest). This is good information.

Re:Webicorders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122232)

Or maybe you could study some basic geophysics and learn how the P-waves and S-waves interact with different subsurface strata boundaries and how those various interactions manifest themselves on seismograms. But that would take all the fun out of playing "armchair earthquakologist", wouldn't it?

Re:Webicorders? (1, Redundant)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122738)

The only way to learn an observation-based science is to observe and ask questions, with the full recognition that an observation may not be accurate. It is difficult - and somewhat illegal - for individuals to carry out experimental science capable of generating measurable earthquakes large enough to be observed over any significant distance. Book knowledge in the hands of a non-expert is largely useless as it is impossible for a non-expert to know enough to evaluate the book.

I think it was Kansas that tried mandating fraudulant claims be included in science textbooks for scools, or it may have been a school district in Pennsylvania. There were a bunch that tried forcing Intelligent Design within the accepted textbooks themselves. Regardless of where it was, the fact remains that this demonstrates non-experts CANNOT trust any source that cannot be questioned. Books can't talk, people can. Ergo, it is to people - preferably those who are experts - that non-experts must go. There are plenty of experts (and people who know experts) on Slashdot. Ergo, observations of interest to non-experts posted on Slashdot may get feedback from experts, enlightening the non-expert and anyone else who might have been interested by the non-expert's observation.

It's quite simple. So simple, in fact, that it has been the cornerstone of the better educational systems for thousands of years. Well, other than posting to Slashdot, as it's not that old. Yet.

Re:Webicorders? (1)

mbstone (457308) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123208)

It is ... illegal - for individuals to carry out experimental science capable of generating measurable earthquakes large enough to be observed over any significant distance.

Please back up this statement with a citation to applicable law (other than, e.g., laws against detonating destructive devices). AFAIK merely starting an earthquake, absent unlawful external stimuli such as the use of nuclear explosives, is not illegal.

Re:Webicorders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23123250)

There are plenty of experts (and people who know experts) on Slashdot.

Actually, there are plenty of people who think they are experts on Slashdot. Sure, there are a handful in each discipline, but not nearly as many as there are people who think they are. And remember, always be wary of someone who insists that they themselves are an expert. That is a title that should only be bestowed on someone by their peers. And by "peers" I am referring to someone in the same field - not someone who knows nothing of the subject (such as many of those around you on slashdot).

Re:Webicorders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121568)

Also interesting to note is the absence of seismographic stations immediately around the New Madrid fault zone, here

You do realize that seismograph data collected from directly on top of a fault is less useful than information collected from several nearby seismographs, right? Besides, they need data from at least 3 collection points to do anything useful with the data anyways.

Re:Webicorders? (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121632)

True, but there's more than just the New Madrid Fault there. Why not one near St. Louis, one near Paducah, KY, and one near Evansville, too?

In SPringfield, I slept through the 5.2, but .. (2, Informative)

the_rajah (749499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121086)

my wife was awake for the 5.2 and was at her computer working on a writing assignment. She immediately went to the USGS site to check out what had happened and then filed an online report there of where she was and what she experienced.

I was awake and in my office for the 4.6 aftershock. It rattled some things, but nothing fell off shelves, etc. No panic, although I did have some thoughts about the 100+ year old brick wall of the adjoining building that forms one side of my office.

Re:In SPringfield, I slept through the 5.2, but .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23123386)

I am also in Springfield, IL. My girlfriend and I woke up to the first one. I live in a trailer and although it felt like a tremor, I started to wonder if someone was shaking my trailer. I got up and looked out the window and saw nothing, but then realized the cats were still lying around trying to figure out why I was up. I then checked the USGS site also and after refreshing a few times I saw the information about the quake.

I was at work when the 4.6 came about.

MAN I didn't feel it (1)

BitterAndDrunk (799378) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121108)

I didn't even hear about it until I got into work, otherwise I would have called in quake. (just like the bad old days)

Not a big deal (2, Interesting)

Arcturax (454188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121190)

Ground rumbled a bit, a few things fell over. This is nothing major so I don't know what the big deal is other than it's a slow news day. I remember there was a rumble in Ohio in '87 that got about this much attention. There was also a fun man made earthquake I witnessed in the Middletown, Ohio area in the late 90's. It was caused by an underground blast furnace explosion at AK Steel and other than the booming roar of the explosion, it felt like a real earthquake and sent stuff falling off shelves at the Meijer store I worked at several miles away and blew windows out in homes near the plant. Thankfully no one was hurt or killed at the plant that night.

We have far more to worry about with industrial accidents, dangerous railroad crossings and crazy weather around here.

Re:Not a big deal (1)

Crispin Glover (123499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121580)

I was in Trenton (just west of Middletown) during that '87 earthquake and remember the sound of the house creaking just before we felt everything shift... and then it was over. There was no real shaking, just a feeling that everything moved a few inches to the side. It caused Cincinnati TV stations to go off the air for a few minutes but when they came back on they had calls pouring in.

Re:Not a big deal (3, Informative)

AbsoluteXyro (1048620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121972)

While other threats like severe weather are much more imminent, I wouldn't write off the possibility of a major quake in the mid-US. Anywhere there are active faults, it isn't matter of if, but when. You should all at least have a basic understanding of what to do to protect yourself during a quake, and this little shake-up should serve as a reminder.

Re:Not a big deal (1)

siwelwerd (869956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23124144)

You should all at least have a basic understanding of what to do to protect yourself during a quake, and this little shake-up should serve as a reminder.

I'll be sure and remember to sleep through the next one too :)

Re:Not a big deal (1)

devour666 (1137859) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123444)

Industrial accidents cause local effects and the energy is dissipated very quickly as the total energy is (usually) very small when compared to a seismic event.

However, seismic activity on the New Madrid fault line is a big deal because it is know for creating very high magnitude events >8.0 which in a seismically un-prepared area such as the central US, will be extremely devasting. As a structural engineer, I know that most of the buildings are not anywhere near the level they need to be at for seismic loads. Hopefully, a small event like this will raise enough public awareness that people will take an interest in retrofitting buildings with the necessary equipment (bracing, dampers, etc.) rather than look at the magnitude and say, "Not a big deal."

quaking (1)

Deadfyre_Deadsoul (1193759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121248)

Here in Illinois, it woke me and my wife up. a couple of the cats were running around, the dog was howling. Book shelf rattled, but we're less then 100 miles from the epicenter. We went back to bed and got the kids up about 80 min later in the morning.

Neither of them made my chimney fall, so its a good thing I guess.

One of these days the Wabash and New Madrid faults are going to wake up and this whole area will be in a maze of chaos.

Earth Shake (1)

ezwip (974076) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121322)

I live in Greenwood Indiana and just purchased a house. My wife and I were hoping it's not haunted. Then the closet door started to shake. Then the dresser, and the bed started to jump. We just stared at each other and finally I'm like earthquake. It's okay sweetness the ghosts would throw something at us. :D

Air Force Conspiracy (1)

chill (34294) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121816)

I'm currently in Kokomo, IN -- about 50 miles straight north of Indianapolis and about 180 miles northeast of the epicenter.

It woke me up with moderate shaking, which lasted about 10 seconds. I remember thinking "that was a big damn truck that went by", and going back to sleep. It knocked pictures askew, but didn't cause any damage.

It is, however, VERY SUSPICIOUS!

The two nights prior to the earthquake there were UFO sightings and hundreds of 911 calls reporting large explosions in the air. The Air Force later claimed that on successive nights (Tuesday and Wednesday) F-16 pilots doing training exercises "accidentally" exceeded the sound barrier and created sonic booms. One over Logansport and one over about Kokomo. During that time, they were also dropping flares. Supposedly it was the 122nd Fighter Wing out of Fort Wayne, IN.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=kokomo%2C+in&btnG=Search+News [google.com]

I'm going to check the weekend news for crop circle reports. :-) :-)

Re:Air National Guard Conspiracy: Earthquake light (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23124616)

Earthquake lights.
The National Guard scrambled F-16's for "UFOs" and ended up waking people when one of their pilots freaked out and went super sonic. It makes much more sense than "training" and "flares" since flares aren't pseudo-stationary for 30+ minutes, and pilots don't go super sonic in that area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light [wikipedia.org]
http://inamidst.com/lights/earthquake [inamidst.com]
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=8&faqID=103 [usgs.gov]
http://geology.about.com/od/earthquakes/a/EQlights.htm [about.com]

Do flares look like this?
http://www.wwki.com/Article.asp?id=661887&spid=21432 [wwki.com]
No aliens.

New Madrid fault line (4, Informative)

jonfr (888673) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122166)

The main earthquake and the aftershock are on an fault line known as the New Madrid fault line. This fault line is known for making earthquakes up to 8 on the ricther scale. Last time that did happen was in the 19th century.

I am fairly sure that this event now is part of normal movement of the fault line, due to happen every 20 to 50 years.

People in the area should expect aftershocks in the next one or two weeks, maybe longer. Btu the aftershock pattern depends on many factors that I don't know all.

For those interested the waveform of the earthquake was recorded by people interested in recording earthquakes in nearby states. The plots can be seen here, http://www.simnet.is/jonfr500/earthquake/othersten.htm [simnet.is]

But I have collected them into one nice web page. The data is near real time and is updated every 5 min, at least that is the case for most of the plots

animals and earthquakes (2, Insightful)

Rogue Haggis Landing (1230830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122520)

The shaking woke me up. At first I thought the upstairs neighbors were being obnoxious again. The misses thought it was a ghost. Then our heads cleared and we realized, "Earthquake!"

Our first thought was that animals are supposed to behave strangely during earthquakes, or after them, or before them, some time around earthquakes. It was 4:40 in the morning so we were hazy on the specifics. Anyway, eager to experiment we leaped out of bed and ran into the front room to where our cat Geoffrey sleeps on the couch. We yelped at him, "Geoffrey! Geoffrey! Earthquake! Do something!"

Geoffrey looked at us with an expression that said, "Who the hell are you?" Then it changed to, "Leave me the #$#! alone." And finally it went to, "As long as we're all up you might as well feed me."

Our conclusion is that animals don't give a crap about earthquakes.

It was a bump here (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123448)

15 mile north of Indianapolis - I work nights, and was just, literally, flopping into bed when it hit - I was kind of going "I didn't hit the bed *that* hard when my mother (My name is on the mortgage - my mother lives with me dammit!) knocked on the door really concerned about what the heck *that* was. We thought it might have been a large truck or something.

Didn't find out about the quake till this afternoon, although I'm fairly sure I got woke up by an aftershock.

Google Maps Layer (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123612)

Those USGS maps would be even cooler if they were just a layer in Google Maps or Google Earth. Then I could correlate them to all kinds of other local data, share them with other people, insert 3D buildings designed to handle the shocks...

Re:Google Maps Layer (1)

Phs2501 (559902) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123940)

What, you mean like this [usgs.gov] ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?