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!

Earthquake off Northern California

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the news-to-shake-you-up dept.

News 373

merger writes "A 7.0 earthquake (7.4 according to NOAA) occured off of the northern California coast occured at 7:50 p.m. PST triggering a tsunami warning (which was then downgraded to a tsunami bulletin). While searching Google News for information I learned about an earthquake preparedness study for the area which was just published today."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Anyone know how many hurt? (4, Funny)

HG2 (878937) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821215)

Anyone?!?!?! I have family that live there... I am going to call them now.

Re:Anyone know how many hurt? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821238)

Sure, go ahead and tie up the phone system.

Re:Anyone know how many hurt? (4, Interesting)

krautcanman (609042) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821250)

None. The earthquake was approx 80 miles offshore from Crescent City, about 300 miles NW of San Francisco. The Tsunami warning was retracted within an hour of the quake.

your family will be very appreciative (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821258)

that you had to post to slashdot before calling them to see if they were ok.

Newsflash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821337)

Dolphins living off the Pacific coast don't have phones. But one in captivity somewhere appearently has internet access and learned english.

Re:your family will be very appreciative (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821421)

You'd think just giving a shout upstairs would be enough anyway.

Re:Anyone know how many hurt? (1)

slarshdot (211836) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821384)

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay

zzzzzz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821216)

Wow. Now let's go back in time 5 hours when this was relevant information!

Ugh. Delete this story please.

Re:zzzzzz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821271)

Not 'off topic'

The article is not 'news for nerds' and isn't 'news' because it's over 5 hours old.

Earthquake? Bah.... (-1, Troll)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821217)

Earthquake was the crappiest fighter in Samurai Shodown. I'd only play with Galford and Haohmaru.

Offtopic response to sig (-1, Offtopic)

Joseph_Daniel_Zukige (807773) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821330)

Circumcision must be outlawed [mgmbill.org]

I am aware of a young boy who developed a what could have been a life threatening infection due to the parents' failure to have circumcision performed. First doctor to examine him thought he had a hernia. By the time the parents got him to a urologist, he had suffered two bouts with high fevers and was close to losing more than the foreskin. Cleaning things up was very painful for the poor kid, but at least he wasn't disfigured permanently.

I'll grant that female circumcision is not generally advisable. But there are a lot of things that aren't just black and white in this world.

Re:Offtopic response to sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821376)

That was a rare case. Knives should NOT go near penises.

Re:Offtopic response to sig (1, Offtopic)

CaptainCarrot (84625) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821389)

The objection is to unnecessary circumcision, not those that are needed. Circumcision is the only prophylactic surgery that's not regarded as medically unethical. Are we to cut off every body part that's not immediately useful on the off-chance it might become diseased? How about automatic mastectomies for all post-menopausal women? It'll prevent lots of breast cancers. No?

Fact is, routine circumcision was instituted for a completely spurious reason, and one that most people would not now even consider desirable. (It was believed to reduce masturbation. The opposite is in fact true.) Modern rationalization for continuing the practice are different, but the only reason they exist is because there's this huge population of mutilated men to study. No doubt if for some reason female circumcision were to become common you could find plenty of justification for continuing it long after whatever initial stupid reason you had for doing it in the first place fell out of favor.

The US is the only industrialized nation where routine circumcisions are performed at birth. It is a surgery, and there are risks associated, especially when they're performed by doctors. (Jewish mohels are typically better at it, with lower complication rates and less pain to the recipient.) The benefits, such as they are, simply do not justify the risks or the undesirable side effects.

Re:Offtopic response to sig (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821415)

I am aware of young boy that didn't have his small toe amputated at birth, and when he was 13 he cut his toe on a rusty piece of metal and almost died from an infection. Clearly children should have their small toe amputated.

Re:Earthquake? Bah.... (1, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821335)

Yeah, it always good to joke about events that can and do kill hundreds of thousands. It's even better if you can do it as soon as the story is published because some kindred spirit with mod points might even spend one on your comment, thereby giving you your 15 minutes of fame.

I hope that you're as keen to repeat your hilarous gag when death and destruction on the scale of last year's Asian tsunami hits closer to where you live.

Sorry, but I hardly think that this is the sort of thing that you make light of, especially as we've all had a recent reminder of just how deadly offshore (and even onshore) earthquakes can be.

Re:Earthquake? Bah.... (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821369)

Yeah, it always good to joke about events that can and do kill hundreds of thousands.

Slashdotters seem to think so, as long is it doesn't affect Americans. every "foreign" disaster eleicts a bunch of ethnic/outsourcing (if in Asia or particularly India) jokes, all modded "Funny". Make similar jokes about American deaths and it's an instant flamebait/troll mod. He might get away with it here since no one seems to have died.

Re:Earthquake? Bah.... (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821382)

I don't think that the person who's comment I replied to is American (as in USA) but rather Brazilian, given the .br TLD of his website. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the fact that joking about this topic is in poor taste, given recent events.

Re:Earthquake? Bah.... (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821400)

fact that joking about this topic is in poor taste

That's not a "fact", but I share the opinion. I was just pointing out the double standard that usually applies here. For instance, the bushfire in Canberra got a lot of "barbecue" jokes. Despite dozens being burnt alive few seemed to think this was inappropriate.

Re:Earthquake? Bah.... (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821414)

Well, the Asian tsunami that killed more than half a million people wasn't even six months ago. To use your example, how tasteless would it have been to make light of planes hitting buildings six months after September 11th, 2001?

Re:Earthquake? Bah.... (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821427)

I don't know what your point is. I said I thought making jokes aout disasters was tasteless.

Re:Earthquake? Bah.... (1)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821411)

Sorry but that his how the media works too. If someone kills 100 people in China or Africa, there might be a little story at the bottom of CNN's web page, or a little 3 second segment on TV about it. But if someone captures a cute blond-haired girl from the American suburbs, all the media outlets will jump on the story, make it front page, people will start having candle light vigils, it will be the topic of the week on Oprah and all that stuff.

I am wondering if an African American little girl would be kidnapped would that make front page news? Or are lives of the people in Darfur somehow worth less? Anyway just a thought, probably will get modded as a troll or offtopic ...

Undersea Cables? (1)

appleLaserWriter (91994) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821218)

There was a 2+ hour Adelphia cable (tv+internet) outage after the earthquake. Friend who are in the bay area say they didn't feel any shaking. Were any undersea cables severed?

Re:Undersea Cables? (3, Funny)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821229)

Nah, probably someone spilled the bottle of beer on console and short-circuited it.

Re:Undersea Cables? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821242)

or, knowing adelphia, someone stuck too many GBICs up their ass, and couldn't get them out quickly enough when a production unit failed...

Re:Undersea Cables? (2, Insightful)

Infinityis (807294) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821272)

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that an EARTHQUAKE occured, human lives are put in danger, and one of the first questions posted asks about if the internet connection survived?

The Matrix has you, parent poster.

Re:Undersea Cables? (4, Insightful)

Forbman (794277) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821292)

No, the amusement is in realizing that if the earthquake caused a break underwater, that it's not going to be fixed in ~2 hrs, thus indicating the cluelessness of the question pondered.

Re:Undersea Cables? (2, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821404)

Yes. But 2h is roughly the time it takes to get alternative capacity running on a friend of mine basis. Been there, done that, hate fishermen.

East bay (1)

VolcomPimp (875357) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821410)

Nothin here either (Newark, CA)... My mom yelled at me from downstairs. My friend who lives a few doors down said a bunch of people called him freakin out tellin him to get out of the house. A lot of people I know were disappointed that nothing happened. I live about a mile from water, maybe less. Oddly the only thing on my mind at the time was how bad it was gonna suck for the rest of the country if a tsunami took out all of our democrats and tech companies.

Sigh.. no Tsunami. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821228)

This earthquake sux.

East Bay Check In (5, Informative)

obsol33t (550660) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821232)

Nothing felt here, most people will not even know about it until tomorrow in our area.

Re:East Bay Check In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821244)

Didn't feel anything here in Sacramento either. Only reason I found out about it was the tsunami alert warning on TV when I was watching the NBA Finals.

Hollywood Check In (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821291)

Well it was pretty intense here. It felt like the whole world was shaking. There were all kinds of noises and objects flying around. Everything turned different colors too. And there were naked women everywhere....

What's that? the quake was up north you say?

That's it. No more LSD on weeknights.

Re:Hollywood Check In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821397)

If you'd actually done LSD you'd know that you don't see objects flying around.

Re:Hollywood Check In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821445)

Yeah well, he who felt it dealt it.

Re:Hollywood Check In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821453)

There's LSD floating around down there? I could really go for a hit or ten.

Nice warning (0, Redundant)

ejbvanc (558014) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821235)

Glad I don't rely on Slashdot for the absolute latest news about a possible Tsunami.

This wasn't anything major. (4, Informative)

FireballX301 (766274) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821237)

Link to CNN [cnn.com] article.

Plates shifted, relatively high richter scale, but keep in mind the Richter scale is *not* a linear scale. Nothing like the big tsunami a few months back.

Hell, I live in San Diego, I felt a 5.6 a few days ago. Shook my bed a bit, that was more of an event than this.

Re:This wasn't anything major. (1)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821262)

Plates shifted, relatively high richter scale, but keep in mind the Richter scale is *not* a linear scale.

It's logarithmic. So even a small difference can make a greater difference in its energy output. In this case, much smaller than the Sumatra earthquake.

What matters here is the distance and depth of the epicenter, perhaps. The farther away you are, the better off you'd be (sans tsunami) as far as a quake goes.

Re:This wasn't anything major. (2, Informative)

Pyrion (525584) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821475)

Um, epicenters have no depth. The epicenter is the surface point above where the quake hit. Generally the deeper the quake is, the less damage will be incurred (quake-wise) even right at the epicenter.

Re:This wasn't anything major. (2, Informative)

d474 (695126) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821283)

It was a major earthquake (7.0), but as far as the tsunami goes, since this latest one was a strike-slip movement, there was practically no tsunami at all. That means the plates moved horizontally against eachother. It's the vertical moving dip-slip fault earthquakes you need to worry about for tsunami's.

Re:This wasn't anything major. (0)

Pyrion (525584) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821463)

The Richter scale is practically useless. You know what it ultimately comes down to? The number given is the number of centimeters the highest wave rises on the seismograph. 5.6 centimeters? Magnitude 5.6. Whoopie. Most of the damage produced by an earthquake comes not with the P wave but with the S and L waves.

The number to pay attention to is the Modified Mercalli Intensity rating. That's really what people should be paying attention to as it rates actual damage. That 5.2 that hit Anza was only about a 3 (out of 12) on the MMI scale by the time it hit San Diego.

Tsunami info from a former park ranger (5, Informative)

bjackrian (764826) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821239)

I worked as a Park Ranger at Redwood National Park a few years ago, and this is one of their nightmare scenarios. My housemate was a geology major, and the area right off of the coach is very susceptible to huge earthquakes (8.0+)--one happens every 200 or so years on average. The last one happened around 1700, so another one is fairly likely in the near future.

Towns like Crescent City are at huge risk, and the city and state are trying to compensate with warning systems (that have been improved since the tsunami in the Indian Ocean). While some buildings have been constructed to withstand tsunamis (the national park headquarters was designed as a "flow through" building so tsunami waves will just break out the first floor windows and flow through the building), the best advice is to climb. Get to high ground as soon as you feel the earth shake. Don't wait for a tsunami warning--just climb!

Also, don't go back to the ocean until you know for sure that it's safe to do so. Apparently, many of the deaths in the 1960s tsunami were a result of the mayor and several other people going down onto a pier to suvery the damage. Because tsunamis are really sets of high waves and sea levle changes, the next set of waves washed them away.

One more interesting tidbit--most tsunami deaths aren't caused by the water itself. Instead, what happens is that the water crashes into buildings destroying them. Additional waves then take all of that debris and use it like battering rams to destroy more buildings. It's the debris that most often causes human deaths and damage in the city. Perhaps a good case for building more tsnuami-safe buildings?

Re:Tsunami info from a former park ranger (1)

Pyrion (525584) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821430)

The natural argument is of course that it inevitably costs more to demolish old, not-to-code buildings and rebuild from scratch than it takes to just wait for a tsunami or earthquake to hit and do it for you for free. Mainly as insurance likely doesn't cover intentional demolishing of your own property.

timely article (4, Funny)

fearanddread (836731) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821251)

Interesting that this happened. Here is an article [sfgate.com] that was published just yesterday talking about exactly this topic. I guess the subduction zone reads the Chronicle.

The Map didn't forcast it (5, Informative)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821255)

http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/step/ [usgs.gov]

If you look now though, there are two areas of fairly high risk.

Don't use this map for anything important, like planning picnics.

Still, I check this every day, and I am suprised that I was given a reference to test its accuracy so soon.

Still, it has updated today in light of the events.

Re:The Map didn't forcast it (1)

origamy (807009) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821328)

Did you read how the map works? It bases itself on what happened recently to predict the near future. It's not a crystal ball telling you where "not" to be tomorrow.

Follow the How do we do this map? link and you'll get to an explanation of how the map is made. Or you can go directly here: http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/eqprob.html [usgs.gov]

Here in San Francisco there's a 50% chance of a 5.0 quake in the next five years, but it doesn't mean it will happen or not. It's statistics based on previous events.

Slashdot should not be my primary news source :(. (2, Funny)

saurik (37804) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821257)

So earlier, when this was first breaking news, my roommate got a phone call from her friend Erin about a possible tsunami warning. My first thought? "I'll check slashdot; if it's actually going to kill us (especially as we're in Southern California) slashdot will have an article on it".

Re:Slashdot should not be my primary news source : (3, Funny)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821439)

Don't go panic tomorrow if you read a "new" tsunami warning here.

False Alarm (5, Informative)

amcox (588540) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821270)

According to a friend who is a geologist, the quake was on a slip fault, not a thrust falt, and therefore could not produce a tsunami. And, since it was something like 70 miles offshore, the shaking itself didn't do any real damage, either.

Re:False Alarm (1)

Punboy (737239) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821299)

Well, he's slightly wrong about that. There wouldn't have been an upheaval of landmass, and so it wouldn't have caused a huge tsunami like we saw in december. However, the shaking back and forth itself can cause tsunamis... or would they call that a tidal wave? Either way it doesn't have t be a thrust fault in order to cause a tsunami, it just has to be a thrust fault in order to cause a rise of the ocean floor, which would cause a huge one.

Re:False Alarm (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821437)

From this USGS map [usgs.gov], the centre of the earthquake is closest to a subduction zone, not a slip fault, so theoretically the displacement of landmass could have caused a tsunami, had the magnitude been sufficient.

However, the shaking back and forth itself can cause tsunamis... or would they call that a tidal wave?

Tidal wave is the common (and incorrect) way of referring to a Tsunami. It's misleading, though, as the wave produced is not a product of tides at all and must be - by definition- the product of tectonic activity.

Re:False Alarm (1)

Pyrion (525584) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821442)

The issue is that even on strike-slip faults there is often a mixture of lateral and vertical movement.

And no, the proper term is tsunami, only the media and the uneducated call it a "tidal wave", as tsunamis have absolutely nothing to do with the tides.

Shrug, (0, Flamebait)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821275)

too bad a tsunami can't hit places like Utah or Tennessee.

Re:Shrug, (2, Insightful)

Mahou (873114) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821307)

that's what tornados are for

You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. (0, Flamebait)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821364)

Okay, its "tornadoes" and Utah doesn't get tornadoes as the Convective Available Potential Energy is not enough.

CAPE is measure in J/kg... A redistribution of energy per unit mass. Any geek would know that.

Helicity is not also high enough. Measure in m^2/s^2. The tendency for fluid to travel in a helicial flow... i.e. shit that be inportant to tornadogenesis.

Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. (1)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821371)

Did it occur to you that some of us have knowledge that is useful in every-day situations that you're completely ignorant of? All the while you're memorizing facts and formulas that will be useful to one in fifty million people, and calling others idiots for not knowing them - when parent was only making a joke. Get a life.

Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. (0, Troll)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821381)

I find it ironic that you're telling me to get a life when I am talking about true fluid dynamics on Slashdot.

Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821391)

so what's the ironic part? that you still don't get it? or is this some kind of SNL "dumb asshole" sketch?

Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. (0, Troll)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821405)

No, this is not some banal sketch.

Claim: Tornadoes can occur in Utah.

Fact: Storm Relative Helicity is not strong enough. I am a meteorologist you fucktard. I also have a minor in mathematics. I fucking worship Navier-Stokes. The very basis and somewhat primitive segue into the equations of motion that describe the atmosphere. SRH (as eluded to above) is not strong enough. Utah does not get tornadoes. Don't fuck with me or I'll summon Zeus and shove a lightening bold up your ass. You do understand lightening do you? Faraday? Electric polarity.

God I fucking hate you.

Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821470)

Not unlike tornadoes in Utah, a lightning bolt cannot exist in that guy's ass. No matter what your ancient pagan religion tells you.

Zeus is a tard. Bring the lightning!

Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. (2, Informative)

Teancum (67324) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821477)

If Utah doesn't get tornadoes, then explain the F3 tornado that hit downtown Salt Lake City a couple of years ago? Nice damage to the Delta Center and other fun stuff, and a couple of homes totally destroyed. I'm sure their insurance companies (of the home owners) would like to have scientific confirmation that it is impossible to occur so a claim couldn't be made.

And local TV stations routinely (about once every month or so in the summer) show pictures of an F1 somewhere... sometimes as a waterspout in the Great Salt Lake (where it is somewhat common to be seen... not as common as Kansas, but it does happen). I guess that is just Photoshop, right?

I used to live in Southern Minnesota, and I will admit that tornadoes are much more common there. And in Utah (where I am living now), not only do you have problems with relative energies to produce tornadoes, you also have mountains that tend to muck up any consistant rainfall patterns. It is common for a major storm to dump 2" to 4" of rain in one area and just a trace 10 miles to the north or south. Wind going around a mountain range has similar distortions, all which contribute to breaking up systems that might produce tornadoes.

All that said, and to get this more on topic, I would hate to be near large bodies of water like the Great Salt Lake, Bear Lake, or Lake Powell if an earthquake was triggered underneath. It could certainly produce Tsumai-like effects in a localized area. Or imagine a major earthquake under Lake Michigan and what damage it could do to shoreline properties around that lake. That would be billions of dollars in damage at a minimum.

Still, it is more likely that something would happen in the Pacific (due to "Ring of Fire" combined with the extraordinarly large size of the Pacific Ocean), and why the money is being dumped into warnings for that area of the USA, and not the Rustbelt of the Great Lakes region.

Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821478)

Lightning. Lightning. Worst. Meteorologist. Ever.

Re:You're an idiot for not knowing CAPE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821412)

Your sig: Is Speedcore available on the web?

weird alert (1)

sarcast (515179) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821285)

Living in good 'ol so cal, I have never heard of a tsunami warning, so that was fun to see flash across my screen while I was watching TV.

here is another good site for seeing all of our (2, Informative)

downsize (551098) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821295)

quakes: http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/ [usgs.gov]

you can see this big one off to the upper left, but 'quakes are no big thing around these parts - just look, we get ~hundreds a day; similar to /. geting 2-300 500 server errors a day.

Silicon Valley's sinkin', man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821305)

...an' I don't wanna swim. /cue_guitar_solo

Link to Realtime Earthquake List (2, Informative)

ahodgkinson (662233) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821333)

The USGS [usgs.gov] runs a good site [usgs.gov] that lists all earthquakes, worldwide, with magnitude greater than 2.5. I monitored the list after the tsunami of last December, and it was interesting to see the aftershocks in the following weeks.

In this case the same thing is happening. You'll note in the list that there have already been a number of aftershocks over the past few hours.

They also have a RSS feed, so presumably you could create your own tsunami warning system.

Re:Link to Realtime Earthquake List (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821407)

I subscribed to the USGS bigquake mailing list after the 26 Dec 2004 Tsunami. This is probably the same information as the RSS feed but the USGS cautions that it is not a warning system.

I have been getting emails about 50 minutes after the quake and I think there is a manual review process before the mail is sent out.

I think this would be too slow for a warning system.

The big one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821340)

Uh-oh? Is this a prelude to the big one?

Time to pack your bags and move to Kansas?

Re:The big one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821375)

Kansas? Planning on a twister visit to Oz? I'd rather do the Tsunami thing and live on the coast.

We Really Aren't Prepared (3, Insightful)

Soloact (805735) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821345)

This earthquake didn't really rattle us very much locally (Eureka CA area), but it triggered the tsunami warning from 2001 to 2113 PDT, and was fully lifted at 2155 PDT. The warning came via email to those of us who subscribe to the Tsunami Warning Center emails. However, the email wasn't sent out until about 10 minutes after the quake, and didn't set off the Emergency Broadcast System on the radio for about another 5 minutes after the emails. Folks, in 15 minutes, a Tsunami could have already happened locally. Even though the watch/warning was broadcast, most locals just shrugged it off, or didn't even hear about it until I mentioned it to them over an hour later. The local supermarket has been promoting Emergency Awareness lately, but in view of the reaction of the people, we really aren't prepared should the epicenter of a 7+ quake happen under our feet, or should a Tsunami actually hit. Fortunately, I live inland far enough and high enough to be above a wave line similar to that of the Indian Ocean tsunami of last December. But I don't live far enough away to not have to clean up bodies of non-prepared apathetic persons who become victims should one occur. I did live right on the beach, previously, and had an evacuation package and procedure ready. Others along the Coast were ready, but not enough of them. Everyone should really do a self-preparedness check to see if they are indeed ready for such an emergency. This includes those who live in earthquake, tornado, flooding, mountains (slides and fires), and hurricane areas. Prepare yourself and your neighbors today, should you have to help each other tomorrow.

I was distracted by my masturbating (1, Funny)

macslut (724441) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821365)

I was distracted by my masturbating when it happened, so I didn't notice the earthquake. Damn, why does this always happen...oh wait, never mind.

Japan (5, Interesting)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821368)

Here in Japan they have the very sensible system of reporting not only (and not even mostly) the energy released at the epicenter, but most prominently the expected effects at any area affected by the earthquake.

They have a seven-point scale, with 1 being that you only just feel the quake if you are lying down or otherwise sensitive; to 7 being that nonhardened buildings collapse, and many expected injuries and deaths. Quake reports are usually in the form of maps with this info overlayed.

For most of the public, that is the kind of info you want when an earthquake has occurred, rather than the intensity at the origin. It tells you much clearer if it's time to worry about friends and relatives or not.

Alaska Got Some Big Ones, Too (4, Informative)

kingofalaska (885947) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821373)

I know many people think Alaska is off the coast of California, but I noticed we got a few large ones, too.

" Aleutians rocked by series of big quakes [alaska.edu]

The countless quakes started short after midnight. The biggest one, with a preliminary magnitude of 6.9, struck at 9:10 a.m. Tuesday. There were reports of items falling off shelves in Adak, about 175 miles from the epicenter.

The series of quakes occurred where the Pacific and North American plates collide. Most were in the range of 4.5 and 5.7."

Seems to be a relation.


Eagle crashes into living room of a Ketchikan home [blogspot.com]

MJ! (5, Funny)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821374)

God is angry over the Michael Jackson verdict!

Re:MJ! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821403)

What retard modded this as informative? Funny, maybe, but INFORMATIVE?


Re:MJ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821431)

Dear AC

I did it, you got a problem with that?


Re:MJ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821462)


The God of What? Which God?


Re:MJ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821451)

Damn, wait until he sees you've stolen his title!

LIGO noticed it (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821386)

Although it wasn't nearly large enough to cause any damage, the shaking was signifigant enough to disturb the Hanford LIGO site. Took about 3-4 hours for ground motion to calm down enough that the mirrors could be used again. Most of the people working on the Interferometers decided it was a good time to head out and grab dinner.

And for those that don't know what LIGO is, look at http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ [caltech.edu] And check out the Einstein@home project while you're there.

Here in Santa Cruz... (1)

wyldeone (785673) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821459)

Here in Santa Cruz (central coast) we didn't feel anything (heck, I didn't know there had been an earthquake until reading the story), so the epicenter was far enough from the coast to do any real damage. Despite this, an earthquake that's a 7 on the richter scale is scary--most of Santa Cruz was destroyed in the loma prieta 15 years ago, and that was a 7.1.

i felt it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12821465)

and i'm in crescent city...just 90 miles from the san andreas fault...they said if there were to be a tsunami to take out our city it'd be at that fault and a "bump" earthquake or something, instead of the slip 'n slide quake that occured. part of our town evacuated. same thing happend in 1964...'cept a tsunami actually happend here.

Timing (4, Funny)

vyrus128 (747164) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821472)

Slashdot's getting better at posting news while it's new... this one's only about 3 or 4 hours out of date. Meanwhile Fark, a comedy site, had the newsflash up while the tsunami warning was still in effect. I know where I'm going for my news...

Northern California Coast??? (1)

TheStonepedo (885845) | more than 8 years ago | (#12821473)

Am I geographically lost, living in Atlanta, GA? I thought California had coasts facing mostly West and South. I think "in the Pacific ocean West of Northern California" would be a bit clearer. California, to my knowledge, has no Northern Coast. So watch out for them land-bound tsunamis or the terrorists have won.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account