+- Earthwaves Earth Sciences Forum (http://www.earthwaves.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Earthwaves (http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Earth Sciences (http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: SoCal 3.4 (/showthread.php?tid=231)
SoCal 3.4 - Skywise - 04-30-2015
3.4 in Carson, CA, Los Angeles suburb.
Very close to the Newport-Inglewood fault zone which is the source of the 1933 M6.4 Long Beach Earthquake.
Focal mechanism is consistent with fault direction.
A large quake on this fault would be bad, not just because it runs under densely populated urban areas, but many of the neighborhoods along the fault trace are older and poor as well.
Brian
M3.9 Baldwin Hills (Newport Inglewood) - Island Chris - 05-03-2015
There was just a M3.9 five minutes ago, in beneath Baldwin Hills. I should check, but think the Baldwin Hills are squeezed up along the Newport-Inglewood fault.
This is not especially close to the other quake, and is kind of interesting.
I know a lot about the offshore Newport-Inglewood fault: Island hris and others manuscript should be accepted by Geosphere any day now (should have been accepted weeks ago, but they are slow). I've supplied 3D digital representations of three strands of the offshore fault to Craig Nicholson for the SCEC Community fault map (I supplied such representations for about 30 faults strands last September).
The Newport Inglewood fault is very close to the ex-SONGS nuclear power plant, which is still a high-level nuclear waste location. You can see the plant from "The 5" (interstate route 5, the main road between Los Angeles and San Diego), and it is right on the beach: I've heard only 5 meters elevation. Check it out in Google Earth.
It used to supply 10% of California's electricity and presumably its closure is related to the emails I get on warm days to turn things off (through UCSB).
I went on a field trip there in 1994 (by coincidence 2 weeks after Northridge quake), and the field trip leader Eric Frost brought up a massive landslide in 1978 down the coast in similar geology. From rain; did not even need a quake.
Ever since then I have not thought this plant was in a good location.
We will see whether the manuscripts by those funded by Southern California Edison are accurate. I have my doubts but have not seen them, in part because I probably pissed off SCE (IMHO). I probably have some ethical obligation to write a comment if there are papers published that I think are badly inaccurate, and maybe a letter to the California Seismic Safety Commission.
Or, they may be fine.
Or, my paper may be wrong (of course I don't think so!)
Chris
RE: SoCal 3.8 is thrust - Island Chris - 05-03-2015
The quake is a thrust, and is now M3.8. There is some compression/shortening along the Newport-Inglewood fault, so entirely possible that the quake is within the overall right-lateral zone.
I am not checking the location against the mapped fault, so could be wrong on some of this.
Chris
RE: SoCal 3.4 - PennyB - 05-03-2015
(05-03-2015, 05:51 PM)Island Chris Wrote: The quake is a thrust, and is now M3.8. There is some compression/shortening along the Newport-Inglewood fault, so entirely possible that the quake is within the overall right-lateral zone.
I am not checking the location against the mapped fault, so could be wrong on some of this.
Chris
2 quakes of 3 plus in the last couple of weeks on this fault. It would indeed be a dreadful disaster if a repeat of 1933 occurred. Dense population and poorly consolidated alluvium all around.