Re: Disaster Scenario - News - Rodgers Creek Fault
Posted by chris in suburbia on September 07, 2005 at 05:48:04:

Canie...while the quake you speak of may be somewhat more common that what I say below, it would also be much less damaging. the real dangerous fault is the Compton and its offshore continuation that I have been mapping....the offshore SW limb of Palos Verdes anticlinorium is continuous for 50 km so the faults underneath are likely a continuous system. Combining the offshore fault areas with the area of the Compton ramp doubles the area and makes the Shaw and Suppe (1996) M 7.0 a M7.3 instead. This would be a thrust or oblique thrust earthquake where Long Beach and much of Los Angeles would be above the fault. Ground motions in thrust earthquakes are higher (generally) than in strike-slip earthquakes. Given the deep sedimentary Los Angeles basin, this would not be at all a good scenario..

I need to write up and publish this paper because the student who was supposed to do this is not...but I have papers backed up....and they take me a long time.
Chris


Follow Ups:
     ● Chris.... - Petra  07:04:41 - 9/7/2005  (28018)  (1)
        ● how long is long..both - chris in suburbia  11:52:22 - 9/7/2005  (28021)  (1)
           ● Re: how long is long..both - Roger Hunter  12:16:30 - 9/7/2005  (28023)  (1)
              ● Re: how long is long..both - Ummm??? - Petra  18:00:00 - 9/7/2005  (28043)  (1)
                 ● Re: how long is long..both - Ummm??? - Roger Hunter  18:22:45 - 9/7/2005  (28044)  (2)
                    ● Ok, So What's The Attraction? - Petra  19:52:04 - 9/7/2005  (28047)  (1)
                       ● brainstorming - chris in suburbia  03:42:30 - 9/8/2005  (28053)  (1)
                          ● Re: brainstorming - Canie  09:01:29 - 9/8/2005  (28061)  (1)
                             ● Don't you mean synergy? n/t - Roger Hunter  18:52:14 - 9/8/2005  (28088)  (1)
                                ● Re: Don't you mean synergy? n/t - Canie  07:59:56 - 9/9/2005  (28098)  (0)
                    ● that's "bureaucratic" - Roger Hunter  18:27:16 - 9/7/2005  (28045)  (2)
                       ● Re: that's "bureaucratic" - Canie  08:58:54 - 9/8/2005  (28060)  (0)
                       ● Re: that's "bureaucratic" - Don in Hollister  01:25:36 - 9/8/2005  (28052)  (0)