Re: Undermining Earthquake Safety
Posted by Don in Hollister on April 23, 2006 at 21:49:26:

Hi All. Not sure how the gentleman made the determination he came to, but it contradicts what others have been saying. All one has to do is look at the damage caused by the two M=5.0+ quakes in 1969.

The Rodgers Creek fault is the prime candidate for the next major quake. That’s not saying it will occur there, but there is a high degree of probability that it will.

From what I have been able to learn over the last 6 years of studying the fault the last major quake to occur on it was somewhere between 1730 and 1760 and is thought to have centered in the area just to the north of present day Santa Rosa.

Santa Rosa and the surrounding area sets on a alluvial plain which is comprised of soil washed out of the Sonoma Mountain range. The maximum quake that is expected to occur is about M=7.3 to M=7.5. This means the energy from that quake would be more then 1000 times greater then the two 1969 quakes combined and a 100 time more earth shaking. The conditions that were present for the 1906 quake and the two 1969 quakes are still there. To get an idea as to what can happen during a M=7.0 quake all one has to do is look at the damage to the Marina District in San Francisco during the 1989 Loma Prieta quake. That quake is located about 60 miles south of San Francisco.

My favorite place for the next major quake is on the section of the fault between Petaluma and Wildcat Mountain. If the rupture is towards the south Santa Rosa will shake just a little less as the energy would be moving away from it. If the rupture is towards the north then the energy will be moving towards it. However I don’t think anyone is going to be able to tell the difference. Take Care…Don in creepy town

Santa Rosa 1

Santa Rosa 2

Santa Rosa 3


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Undermining Earthquake Safety - Petra  23:10:25 - 4/23/2006  (36565)  (1)
        ● Re: Undermining Earthquake Safety - Cathryn  12:13:46 - 4/24/2006  (36573)  (2)
           ● Re: Undermining Earthquake Safety - Mary C.  15:56:35 - 4/24/2006  (36582)  (2)
              ● Re: Undermining Earthquake Safety - Cathryn  08:53:17 - 5/13/2006  (36916)  (0)
              ● Re: Undermining Earthquake Safety - marc / berkeley  17:31:43 - 4/24/2006  (36599)  (0)
           ● Re: Undermining Earthquake Safety - marc / berkeley  14:47:02 - 4/24/2006  (36579)  (1)
              ● Re: Undermining Earthquake Safety - Cathryn  19:37:44 - 4/24/2006  (36600)  (0)