|
not an aftershock |
This latest quake seemed to break the next stretch of the subduction zone to the south of the December earthquake, so I'd call it a new earthquake, although undoubtedly triggered by the one in December. Follow Ups: ● Re: not an aftershock - Cathryn 23:46:58 - 3/28/2005 (25418) (1) ● distance, not aftershock, no tsunami - chris in suburbia 04:01:15 - 3/29/2005 (25420) (1) ● Re: distance, not aftershock, no tsunami - Canie 08:15:57 - 3/29/2005 (25424) (1) ● flat thrust, no tsunami - chris in suburbia 08:37:39 - 3/29/2005 (25425) (1) ● no really up on this - John Vidale 21:35:29 - 3/29/2005 (25448) (0) |
|