|
Re: Loma Prieta again |
Wow a scientific question I actually know the answer to. Chris actually answered it first but to just clarify, EACH segment of any fault is only capable of a certain magnitude. For the SAF in the Aptos part, its prob. only 7.1 What happened in 1906 was that the aptos segment ruptured in conjunction with the Pennisula segment in conjuntion with the segment north of the Golden gate. Combined, they registered an 8+. Individually they were prob. no more than a 6.5 to 7.0. In the future SAF socal segment, it is suggested that when it zippers through from say Salton Sea up to Wrightwood, EACH segment will be having a quake of around 6.5 to 7.0 but collectively the magnitude would reach 8+. Because of this, the actaul ground shaking in LA will NOT be greater than what was experienced by SFV residents in Northridge and Sylmar (71), HOWEVER a great number of people will experience that intense shaking than if it was a just a single 6+ event with one epicenter. It is thought that in 1906, the Santa Cruz segment, the one you live closest too, may have been a bit sluggish during the event, i.e. its sister segments to the north may have slipped causing quakes in the 6.7 range while teh Santa Cruz segment may have been just at a 6. Therefore not all the energy went and thus the rather quick turn around time from 06 to 89 for the next one. The Pennisula segment was the next segmenet to release not as much, hence why it is now a potential candidate for a 6.5+ quake in next 30 years and the segment north of that released the most. Hope this makes sense! Follow Ups: ● Re: Loma Prieta again - Cathryn 17:16:00 - 9/24/2006 (40833) (1) ● Re: Loma Prieta again - Todd 00:35:22 - 9/26/2006 (40963) (1) ● Thanks, (NT) - Cathryn 15:01:47 - 9/26/2006 (40967) (0) ● Re: Loma Prieta again - heartland chris 17:07:01 - 9/21/2006 (40687) (1) ● Re: Loma Prieta & NMSZ - Jane 04:21:40 - 9/22/2006 (40692) (1) ● Re: Loma Prieta & NMSZ - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande 06:34:34 - 9/22/2006 (40693) (1) ● some comments - John Vidale 08:06:32 - 9/22/2006 (40696) (1) ● Re: some comments - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande 09:03:44 - 9/22/2006 (40697) (2) ● it was mostly accurate - John Vidale 17:13:21 - 9/22/2006 (40702) (0) ● Re: some comments - chris in suburbia 10:24:53 - 9/22/2006 (40698) (2) ● Re: some comments - Cathryn 17:30:03 - 9/24/2006 (40836) (2) ● Re: some comments - Canie 21:07:17 - 9/25/2006 (40950) (2) ● maybe here? - John Vidale 21:45:17 - 9/25/2006 (40954) (1) ● Re: maybe here? - Canie 23:40:15 - 9/25/2006 (40961) (0) ● Re: some comments - Canie 21:17:33 - 9/25/2006 (40952) (1) ● Re: The Internet (and by proxy usenet, www, email, and chat) - Roger Hunter 22:13:08 - 9/25/2006 (40958) (1) ● Re: The Internet (and by proxy usenet, www, email, and chat) - Canie 23:41:47 - 9/25/2006 (40962) (1) ● Re: The Internet (and by proxy usenet, www, email, and chat) - Roger Hunter 08:21:11 - 9/26/2006 (40965) (0) ● magnitude estimation - John Vidale 20:56:17 - 9/24/2006 (40840) (1) ● Re: magnitude estimation - Cathryn 22:20:24 - 9/24/2006 (40842) (0) ● Re:Thanks for all the comments - Jane 17:21:36 - 9/24/2006 (40835) (0) |
|