[GSlob]

"Imagine if had occured on land!"
Actually, as it was a shallow earthquake, were it to happen on dry land in an unpopulated area (Sahara desert, or Antarctics- as long as the ice sheets do not slide) there would be no tsunamis and very little loss of life, as the damage would be mostly local in nature. But were it to happen in densely populated area like Western Europe...

[ET(end tyranny)]

Actually, as it was a shallow earthquake, were it to happen on dry land in an unpopulated area (Sahara desert, or Antarctics- as long as the ice sheets do not slide) there would be no tsunamis and very little loss of life, as the damage would be mostly local in nature.

I read this 6 miles deep. Do you happen to know what their depth chart is like? What is considered shallow and what is considered deep?

[furball4paws]

While you are imagining, imagine if it had been on the east side of Sumatra and the tsunami was unleashed into the S. China Sea. The way it was, at least the tsunami had to travel a relatively long distance before landfall.

[gitmo]

Didn't the wave hit west Africa this afternoon? Were they able to evacuate?

[Dog Gone]

Actually, as it was a shallow earthquake, were it to happen on dry land in an unpopulated area (Sahara desert, or Antarctics- as long as the ice sheets do not slide) there would be no tsunamis and very little loss of life, as the damage would be mostly local in nature.

Incredibly shallow by earthquake standards. But if this had happened on land, say in Los Angeles, the death toll would have been at least as high.