Posted on 06/16/2005 11:37:16 PM PDT by bd476
Edited on 06/16/2005 11:53:39 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
A strong earthquake occurred at 06:21:45 (UTC) on Friday, June 17, 2005. The magnitude 6.9 event has been located OFF THE COAST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. (This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.)
Magnitude 6.9 Date-Time Friday, June 17, 2005 at 06:21:45 (UTC) = Coordinated Universal Time Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 10:21:45 PM = local time at epicenter
Location 40.605°N, 126.284°W Depth 45 km (28.0 miles) set by location program Region OFF THE COAST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Distances 171 km (106 miles) W (272°) from Ferndale, CA 172 km (107 miles) W (281°) from Petrolia, CA 176 km (109 miles) W (266°) from Humboldt Hill, CA 180 km (112 miles) W (264°) from Eureka, CA 458 km (285 miles) NW (315°) from San Francisco City Hall, CA
Location Uncertainty Error estimate not available Parameters Nst=033, Nph=033, Dmin=217.5 km, Rmss=0.94 sec, Gp=202°, M-type=moment magnitude (Mw), Version=1 Source West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center/NOAA/NWS
Event ID at00000366
For the Seismic Window of June 20-27, 2005 I am predicting with 80% confidence at least one quake meeting the following paramaters:
(1) 3.5-6.5 within 140 miles of Mt. Diablo at 37.9N 121.9W.
(2) 3.5-6.5M within 140 miles of Los Angeles at 34N, 118W)
(3) 3.0-5.0M with an Oregon or Washington address.
(4) major quake of 7+M globally, most likely within the Pacific Ring of Fire.
Thing about the above is that he makes THE EXACT SAME PREDICTIONS for the week of the full moon EVERY month.
And when you critically evaluate them, you see that his magnitude ranges are so wide he's virtually guaranteed to hit on at least one of them.
For example, when you look at the earthquake record...
1) This basically means he counts every quake above 3.5 in Northern California as a hit...such quakes are so common that in a given week he has a 64% chance of a hit with this one by dumb luck.
2) This basically means he counts every quake above 3.5 in Southern California as a hit; such quakes are SO COMMON that on average there is at least ONE such quake in a given week; this is the one he basically can't lose on. A worthless "prediction." It's like predicting that Michael Moore will say something stupid and offensive in a given week.
3) He's basically predicting a quake above 3.0 in two whole states; In any given week, by dumb luck, there's an 83% chance of such a quake happening in either Washington or Oregon
4) Worldwide there are 18 Mag 7+ quakes a year on average; in any given week there's a 34% chance of one; and of course MOST of these are on the Ring of Fire, so even a hit with this one is hardly impressive.
Anyway, I hope this helps people understand the silliness of Berkland and what he's ACTUALLY saying. He makes a bunch of predictions so vague that he'll get lots of hits through dumb luck.
I'm a bit mystified why people seem surprised at normal aftershock activity.
Were we smart enough to report in TV to illegals that this was a sign from God that they are to go home and stay there?
Must have been some event if the cat ran away prior.
Even without The B1, the current real estate market is going to create some long-term financial stresses. The ten-year interest-only-option loans are letting many people get into houses they cannot otherwise afford. That's a financial time-bomb and a gamble that the market will produce a net positive ten years from now. Most likely, it will, but throw in a mag 7.9 in San Jose and suddenly the picture gets very grim. The onslaught of insurance claims will easily be triple that of the claims resulting from Loma Prieta; perhaps quadruple or more if the epicenter is in a metro area. This will place a tremendous financial strain on insurers, potentially closing the market to new policies for several years. That stated, the worry of big loans with little to no insurance is unfounded, IMO; I'm unaware of any lenders that do not include a mandate for insurance coverage as part of the loan agreement -- and they DO check to make sure you're premiums are paid up, too.
On the upside, your Home Depot stock would boom and it would be a great time to be a GC or a sub working in residential construction.
Perhaps if Oregon has a 6.0 in the next few days people will be really rattled. All those expensive beach houses from Florence to Lincoln City are right down on the beach. Miles from higher ground all of them, with no protection at all in any direction. Totally exposed to tsunamis.
Oh, well, not for me to worry.
I, too, am mystified by people's reactions. It has been relatively quiet for a few years up here on the north coast of California. The activity we are seeing now is not really unusual for this area.
I think access to the web and 24 hour news exaggerates events like this. I live on Humboldt bay which is about a close as one can get to the two northern earthquakes and it didn't even rattle the dishes.
Contractors have been getting top dollar for two years at least.
What happened was many bought new homes and those who are staying in their old ones are all remodeling.
The war started an immediate increase in the price of wood as well, being much was shipped out to Iraq.
The states love these homes worth $280k being sold for $660k, because property taxes are skyrocketing new major income to the state.
I personally can't see average people handling living in a home with $750 a month in property taxes. Seems a large chunk of money in taxes going to the states there.
Let me restate that, because earthquakes aren't covered except under separately available policies. Lenders do not mandate earthquake coverage, although they do mandate general homeowner's insurance, in nearly every case. So, your concern is not unfounded, but well founded.
I don't have figures for the percentage of California real estate not covered by earthquake insurance; I suspect it's substantial. The coverage is pricey and some look at the cost/benefit analysis and think, "Yeah, I might need it, but probably I won't, so why spend the money? Besides, if things are so bad that my house is gone, I'll likely have bigger problems than worrying about how to fund rebuilding; things like medical care and/or funeral arrangements." Now, if you're buying a $700,000 house, I think you're less likely to think that way than if you only owe $100,000 on a property with a current market value of $500,000. If you're in the latter situation, you could likely bulldoze your house and sell the naked dirt for $100,000 more than you currently owe. So, if a big quake bulldozes it for you, the land value would be sufficient to provide most or all of the collateral for the loan you'd need to clear the lot and rebuild.
Another reason I don't understand California real estate prices...pay a million bucks for a sh*tty 1200 square foot crapbox and have it demolished in an earthquake...
Well, So CA has been relatively quiet since the Northridge quake in 1994....(and Landers/Big Bear twin quakes in 2002)
or the last major in No Cal in 1989...
The majority of the people that survived those quakes are probably gone. (with a 7% turnover per year)
I didn't feel it; I'm roughly 30 miles from the coast as the crow flies, with a lot of Coast Range between me and the ocean.
I'm actually 10 miles from the CA/OR border, so I'm pretty far north.
I'd be curious what tubebender has to say.
What I'm nervous about is the ultra huge one from the Cascadian subduction zone they keep talking about.
http://www.earthquakeauthority.com/calc/default.asp
Here is the state earthquake insurance calculator...
Well, is this the time when California will really fall into the ocean?
(PS. I am here too.)
Is is just me, or does the idea of using a cigarette lighter to see in the dark to find the gas main to shut it off sound like a plot for a Road Runner / Wil-E Coyote cartoon? ;-)
Contrary to popular belief most Californians are just like people in the rest of the country. They just want to work, play, raise their families and if possible, own a home. A two bedroom, one bath 50 year old starter home in my town is 300k if you're lucky enough to find one. Add to that the state taxes and high home owners, most young couples or retired people who would be living in those homes have no money left for the high cost of earthquake insurance.
So move to a different location? Leave our jobs, our families, our life and move where?
Please add me to your ever-growing list. Before you know it, you'll have ALL active FReepers on it. LOL
ROFL!!!
Really, they should move to Florida.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.