[celtic gal]

Did not say anything about the amount of devastation caused in the New Madrid Zone. It would be bad just as a 6.5 in LA or SF would be really bad. All we in the west are saying is that a 2.6 is small, yeah you feel it, but it is not a big one. We have little ones out here all the time and the size is posted in our papers daily.No one likes earthquakes and it is unnerving that there are so many active events in the ring of fire.

[streetpreacher]

I actually get you on the 2.6 thing. That really isn’t worthy of a thread. I wasn’t at all trying to be dismissive or cavalier when I stated a 6.5 would be worse in the New Madrid zone. It would be bad in California. It would probably be epic in the Heartland. Not simply because of our horrendous building codes but because of the differences in the earth.

“Nov. 9, 1968, remains the most significant date of this century for scientists who study the New Madrid earthquake seismic area, a fault zone with fissure systems running into Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and Arkansas.

That earthquake more than 30 years ago at a magnitude 5.5 on the Richter scale — moderate in the seismic scheme of things — was the most widely felt earthquake in the United States (excluding Alaska) in 71 years. That’s because shockwaves from a New Madrid quake travel farther than similar seismic activity in California’s San Andreas fault system because the underlying earth differs. New Madrid runs deep, along rock beds that are not as fractured as the San Andreas fault network.”
http://www.showme.net/~fkeller/quake/lib/bigquake.htm

And if we get an 8.0 or higher as in 1811-1812, we are talking a disaster of Biblical proportions to several major cities and everything in between, not to mention the disruption of the entire American economy.