San Andreas may see more, bigger quakes

AP Science ^ | Thursday, April 15, 2004. | ANDREW BRIDGES

[BenLurkin]

"30 quakes of magnitudes between 7.5 and 8.0 that had struck between 3000 and 1200 B.C. and A.D. 500 and the present."

Taking a short break from another ten hour work day . . . and maybe I'm tired . . . but can someone please explain this line to me?

[Fishing-guy]

I read that S. California is overdue for the big one. Then again, I have been hearing that for the last 10 years.

[BenLurkin]

Yes, ten years or even longer - still I think I'll rotate all those old cans of beans, fruit cocktail, tuna and spam out of the disaster kit and replace them with fresh cans (and fresh water).

[LibWhacker]

I'm guessing he means 30 big quakes in the 3300 year covered by the two intervals, but none between 1200BC and 500AD.

[LibWhacker]

3300 years

[billorites]

"a flurry of seismic activity that could rattle Southern California with a strong temblor every few decades or less..."

Bush knew!

[Izzy Dunne]

"30 quakes of magnitudes between 7.5 and 8.0 that had struck between 3000 and 1200 B.C. and A.D. 500 and the present."

Two periods of time:
3000 BC - 1200 BC.
500 AD - 2004 AD.

during that collective time span, 30 quakes 7.5-8.0 occurred.

I think.

[M. Peach]

You beat me to the punch. I was thinking the same thing - there was a relative lull between the two periods. Since I'm only a stone's throw from Palm Springs (right now it's about a quarter to seven, the weather is about 80 degrees with crystal blue skies and the sun is about to set in another half hour. Don't hate me because I live here ;-) I know, I'm bragging)

But I guess the down side is the threat of a major earthquake - there was about an 8.0 in Landers a few years back - which is about a 45 minute drive from here. Since we're on a lot of sand, I don't think we have too much to worry about here.

[BenLurkin]

Okay, that's as good as I can come up with and is very much consistent with the underlying information in the article.

Thanks!

[LibWhacker]

A detailed analysis of two periods of past quake activity . . .

Oops . . . forget the part about nothing big happening between 1200BC and 500AD. On second reading he seems to be saying there were 30 big quakes during the 3300 years he studied. But he isn't making any claim at all about the 1700 years between those two periods.

[kdot]

Let's just predict every combination of every thing. Then, when something big happens, we can take the credit.

That reminds me of an old buddy. Some would say he was a good photographer, but I contended he was a boy with a good toy and a lot of time to kill. If you have every expensive gadget and take a zillion shots of the same subject using incremental settings, you're bound to get at least one good shot. Does that make you a good photographer? I understand Ansel Adams could shoot a masterpiece with only one exposure - that's skill.

Sorry for the tangent. I'm finally starting to come down from my April-15th anger craze.

[BenLurkin]

OK . . . got it . . . . . . I think . . .

Guess I better get back to work and finish off today's tasks - and call it a day!

(Thank you) 8^)

[Pagey]

The San Andreas fault may be on the cusp of producing larger and more frequent earthquakes

I was born and raised here (L.A.), 37 years now,what's the big deal when you're prepared, literally and figuratively,hmmm? sheesh..........

[Centurion2000]

I was born and raised here (L.A.), 37 years now,what's the big deal when you're prepared, literally and figuratively,hmmm? sheesh

Worry about the millions that are NOT prepared and in a crisis will see fit to try and appropriate your preparations claiming 'need' for it.

[John H K]

I was born and raised here (L.A.), 37 years now,what's the big deal when you're prepared, literally and figuratively,hmmm?

The problem is you haven't experienced any REAL quakes. Don't kid yourself. Northridge, Sylmar were decent, strong quakes, but not huge by any measure, and only a shadow of what is possible. You have no idea what you're up against, mark my words.

Geology is measured in millions of years. 37 years is an irrelevant eye-blink.

Southern California has had an unusually low amount of quake activity in the last 50 years or so compared to what's "normal"..unfortunately, that's when the population exploded.

[John H K]

Since we're on a lot of sand, I don't think we have too much to worry about here.

Huh?

The LESS solid ground your on, the worse off you are in a quake, not better off. Ideally you'd be on solid rock. Mud is the worst, but sand likely isn't much better.

[LibWhacker]

I'm in the Central Valley, up by Sacramento. So many beautiful days up here, I get sick of 'em. ;-)

Sorry to run out on the conversation like that. I got a rather imperative reminder that dinner was ready and didn't have time to hit even one more key. :-)

[rwfromkansas]

Anything less than those Alaska monsters or New Madrid are nothing comparatively.....

[Redcloak]

Well, it's nice to see that something is trending upward in this State!

[M. Peach]

I'm no geologist, but my thinking is that the softer the ground, the more cushion there is. For example, stack some building blocks on a table, then on a pile of sand on a table. Shake the table - Which do you think would fall down first?

Of course, I could be wrong....