Earthquake his dc! God is pissed!

[bododie]

El Diablo, an Indian god, made a giant rip in the ground so that he and his cohorts did not have to take the long way around, whenever they wanted to stir up mischief on the earth.

It's the Mexican cartels.

Kamchatka, Siberia, Russia
A god named Tuli drove an earth-laden sled pulled by flea-infested dogs: when the dogs stopped to scratch, the earth shook.

It's a Russian God who apparently doesn't know anything about hygiene.

Mongolia, China
A gigantic frog which carried the world on its back, twitched periodically, producing slight quakes.

It's an epileptic frog who ate bad sushi.

Peru

Whenever their god visited the earth to count how many people were there, his footsteps caused earthquakes. To shorten his task, the people ran out of their houses to shout "I'm here, I'm here!" (incorporating in their myth, the wisdom of leaving their flimsy houses during an earthquake).

It's a Peruvian God who apparently doesn't know what the Hell is going on in his domain.

Japan
A giant catfish lived in mud beneath the earth. The catfish liked to play pranks and could only be restrained by Kashima,a god who protected the Japanese people from earthquakes. So long as Kashima kept a mighty rock with magical powers over the catfish, the earth was still. But when he relaxed his guard, the catfish thrashed about, causing earthquakes.

Well, what can I say, GOD apparently really hates Japan....or fish...or nets...

Earthquake Immunity
Some people believe that they are protected from a large earthquake because their home is often shaken by small earthquakes that "let off steam". This is not true. A moderate earthquake, of Richter magnitude 5.0, releases only one thousandth of the energy of a large magnitude 7.0 earthquake. The moderate quakes may actually be precursors of larger earthquakes.

Truth believed by liberals who drop facts about earthquakes that prove that they have never witnessed one.

 

[bododie]

You are so silly!
This earthquake was less than a 6.0. . .they get that kind in California at least 3 to 4 times a year. . .it really is a "baby earthquake!"

Have you ever personally witnessed a 6.0 earthquake to make such a claim? If so, when and where please. A 6.0 earthquake is NOT little by any stretch of the imagination, except in yours.

 

[Openmind]

Have you ever personally witnessed a 6.0 earthquake to make such a claim? If so, when and where please. A 6.0 earthquake is NOT little by any stretch of the imagination, except in yours.

I lived in California for 15 years. Our house was in the hills above Santa Cruz, CA, exactly 5 miles from the October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake epicenter. That earthquake was a 7.1 quake (although it was first thought it was a 7.2 quake).

A house 400 feet (as crow fly) away from my house was totalled. My house had no structural damage (because of the orientation of the house's foundation in regard to the direction of the quake), but had over $50,000 in damages.

We were without phone, electricity, and water for 3 days. We slept in my neighbors' yard for those three days. . .because there was an area that was relatively clear of trees, as we were afraid the HUNDREDS of after chocks (a couple greater than 5.8) risked to provoke the big live oaks that surrounded our properties to fall down.

Is that enough for you? You may look at the Loma Prieta 1989 earthquake and get more information. It devastated the town of Santa Cruz, and huge landslides provoked by the quake blocked highway 17 (the road going from Santa Cruz to San Jose, where my husband work) for at least 6 weeks.

If you know anything about earthquakes, you already know that the difference between a 5.8 quake and a 7.2 quake is not JUST a mere 1.3 additional strength, but that it grows exponentially.

In the area where I lived near Santa Cruz, the main fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is VERY active, thus we get 4.5 to 5.5 earthquake dozens of times each year. The 5.5 to 6.0 are more infrequent, but certainly NOT extraordinary. The 7.2 was quite big. . . big enough for people to have died, for blocks of housing to have been destroyed, and (in our own case) for a huge tank of water that served two houses, and was filled with 5,000 gallons of water to have MOVED by 15 inches.

Link:

Santa Cruz-area historical earthquake activity is slightly above California state average. It is 1892% greater than the overall U.S. average.

On 10/18/1989 at 00:04:15, a magnitude 7.1 (6.5 MB, 7.1 MS, 6.9 MW, 7.0 ML) earthquake occurred 17.1 miles away from the city center, causing 62 deaths (62 shaking deaths) and 3757 injuries, causing $1,305,032,704 total damage
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Santa-Cruz-California.html#ixzz1VypIar3W

Does that qualify as "witnessing an earthquake?" Or am I still working off my "imagination?"

 

[bododie]

I don't need a lesson on California. Born there. Lived there for 45 years. Go back several times a year. Lived from Whittier up to San Francisco during the years. Know all about earthquakes, shakers, rollers.

Ergo: If you still contend, after apparently witnessing such events and intend to tell those who have not, that a 6.0 is a "baby earthquake", then Yes, maam, you are working off your imagination.

 

[Openmind]

I don't need a lesson on California. Born there. Lived there for 45 years. Go back several times a year. Lived from Whittier up to San Francisco during the years. Know all about earthquakes, shakers, rollers.

Ergo: If you still contend, after apparently witnessing such events and intend to tell those who have not, that a 6.0 is a "baby earthquake", then Yes, maam, you are working off your imagination.

Are you calling me a liar? Would you like the exact address of the house I lived in and my last name so you can do a search in the assessor's office in Santa Cruz County?
Apparently, it takes going through a BIG quake to realize that a 6.0 is nothing to scream about.

Do not assume you know anything about me. When I state something, I either KNOW what I'm talking about from personal experience, or I state an OPINION.

It has NOTHING to do with imagination. By the way, the Santa Cruz area is over 1800% more prone to quakes than the rest of the US. You may have lived in Californiabut probably NOT in the Santa Cruz area, or you wouldn't see a 5.8 earthquake as a big deal!

 

[Openmind]

Truth believed by liberals who drop facts about earthquakes that prove that they have never witnessed one.

So, you are an expert on earthquake, but you do not believe that a 1.0 increase in earthquake measurement represents a 10 fold increase in strength?

That is a "liberal" concept, right?

Maybe you should do some research on FACTS before you post information that can easily be verified.

Here is a link:

 

[Openmind]

Truth believed by liberals who drop facts about earthquakes that prove that they have never witnessed one.

So, you are an expert on earthquake, but you do not believe that a 1.0 increase in earthquake measurement represents a 10 fold increase in strength?

That is a "liberal" concept, right?

Maybe you should do some research on FACTS before you post information that can easily be verified.

Here is a link:

The Severity of an Earthquake
pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severitygip.html - CachedSimilar
Sep 29, 2004 – Another measure of the relative strength of an earthquake ...

 

[bododie]

No earthquake is anything to scream about...unless you die. Frankly I always thought they were fun.
Certainly during your time in CA., with all of the 6.0 earthquakes that are considered fairly major for anyplace in the United States, you experienced the rolls. Tell the people that a 6.0 will not damage your home, any more than a ...baby could.

Do not assume you know anything about me. When I state something, I either KNOW what I'm talking about from personal experience, or I state an OPINION.

Well damn, how freakin' unique are you? Lol.

 

[bododie]

So, you are an expert on earthquake, but you do not believe that a 1.0 increase in earthquake measurement represents a 10 fold increase in strength?

Earthquake Immunity
Some people believe that they are protected from a large earthquake because their home is often shaken by small earthquakes that "let off steam".

Uh...this was the myth.And yes most people who have never witnessed an earthquake do NOT know the incremental increase. Sorry, you'll have a hard time convincing even the libs on this board that someone who lived in California doesn't know about earthquakes.

Lol: A link about earthquakes for a Californian!

 

[Openmind]

Uh...this was the myth.And yes most people who have never witnessed an earthquake do NOT know the incremental increase. Sorry, you'll have a hard time convincing even the libs on this board that someone who lived in California doesn't know about earthquakes.

Lol: A link about earthquakes for a Californian!

And YOU thought that my knowledge about earthquake was all in my "imagination!"

See how Republicans make those silly, unfounded judgements on people and events?

So. . .it has been established that we both know about earthquake. . .
That we have both experienced MANY earthquakes,
And that an 5.8 (or 5.9, as it has now been determined) is about 1000 smaller than the Japanese earthquake that severely affected the nuclear power plants in Japan. . .which is where this all conversation started. . .by a silly remark from Steveox bragging about how "our nuclear power plants" were so much better than the Japanese nuclear power plant because they didn't suffer during our 5.8 (or 5.9) earthquake.

Now. . . wait until you do experience a 7.1 earthquake, and tell me if the 5.9 seems like a "big F. . . deal" anymore!

I admit that, maybe I shouldn't have qualify the 5.8 as a "baby earthquake," a "toddler earthquake" might have been more accurate!

 

[bododie]

P.S. People of the HOP. In the event of an earthquake, if the house falls down on you, and squishes you, you won't be as squished or as dead if it is a 5.9 magnitude earthquake as opposed to a 7.1. Just wanted to ease your minds on that.

But you'll just have to experience that death before we can tell you how dead you are"

Oh wait a minute, that's the health plan....nevermind.

 

[GenSeneca]

One question is: is there a relation between fracking and earthquake? Based on this article, there seems to be.

Now, I'm sure Big Rob, who gets income from fracking will strongly deny any relationship. . .but, the question remains!

Do you support using Geothermal power plants?

Could geothermal energy projects cause earthquakes?

Enhanced geothermal systems (EGSs) actually have produced earthquakes. On Dec. 8, 2006, Geothermal Explorers International managed to set off an earthquake in Basel, Switzerland, damaging buildings and terrifying the population. And while it only measured a 3.4 on the Richter scale, the quake was followed by 60 aftershocks in the weeks to follow.

​

 

[Openmind]

P.S. People of the HOP. In the event of an earthquake, if the house falls down on you, and squishes you, you won't be as squished or as dead if it is a 5.9 magnitude earthquake as opposed to a 7.1. Just wanted to ease your minds on that.

But you'll just have to experience that death before we can tell you how dead you are"

Oh wait a minute, that's the health plan....nevermind.

Yes. . .nice attempt at humor!

However, you may have pointed out that the risk of their house falling on them in a 5.9 earthquake is very low (unless they live in an unsafe house to begin with), and, while it is significantly higher that their house might fall on them with a 7.1 quake, it is still not that great. . .however, with a 9.0 quake,the risk that any house that is not purposefully built to resist such an earthquake would remain standing is extremely low.

Now. . .did you ever have a house fall on your head? That would explain a few things!

 

[Openmind]

Do you support using Geothermal power plants?

Could geothermal energy projects cause earthquakes?

Enhanced geothermal systems (EGSs) actually have produced earthquakes. On Dec. 8, 2006, Geothermal Explorers International managed to set off an earthquake in Basel, Switzerland, damaging buildings and terrifying the population. And while it only measured a 3.4 on the Richter scale, the quake was followed by 60 aftershocks in the weeks to follow.

​

I do not know much either about fracking or geothermal energy projects. . . so I can't have a definite opinion.

However, the question remains. . .for both, I guess. Do you have a definite answer about these questions?

Or is it too much on the "liberal" or "green" side for your taste.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

5.8 vs 6.0 is a big difference in a earthquake...but that is underscored by the fact the one on the east coast where buildings are not built for earthquakes, is not the same as one in Cali, where they are.