7.8 Earthquake in Sumatra

  • #1
russ_watters
Mentor
19,546
5,826
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
berkeman
Mentor
57,263
7,247
From the first link:

A "destructive widespread tsunami" is not expected, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said, but a local tsunami could affect coastal areas near the quake's epicenter.
At least that's good news. I wonder how bad the damage is.
 
  • #3
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
From one of Russ's links, it was 46 km (28.6 miles) deep and about ~50 miles from the island of Sumatra (although there were closer small islands).

According to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010utc5/" [Broken], it was in the "strong to very strong shaking" range, with potential damage expected to be light to moderate, according to the legend on the map.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
Interestingly, when I was watching the news about the CA earthquake, a seismologist was being interviewed and commented that earthquakes of about 7 magnitude happen pretty much monthly around the Earth. The only difference recently is that they've been hitting populated areas. (The reporter was asking about the significance of the recent series of magnitude 7+ earthquakes in the past few months...Haiti, Chile, CA.)
 
  • #5
378
2
Interestingly, when I was watching the news about the CA earthquake, a seismologist was being interviewed and commented that earthquakes of about 7 magnitude happen pretty much monthly around the Earth. The only difference recently is that they've been hitting populated areas. (The reporter was asking about the significance of the recent series of magnitude 7+ earthquakes in the past few months...Haiti, Chile, CA.)
I don't understand tectonic plate movements. Why they would starting hitting on populated areas so frequently for past few years/months?
 
  • #6
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Evo
Mentor
23,134
2,653
I don't understand tectonic plate movements. Why they would starting hitting on populated areas so frequently for past few years/months?
Because at their last convention they realized that hitting unpopulated areas wasn't getting any press?

Or maybe it's because humans are building more on fault lines?
 
  • #8
37
2
Because at their last convention they realized that hitting unpopulated areas wasn't getting any press?

Or maybe it's because humans are building more on fault lines?
Or maybe saying that it's only started recently hitting populated areas isn't necessarily true. It's just happened closer together recently, which could just entirely be left to chance.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
19,546
5,826
The Hati one hit pretty close to a heavily populated area. The Chili one was a near-miss.....the CA one wasn't in CA, it was in Mexico, 110 miles from the nearest decent sized city (San Diego), :rofl:! That's selection bias.
 
  • #10
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,796
1,943
I don't understand tectonic plate movements. Why they would starting hitting on populated areas so frequently for past few years/months?
Because many major cities are built along the coasts, and around the Pacific Ocean, this means those cities are near the subduction zones of the various tectonic plates.

Here is a map of all earthquakes of 7.0 mag or greater since 1973. Notice the distribution around the northern Pacific and across Asia. The orange dots are closest to the surface.

More stats - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php [Broken]
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
378
2
Because many major cities are built along the coasts, and around the Pacific Ocean, this means those cities are near the subduction zones of the various tectonic plates.

Here is a map of all earthquakes of 7.0 mag or greater since 1973. Notice the distribution around the northern Pacific and across Asia. The orange dots are closest to the surface.

More stats - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php [Broken]
Thank you.

Interesting graphs (Number of deaths due to earthquakes on yearly basis):
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/graphs.php [Broken]
There weren't many deadly earthquakes during 80s and 90s
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
berkeman
Mentor
57,263
7,247
Here is a map of all earthquakes of 7.0 mag or greater since 1973. Notice the distribution around the northern Pacific and across Asia. The orange dots are closest to the surface.

More stats - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php [Broken]
Small nit, but whoever came up with that map as USGS should learn their rainbow a little better. Oh well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on 7.8 Earthquake in Sumatra

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Top