Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

7.8 Earthquake in Sumatra

  1. Apr 6, 2010 #1

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2010 #2

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    From the first link:

    At least that's good news. I wonder how bad the damage is.
     
  4. Apr 6, 2010 #3

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: May 4, 2017
  5. Apr 6, 2010 #4

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.)
     
  6. Apr 6, 2010 #5
    I don't understand tectonic plate movements. Why they would starting hitting on populated areas so frequently for past few years/months?
     
  7. Apr 6, 2010 #6

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  8. Apr 6, 2010 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
     
  9. Apr 6, 2010 #8
    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: Apr 6, 2010
  10. Apr 6, 2010 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  11. Apr 7, 2010 #10

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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]
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  12. Apr 7, 2010 #11
    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: May 4, 2017
  13. Apr 7, 2010 #12

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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: May 4, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: 7.8 Earthquake in Sumatra
  1. Earthquake in Illinois (Replies: 38)

  2. Earthquake Weather (Replies: 3)

  3. Earthquake in NJ (Replies: 1)

Loading...