Earthquakes Hit the sub continent!!! (10 Viewers)

baggio

baggio

Senior Member
#42
Jun 3, 2003
19,250
#42
++ [ originally posted by axlrose85 ] ++
i guess tahir meant that the world is in its final stages:down:
Click to expand...

I have doubts about that. But yes, it is strange, that geographically the subcontinent seems to be getting hit over and over.
 
OP
HelterSkelter

HelterSkelter

Senior Member
Thread Starter #43
Apr 15, 2005
20,599
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #43
    ++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++




    There's an interesting though skimpy summary on wikipdeia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_prediction

    Found this elsewhere:
    The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was the deadliest ever.
    FICTION: Though well known, the magnitude 7.8 San Francisco earthquake and ensuring fire killed 3,000 and razed large sections of the city. It was the most deadly in U.S. history, but that doesn’t make it the worst the world has seen, by far. The deadliest earthquake in recorded history struck Shensi province in China in 1556, killing about 830,000 people. The 1976 magnitude 7.8 earthquake which struck Tangshan, China killed somewhere between 250,000 and 800,000 people. In 2003, the magnitude 6.5 earthquake in Bam, Iran killed more than 40,000 people. The earthquake in Chile on May 22, 1960, is the strongest in the world with magnitude 9.5, and killed more than 4,000. For the record, the largest U.S. earthquake occurred on March 28, 1964, in Alaska. It was a magnitude 9.2 quake and took 131 lives.
    Click to expand...
    how can a magnitude 9.2 quake take ONLY 131 lives??
    and a 9.5 earthquake take only 4000?

    anything over 8 can finish of cities within secondds.
     
    mikhail

    mikhail

    Senior Member
    #45
    Jan 24, 2003
    9,576
    #45
    ++ [ originally posted by axlrose85 ] ++
    how can a magnitude 9.2 quake take ONLY 131 lives??
    and a 9.5 earthquake take only 4000?

    anything over 8 can finish of cities within secondds.
    Click to expand...
    Earthquakes aren't inherently that dangerous. Falling masonry now, that's another matter. So a smallish earthquake in a city not built for earthquakes is going to kill more people than a big one in, say, California.
     

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    #46
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
    #46
    ++ [ originally posted by axlrose85 ] ++


    how can a magnitude 9.2 quake take ONLY 131 lives??
    and a 9.5 earthquake take only 4000?

    anything over 8 can finish of cities within secondds.
    Click to expand...

    Probably unpopulated areas.
     
    mikhail

    mikhail

    Senior Member
    #48
    Jan 24, 2003
    9,576
    #48
    ++ [ originally posted by axlrose85 ] ++
    and i guess coastal areas are in much more danger of than other areas
    Click to expand...
    Why? Coastal areas make up a lot of the big earthquake zones around the world (eg. Pacific rim), but I don't see why they'd be in more danger. Of course, if it's far out ot sea, you can get something like the Tsunami in January.
     
    OP
    HelterSkelter

    HelterSkelter

    Senior Member
    Thread Starter #49
    Apr 15, 2005
    20,599
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #49
    the water adds up to the danger i guess.
    for eg,a 7.5 quake in a non coastal area wouldnt be as deadley as it wud be in a coastal area.
     
    The Pado

    The Pado

    Filthy Gobbo
    #50
    Jul 12, 2002
    9,939
    #50
    ++ [ originally posted by axlrose85 ] ++


    how can a magnitude 9.2 quake take ONLY 131 lives??
    and a 9.5 earthquake take only 4000?

    anything over 8 can finish of cities within secondds.
    Click to expand...

    It's like Z said, unpopulated areas. Hardly anybody lives in Alaska, and if the quake strikes where there are not buildings, there is minimal loss of life.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 10)