Magnitude 8.8 Offshore Maule, Chile

Originally posted by rufusdrak
can someone explain how it's possible for an earthquake to occur in a localized area far away from any fault line and not have anything be felt on the actual fault line? Just curious because I don't know much about it. Wondering how an earthquake can occur in oklahoma for instance.

Just becuase there is no major fault line the strata of the rocks underneath you have mini faults.

Uk has a series of Earthquakes in Manchester UK as strong as 5.0. I remember that one quite clearly, and again there was over 100 aftershocks in the following weeks.

Just becuase something shifted on a mini fault under the Penine hills!

So it can happen awywhere.

Originally posted by DJM8507
I find it interesting that this earthquake is nearly the same strength as the one that struck in 1960 in the same area.

It's a major subduction zone. It gets greater quakes because so much crustal movement is involved.

reply to post by DJM8507


I believe I am right in saying that the one you posted was on the old scale which, on the new scale, is a 9.5 and therefore MUCH bigger than today's.

[edit on 27/2/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by PuterMan


Read the *** at the bottom of the image...

reply to post by PuterMan

If you are referring to the conversion to the MMS scale, that's not exactly correct. There was no across the board downgrade. Instead of the Richter scale which is very dependent on the distance of the seismograph from the epicenter, the moment magnitude scale is now used. The MMS scale represents the amount of energy released by an earthquake rather than the amount of ground movement.

In some cases this results in a lower value, in some cases it results in a higher value.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Vexatious Vex
reply to post by PuterMan

 

Read the *** at the bottom of the image...

My point exactly. Therefore it was not the same as today's

Originally posted by JakiusFogg

Originally posted by rufusdrak
can someone explain how it's possible for an earthquake to occur in a localized area far away from any fault line and not have anything be felt on the actual fault line? Just curious because I don't know much about it. Wondering how an earthquake can occur in oklahoma for instance.

Just becuase there is no major fault line the strata of the rocks underneath you have mini faults.

Uk has a series of Earthquakes in Manchester UK as strong as 5.0. I remember that one quite clearly, and again there was over 100 aftershocks in the following weeks.

Just becuase something shifted on a mini fault under the Penine hills!

So it can happen awywhere.

I see what you're saying, but since the mini fault lines are not tied to the major tectonic plate movements that means the mini earthquakes that are at areas away from major fault lines have nothing to do with that fault line correct? Meaning, if there's an earthquake let's say somewhere in Nevada, then it has nothing to do with the San Andreas fault line which most likely could have been completely calm that day and is then responsible for local mini fault lines under Nevada etc? Just wondering if I am understanding it right.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PuterMan

 

If you are referring to the conversion to the MMS scale, that's not exactly correct. There was no across the board downgrade. Instead of the Richter scale which is very dependent on the distance of the seismograph from the epicenter, the moment magnitude scale is now used. The MMS scale represents the amount of energy released by an earthquake rather than the amount of ground movement.

In some cases this results in a lower value, in some cases it results in a higher value.
en.wikipedia.org...

Well actually Phage since the one today and that one at 9.5 (as converted) use the same scale (after the conversion) I am correct in this particular instance I believe, and what is more I did not state anywhere that this applied to all earthquakes. I believe we were only referring to one. I am well aware difference between the two scales is, but thank you for pointing it out again. MMS is used for all major earthquakes these days.

Originally posted by Oscillator
Alaska : 3.0

hisz.rsoe.hu...〈=eng

I hate to burst your bubble, but a 3.0 in Alaska is not going to have been causes by the quake in Chile. If you look at a map of Alaska's quakes, it will be clearly obvious that they have 1 or more 3.0 a day.

Apparently this is the official list of the people that died from the tsunami in Juan Fernández island.

Berta Gálvez Olmos, 61 years old
Luis Amador López Camacho, 65 years old
Paula Allardy, a tourist, 28 years old
Elsa Saavedra Saavedra
Luis Petersen Herrera, 92 years old
María Angélica Erices, 35 years old

A total of 214 confirmed deaths, with the certainty that would be more, according to Carmen Fernández, the director of Onemi, the official emergency office of Chile.

Source

Originally posted by ArMaP
Apparently this is the official list of the people that died from the tsunami in Juan Fernández island.

Berta Gálvez Olmos, 61 years old
Luis Amador López Camacho, 65 years old
Paula Allardy, a tourist, 28 years old
Elsa Saavedra Saavedra
Luis Petersen Herrera, 92 years old
María Angélica Erices, 35 years old

A total of 214 confirmed deaths, with the certainty that would be more, according to Carmen Fernández, the director of Onemi, the official emergency office of Chile.

Source

What an amazing difference between this event and the Haiti quake.

reply to post by PuterMan


EDIT: Removing post due to too much confusion, lol, myself included!

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Vexatious Vex]

A 5.3 just went off at offshore Bio-Bio, Chile. Still getting aftershocks? Didn't think aftershocks lasted this long...

reply to post by Vexatious Vex


Don't worry friend, I had not taken your comment as being rude in any way at all. Perhaps I should have been more explanatory in my reply.

reply to post by toast317

From a biggie this could go on for days yet. Now some of them might be 'new' quakes as opposed to the ground settling but I don't think we at least would know.

reply to post by PuterMan


LOL, that's cool. I just removed it anyway. It was too confusing and not adding any value to the thread.

reply to post by toast317


Aftershocks can last for months after the first earthquake.

Two 5.0+ aftershocks in the past few minutes, seems the aftershocks will be around for alot longer than thought.

Best wishes to all those in Chile and other affected areas

I was born in Chile, - and actually was there for one of the big ones too, i think it was in 1984 - 85......

My mother is there right now, and most of my family, took hours to get through but thank god they're OK.

Chile is one of the nicest places to live, but yes...expect earthquakes......

I can't believe in this day and age we can't do something as simple as an earthquake!