Quake Watch 2011

Thanks PM, love the funding scenario it could well be true , there do seem to have been rather a lot of statements/articles in the mainstream recently about future risks to Europe .

When I see an earthquake in the Mid Atlantic ridge my heart goes thump...
The Mississippi was actually created from the Mid Atlantic Ridge according to this PDF

The Mississippi Embayment
Stretching from Illinois to Louisiana, the Mississippi Embayment actually
originated as far back as the Precambrian. When Rodinia (the Precambrian
supercontinent) was breaking up, many smaller rifts in the crust formed adjacent
to the major rift that split away North America. One of these smaller rifts
is located beneath the modern day Mississippi Embayment. During parts of
the Paleozoic era, a proto-Mississippi Embayment existed above the rift. During
the Cretaceous, the ocean flooded the embayment. When sea level fell, the
Mississippi River was born. Thousands of meters of sediment were deposited
in the river valley. Recurrent activity along faults associated with the deeply
buried ancient rifts beneath the embayment caused the 1811-1812 New Madrid
Earthquakes, one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded in North America

link
www.priweb.org...

reply to post by PuterMan

take a closer look to the tyreener sea...the depth of it is outstanding.. moore than 3,7KM at places...!

en.wikipedia.org...

Magnitude mb 6.1 Region BOUGAINVILLE REGION, P.N.G. Date time 2011-05-15 18:37:12.8 UTC Location 6.18 S ; 154.51 E Depth 44 km Distances 887 km NE Port moresby (pop 283,733 ; local time 04:37:12.8 2011-05-16) 116 km W Arawa (pop 40,266 ; local time 04:37:12.8 2011-05-16) 110 km W Panguna (pop 2,916 ; local time 04:37:12.8 2011-05-16)

usgs has it down as 6.5 quake

Sunday May 15 2011, 18:37:10 UTC 43 minutes ago Bougainville region, Papua New Guinea 6.5

reply to post by ressiv


And your point is?

Yes it is deep, as is the sea bed beside Sicily and Malta to a lesser degree. This however is not a subduction zone profile in the sense of a slab pull area like the deep trenches elsewhere in the world. It may possibly be an area where a piece of plate is descending, but that is NOT subduction.

My comment is unchanged by this and is still valid.

By the way - edit to say - If Africa was until 'recently' (that undefined time that if geological is a long long time) 'subducting' under Europe then the Tyrrhenian Sea, if it is a broken part of the African plate, is in the wrong place. It would need to be on the African side of the African plate to be a broken part of the African plate, and not a Eurasian piece of the Eurasian plate on the Eurasian side of the plate boundary.

Who cares? No one it is just 'scientists' being 'scientists'

reply to post by Robin Marks

I want your theory. Several times you've mentioned your skeptism of plate tectonics. I've pondered a few alternatives, so I'm opened to any idea.

So am I, because none of the current ones work completely on their own and as I have said many times before there is some theory in between all these that is the right one but we have not found it.

I actually do like expanding earth as it seems to make sense but there are many faults in that theory as well. not least of which is the source of the 'accreated', as opposed to accreted, material. Do we throw the Electric Universe and plasma in at this juncture?

Plate tectonics has a big problem with many thousands of miles of missing subduction zones, and whilst the earthquake patterns in the Benioff zones would appear to 'prove' the theory of subduction there are other things that can cause the same patterns including spheroidal lensing as the crust cools.

Other problems with plate tectonics and with expanding earth are that the samples of rocks in the spreading zones were fiddled, on purpose I might add, and that together with the rejection and exclusion of certain satellite evidence means that the current mainstream banner is still flying for plate tectonics, and will continue to do so as long as the dinner on the scientists plate depends on the funding from third parties with an agenda.

Surge tectonics attempts to bridge the gap and does a reasonable job but I think there are holes in that as well.

Even in Wikipedia (Eewww) they pour a little cold water on plate tectonics. Have a read of this, and the next section.

And then there is the differential rotation of the inner and outer parts of the earth, and again much argument about this. But if this is right then the plumes if they exist could be moving under a slower moving crust and not staying static as the crust moves over them by convection. Say that one to your self in your head a few times. The lithosphere convects and yet the continental areas are all floating around in this lithosphere pond, bumping into each other, even though the convection currents don't actually work if you look at them closely - but then neither does expanding earth to some extent. India has a dislike of Tibet so is ramming it like a bumper car? I could go on but.....

But look at Europa. Can you deny expansion there? Difficult.

There are so many variables and so few years left to sort it all out. (for me )

At the end of the day they say that Africa is 'tearing away' from the Arabian plate which is resulting in the Red Sea spreading (is there any?) and the East African volcanism and rift valleys. In order to do this the top end MUST be moving North according to their theories and closing the Med.

But they have a problem as there is only movement around Greece in a North Westerly direction. It should not be doing that so we have to have interference from another plate to explain that away. There is no evidence of subduction on that North Western tip by Morocco and once you are out into the Atlantic it is a spreading area. More blooming problems! But if it stopped and is about to reverse this is a 'temporary' situation in geological terms but covers up any problems there might be, and failure (on purpose) to state what 'recently', or 'about to', actually mean in human lifespans just adds an urgency for more funding.

Someone on one of these threads once tried to explain away these disparities as the fact that the plates are not rigid but bend and shape in various areas, sort of pliable like putty. BS. They are rigid otherwise faulting does not work. Synclines, anticlines, folds etc are they work of temperature and pressure and not of the gradual 'movement' of a plate many kilometres thick, or even hundreds of kilometres thick. In addition to that it is pretty sudden. You would not get folding if it happened over thousands of years.

The geologists do NOT have all the answers, and neither do I

I have recently moved to the Great Canadian Shield and since becoming more aware of earthquakes world-wide, I have to question (to ease irrational fears?) - is there any evidence that the earthquake activity so far in 2011, is MORE statistically throughout previous years?

I thought I had remembered reading a post back in March 2011 that stated that there was 30% more earthquakes in all of the first 3 months of 2011 than there were in 2010....but looking at different websites such as USGS... there hasn't been more in 2011 than ALL of 2010...but statistically has there been an incline in earthquake activity for 2011 than normal? Given different climate changes and such...

Sorry if I seem ignorant or dumb...the first place to learn more is to learn to ask questions...

I am responding to cosmo

Is it me or have USGS just stopped putting location maps, phase data, travel times, seismic hazard and historical seismicity on the details?

Maybe it is a breakdown over the weekend but they are missing on both those mag 6's.

reply to post by PuterMan
[more
]Magnitude
5.4
Date-Time
Sunday, May 15, 2011 at 23:25:04 UTC
Monday, May 16, 2011 at 09:25:04 AM at epicenter
Location
6.832°S, 155.043°E
Depth
20.9 km (13.0 miles)
Region
BOUGAINVILLE REGION, PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Distances
88 km (55 miles) SW (219°) from Arawa, Bougainville, PNG
177 km (110 miles) W (264°) from Chirovanga, Solomon Islands
244 km (152 miles) NW (305°) from Gizo, Solomon Islands
614 km (382 miles) WNW (298°) from HONIARA, Solomon Islands
888 km (552 miles) E (91°) from Lae, New Guinea, PNG
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 13.4 km (8.3 miles); depth +/- 7.9 km (4.9 miles)
Parameters
NST=112, Nph=112, Dmin=431.9 km, Rmss=0.87 sec, Gp= 22°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=7
Source
U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center:
World Data Center for Seismology, Denver
Event ID
usc0003g3q


Magnitude
6.0
Date-Time
Sunday, May 15, 2011 at 13:08:12 UTC
Sunday, May 15, 2011 at 11:08:12 AM at epicenter
Location
0.461°N, 25.601°W
Depth
10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Region
CENTRAL MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
Distances
1276 km (793 miles) ENE (57°) from Natal, Brazil
1624 km (1009 miles) S (188°) from PRAIA, Cape Verde
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 9.5 km (5.9 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters
NST=143, Nph=143, Dmin=>999 km, Rmss=1.16 sec, Gp= 43°,
M-type=teleseismic moment magnitude (Mw), Version=H
Source
U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center:
World Data Center for Seismology, Denver
Event ID
usc0003ft5


That's the details for those individual quakes....


What about the Alaskan 2.2 at 0KM?

2.2 Ml - ALASKA PENINSULA
Preliminary Earthquake Report
Magnitude 2.2 Ml
Date-Time
15 May 2011 22:59:28 UTC
15 May 2011 14:59:28 near epicenter
15 May 2011 17:59:28 standard time in your timezone
Location 57.211N 156.110W
Depth 0 km
Distances
78 km (49 miles) ESE (117 degrees) of Ugashik, AK
96 km (60 miles) ESE (113 degrees) of Pilot Point, AK
112 km (70 miles) WSW (249 degrees) of Karluk, AK
571 km (355 miles) SW (222 degrees) of Anchorage, AK
Location Uncertainty Horizontal: 1.7 km; Vertical 0.4 km
Parameters Nph = 9; Dmin = 53.9 km; Rmss = 0.97 seconds; Gp = 262°
M-type = Ml; Version = 1
Event ID AK 10233748

Is THAT of any concern??

reply to post by cosmo0207


None of those in their respective areas, are out of the ordinary for their area. You can rest assured that if anything 'out of place' pops up it will be spotted by someone on the thread. Don't let that stop you from asking however!

Just to give you an idea this is the list of quakes of mag 6 and upwards for Papua fro the last 365 days.

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-05-15 18:37:10, -6.157, 154.445, 6.5, 43.2, Bougainville Region. P.N.G
2011-03-09 21:24:51, -6.022, 149.659, 6.5, 29.0, New Britain Region. P.N.G
2010-12-13 01:14:43, -6.562, 155.640, 6.2, 146.9, Bougainville Region. P.N.G
2010-12-02 03:12:10, -6.058, 149.851, 6.7, 34.8, New Britain Region. P.N.G
2010-11-23 09:01:06, -6.020, 148.956, 6.1, 66.2, New Britain Region. P.N.G
2010-11-03 11:18:16, -4.613, 134.040, 6.0, 14.8, Nr. S. Coast Of Papua. Ind.
2010-10-12 10:21:34, -4.910, 133.760, 6.0, 2.0, Nr. S Coast Of Papua Ind.
2010-09-29 17:11:24, -4.920, 133.783, 7.2, 12.3, Nr. S. Coast Of Papua. Ind.
2010-09-29 17:10:51, -4.905, 133.710, 6.2, 10.0, Nr. S. Coast Of Papua. Ind.
2010-08-20 17:56:19, -6.558, 154.088, 6.4, 50.9, Bougainville Region. P.N.G
2010-08-15 15:09:30, -5.708, 148.336, 6.3, 183.1, New Britain Region. P.N.G
2010-08-04 22:01:43, -5.768, 150.775, 7.0, 44.0, New Britain Region. P.N.G
2010-08-04 07:15:33, -5.521, 146.793, 6.4, 213.6, Eastern New Guinea Region. P.N.G
2010-07-20 19:18:24, -5.912, 150.665, 6.3, 54.2, New Britain Region. P.N.G
2010-07-18 13:34:59, -5.939, 150.571, 7.3, 35.0, New Britain Region. P.N.G
2010-07-18 13:04:11, -5.999, 150.436, 6.9, 42.0, New Britain Region. P.N.G
2010-06-24 05:32:28, -5.530, 151.157, 6.1, 42.0, New Britain Region. P.N.G
2010-06-16 03:58:10, -2.368, 136.480, 6.6, 19.9, Nr. N. Coast Of Papua. Ind.
2010-06-16 03:16:27, -2.170, 136.549, 7.0, 18.0, Nr. N. Coast Of Papua. Ind.
2010-06-16 03:06:02, -2.401, 136.640, 6.2, 13.0, Nr. N. Coast Of Papua. Ind.

And mag 5+ for the Mid-Atlantic ridge (6 is on the higher side but not unheard of)

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-05-15 13:08:12, 0.460, -25.600, 6.0, 10.0, Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-05-06 16:20:39, 32.328, -40.044, 5.2, 9.9, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-04-24 22:44:16, -35.235, -17.023, 5.1, 9.9, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-04-24 21:09:35, -35.267, -17.469, 5.1, 9.9, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-04-19 23:29:14, -44.409, -16.056, 5.6, 16.5, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-03-22 14:45:19, -33.146, -15.920, 5.1, 10.0, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-03-22 13:31:28, -33.085, -15.978, 6.1, 11.9, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-01-18 07:49:44, 34.431, -36.847, 5.0, 10.0, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-01-17 01:35:31, -20.999, -11.533, 5.3, 9.7, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-01-07 01:19:17, 20.083, -45.645, 5.2, 10.0, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2011-01-06 16:36:12, 20.240, -45.769, 5.2, 10.0, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-12-31 16:30:55, 0.665, -26.039, 5.2, 10.0, Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-12-14 19:11:41, 3.886, -32.566, 5.0, 10.0, Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-12-10 17:48:21, 23.868, -45.715, 5.3, 10.7, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-11-29 01:37:13, -17.851, -13.754, 5.2, 10.0, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-11-27 02:44:54, 10.264, -43.160, 5.2, 10.0, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-11-26 13:01:55, 10.752, -43.849, 5.3, 10.1, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-11-22 05:09:51, 8.111, -39.421, 5.4, 9.9, Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-11-14 11:21:43, -0.155, -18.095, 5.1, 10.0, Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-11-04 12:29:31, 12.839, -44.876, 5.6, 10.0, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-10-28 21:41:14, -0.355, -19.993, 5.0, 10.2, Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-10-15 17:54:02, 46.992, -27.216, 5.0, 10.0, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-09-13 02:48:07, 0.411, -28.742, 5.1, 10.0, Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-07-20 17:19:51, -29.031, -13.089, 5.7, 19.3, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-06-30 03:02:04, 46.581, -27.551, 5.0, 10.0, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-06-03 07:43:42, 13.576, -44.835, 5.0, 10.0, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-05-25 10:09:06, 35.342, -35.939, 6.3, 10.0, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-05-17 20:05:41, -16.429, -14.230, 5.1, 10.0, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge
2010-05-16 05:30:58, -34.842, -16.062, 5.1, 10.0, Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge

There are over 4500 rows for msg 2+ for Alaska so i won't show all those but here are the mag 5+ for the last 365 days

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-05-09 19:04:59, 55.010, -160.403, 5.1, 37.6, Alaska Peninsula
2011-05-09 19:04:59, 54.970, -160.430, 5.1, 39.0, Alaska Peninsula
2011-05-05 16:57:38, 55.079, -160.444, 5.8, 47.8, Alaska Peninsula
2011-05-05 14:13:01, 55.118, -160.568, 5.8, 39.1, Alaska Peninsula
2011-04-04 18:20:46, 59.030, -153.350, 5.0, 70.0, Southern Alaska
2011-04-02 18:32:45, 56.330, -157.420, 5.0, 20.0, Alaska Peninsula
2011-02-02 00:38:17, 54.979, -160.432, 5.9, 35.0, Alaska Peninsula
2011-01-23 02:50:04, 63.542, -150.865, 5.4, 15.7, Central Alaska
2010-12-30 19:21:26, 56.930, -156.320, 5.0, 71.0, Alaska Peninsula
2010-12-19 04:52:53, 53.700, -163.480, 5.1, 27.0, Unimak Island Region Alaska
2010-11-07 00:43:22, 69.185, -146.191, 5.3, 1.7, Northern Alaska
2010-10-08 17:00:29, 58.780, -152.700, 5.1, 73.0, Kodiak Island Region Alaska
2010-09-25 12:05:59, 62.854, -149.511, 5.4, 83.8, Central Alaska
2010-07-08 03:15:49, 61.805, -150.504, 5.1, 14.9, Southern Alaska
2010-06-12 15:56:54, 54.542, -161.468, 5.0, 44.3, Alaska Peninsula
2010-05-28 10:09:53, 53.627, -163.224, 5.0, 21.7, Unimak Island Region. Alaska
2010-05-28 10:07:46, 53.743, -163.364, 5.3, 26.0, Unimak Island Region. Alaska

I will respond on your other question tomorrow evening.

MAP 4.9 2011/05/16 02:25:04 -11.450 165.520 36.7 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 4.9 2011/05/16 02:20:02 -11.556 165.126 36.6 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 4.8 2011/05/16 02:14:13 -11.566 165.325 34.9 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 5.1 2011/05/13 15:55:49 -11.511 165.440 49.5 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS


source



Me thinks something is about to give!!

Some action up at the top of the juan de fuca,

Sunday May 15, 2011
Local Time: 22:59:55 PDT
Magnitude: 4.3 ML
Latitude: 52.48 North
Longitude: 130.87 West
UT Date
and Time: 2011-05-16
05:59:55 UT

reply to post by westcoast


Past 365 days for Santa Cruz

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-05-16 02:25:04, -11.449, 165.520, 4.9, 36.7, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-05-16 02:25:00, -11.430, 165.700, 5.1, 10.0, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-05-16 02:20:02, -11.556, 165.126, 4.9, 36.6, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-05-16 02:14:13, -11.570, 165.320, 4.8, 35.0, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-05-16 02:14:13, -11.565, 165.324, 4.8, 34.9, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-05-13 15:55:49, -11.511, 165.440, 5.1, 49.5, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-04-30 12:04:44, -12.130, 166.538, 4.6, 35.0, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-04-13 01:51:44, -12.639, 166.438, 5.0, 94.7, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-03-29 13:17:51, -10.575, 164.937, 4.7, 64.9, Santa Cruz Isls. Region
2011-03-20 13:46:46, -12.253, 167.090, 4.9, 253.9, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-02-26 02:10:25, -10.633, 164.942, 5.9, 55.5, Santa Cruz Isls. Region
2011-01-27 04:00:35, -11.600, 166.329, 5.5, 63.1, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-01-26 17:03:31, -11.010, 166.340, 5.7, 156.0, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-01-26 17:03:31, -11.034, 166.320, 5.8, 157.4, Santa Cruz Isls.
2011-01-06 16:18:34, -12.246, 166.995, 5.0, 264.9, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-12-30 14:36:56, -10.852, 165.324, 5.5, 17.0, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-12-30 07:35:25, -10.618, 164.365, 5.0, 19.0, Santa Cruz Isls. Region
2010-12-24 18:27:45, -10.741, 165.153, 5.2, 53.9, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-12-24 12:02:53, -11.046, 164.955, 5.2, 46.6, Santa Cruz Isls. Region
2010-12-19 20:43:36, -12.787, 167.728, 5.0, 44.9, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-11-17 13:39:24, -12.166, 165.906, 5.1, 40.0, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-11-12 08:51:52, -11.701, 166.216, 4.8, 73.7, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-10-29 06:13:33, -11.318, 166.242, 5.0, 121.3, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-09-26 09:26:20, -12.605, 166.755, 5.0, 130.0, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-09-14 13:29:34, -10.560, 165.766, 4.5, 185.5, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-08-11 22:53:39, -12.910, 166.494, 4.9, 34.9, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-08-05 12:40:27, -11.256, 166.068, 4.9, 119.1, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-07-28 18:21:15, -12.251, 165.455, 5.3, 78.2, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-07-24 07:55:42, -10.831, 165.572, 5.3, 70.2, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-06-12 22:41:29, -10.872, 166.115, 5.3, 114.4, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-06-10 13:36:08, -12.965, 169.399, 4.9, 648.9, Santa Cruz Isls. Region
2010-05-27 01:52:15, -12.204, 166.487, 4.8, 79.5, Santa Cruz Isls.
2010-05-24 13:20:22, -11.129, 166.365, 4.7, 153.2, Santa Cruz Isls.

There do seem to be a few more currently than is 'normal'. What makes you think something is about to 'give', and what is it you think might give? (Meaning this area or somewhere close being as it is slap bang between two other active areas.)

4.3 Southern African Coastline:

saweatherobserver.blogspot.com... 43-south-africa-14-may-2011.html

Magnitude 4.3
Date-Time Saturday, May 14, 2011 at 14:10:25 UTC at epicenter
Location 33.700°S, 22.800°E
Depth 5 km (3.1 miles) set by location program
Region SOUTH AFRICA

reply to post by harryhaller


Could you fix your link please?

S.A. Weather and Disaster Information Service

Source code is wonderful!

Also picked up by EMSC

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-05-14 14:10:25, -33.700, 22.800, 4.3, 5.0, South Africa USGS
2011-05-14 14:10:25, -33.700, 22.800, 4.3, 5.0, South Africa EMSC

Copycats??

In the meantime idle curiosity

reply to post by PuterMan


You´re doing a great Job PM,but you seem to be a little blind when you look at your Lists of past Quakes. Think a little outside the Box...

Tell me,what is different about todays Quakes to those of in the Past,for example at Santa Cruz? The latest Quakes in Spain are another clue...(Look at your List closely,its pretty easy to spot )

reply to post by Shenon


No, why don't you explain.

I simply put up the list. I did not make a comment other than to say there were more than may be normal. I have no idea what you are saying and I hate that expression anyway.

From my point of view let's take Santa Cruz first just looking at depths and magnitudes. (Leaving out frequency at this point)




So for Santa Cruz we have lessening magnitudes and deepening depths.

Now Spain




Here I see increasing magnitudes with shallowing depths.

No sorry I don't see any similarity, and neither of these is of particular significance as the changes are minor and are plainly cyclical. If these were straight line graphs in one direction of the other then yes there might be some significance.

Oh and frequency

In 2009 Santa Cruz had an average of 6.58 quakes a month. This dropped to 3.16 in 2010, and currently is 2.4.

Spain had 1.5 a month in 2010 and currently the average is 4.2

I guess that is reflected in the depths and mags a bit.




Whilst there is still edit time:

rant
I am probably one of the least boxed in people you will come across. I don't accept conventional wisdom unless I can prove for myself that something is right and I am always looking for alternatives.

I am also NOT boxed in the conspiracy theory which is just as restricting. Not everything is a conspiracy, and not everything is an impending disaster.

And I am not restricted by a glass ceiling which I need to break through either, or any other of these damn silly patronising euphemisms from the land of big business where no one is actually capable of thinking as they have to toe the corporate line. These expressions are just used to make the user sound good and to hide that fact that most people are not able to express themselves succinctly using English (or their language) and have to resort to tired clichés.
/rant

Six hours with no global activity save a few of the usual California and Med shakes?!!

Must be a record..!

And on a full moon too - it's even quiet here in Canterbury NZ!

reply to post by PuterMan


Sorry,didn´t mean to insult you or anything.

The Reason for my Question to you was the Date and Times of the Quakes. Santa Cruz for example had 3 Quakes in 11 Minutes (which,according to your List,isn´t the norm)

Same with the Quakes in Spain.


Those multiple Quakes lately (in a short amount of Time) are just a little odd.