6.9 Quake just hit Soloman Islands Area

Why do people moan about threads like this?
This is why we have the forum after all.
I dont understand people who have a go at others for posting these threads.

If it wasnt for this post, I wouldnt have known about the earthquake.

Well done.!!!

People who say things like "oh, a 6.9 is a common event" seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scale, perhaps? They see 5.x and think hey, that number is just one number less, so it must be about the same?

Unfortunately, it seems that those that claim 2012 will spell doomsday for humanity, are being encouraged by these catastrophic events. Any words one damage/casualties

Originally posted by 12tracer
Unfortunately, it seems that those that claim 2012 will spell doomsday for humanity, are being encouraged by these catastrophic events. Any words one damage/casualties

WHAT ????????

reply to post by sepermeru


Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't magnitude 6 earthquakes a relatively common occurance?

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Why don't we all get back on topic..

I mean if a 6 pointer occured under your feet right now.. umm you wouldnt be saying oh look there goes another 6 pointer would you..

Everything is relative..

We just have to respect what is relative to others as well as ourselves.. were all in this together.. like it or not!

Originally posted by JammyQ
reply to post by sepermeru

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't magnitude 6 earthquakes a relatively common occurance?

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Number one this was a 6.9 not 6.0 which can be very significant depending on the topography, these islands like Japan can get major damage if the quake is very near land or shallow.

I sustained no damage from the Loma Prieta Quake in the San Francisco Bay area. which was 6.9, mainly because my home was on solid rock, it would have been a different story had I lived in the Marina where there is a lot of landfill and there was a lot of damage.

Another problem regarding location of a quake is the thread of a tsunami or the building and homes not reinforced.

The fact that the ring of fire is so unstable and we don't know when the next big one, big ones will happen is very scary. No one can say that any quake is insignificant.

Thanks for the thread.

reply to post by nakiannunaki


What I meant was that I wasn't misreading the scale and getting a 6.x confused with a 5.x, like Sepermeru suggested some people were. I didn't mean that it was insignificant.

I did read that damage was minimal and I hope that's true.
www.ennaharonline.com...

I agree that if a 6.9 were to happen under my feet right now I wouldn't be rolling my eyes in apathy. Any kind of tremor would scare the hell out of me, i've never felt one in my life!

Hope all's well.

You are, indeed, a True American.

The mainstream media won't touch the information that we all so desperately need to be truly informed of the BIG PICTURE. I would even venture to say that NOT ONE of my local 'news' stations will mention this, or any, earthquakes that transpire, unless they are absolutely forced to do so by the extent of the damage, or it's location in an overpopulated area.

What you are doing here is very imporatant. Kro32 and all other haters obviously have no idea how important.

Perhaps your threads appeal only to those who have attained a certain level of awareness. That would explain quite a bit, don't you think?

Please continue your very important and informative work! Thank you so much for all you do, my brother.

Peace to you, (as well as S & F's!)

Jim

Originally posted by JammyQ
reply to post by sepermeru

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't magnitude 6 earthquakes a relatively common occurance?

earthquake.usgs.gov...

'


Relative to what? 7.x and up are more rare, in that there are only a dozen or so per year. But 6.0 is where the designation "strong earthquake" begins, and of course 6.9 is not .9 stronger, but nine times stronger.

And given that there are around 150 6.x per year, vs over 1300 for 5.x, I would say they're kind of by definition not "relatively" common, because relative to almost every other option they're more rare.

reply to post by sepermeru


I know that 6.9 is not plus 0.9 stronger than a 6.0, I have grasped the logarithmic scale.

What I was trying to get across was that if an earthquake above 6.0 happens that many times a year (admittedly many not as high as a 6.9) it isn't all that uncommon.

Yet I see a lot of posts for these such earthquakes and what I was trying to ask is, what am I missing? Why are they so significant?

This was my first post and i've obviously managed to ask the wrong question... Anyway, i've thus far managed to derail the thread and I wasn't attempting to troll just to try to get some understanding.

You can get back on topic now.

I hope Cali is t next because the cascade and San andres would be Japan all over again

..What kind of person are you? To hope for an earthquake somewhere?

reply to post by JammyQ


The part about the scale was a minor aspect of my post. If it doesn't apply to you, please disregard.

I'm addressing your central point, which is that 6.x are "relatively" rare. I think they are not. There are over a hundred per year, but there are over a thousand of the next category down, and so on. On the scale, they are actually the third most rare category. They are, especially when they happen in unstable or potentially tsunami-generating regions, definitely news. 5.x quakes don't make the papers, but 6.x ones do. They might not always be headline news, but not everything posted here is, not by far.

To put it in perspective, over two hundred thousand people per year are struck by lightning. Most people would still see two hundred thousand out of nearly seven billion to be fairly rare, and consider it extremely unlikely that they would be struck by lightning.

And clearly, 6.x earthquakes are much, much more rare than being struck by lightning.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically. You're being perfectly reasonable, and I don't mean to be argumentative. I've just seen the point raised a couple times, so I figured I'd set out why it is many of us are interested when this relatively rare type of event occurs.

reply to post by sepermeru


Thanks Sepermeru for answering my question, i'm sorry it was taken the wrong way. Admittedly I did use the word relatively out of context! It's been a long day!

I was just upset by my first question being taken badly by people when all I wanted to do was learn. So i'm really grateful to you for answering.

I know that 6.0 + don't always make the news, obviously their 'newsworthiness' depends on different factors but i've only recently started to monitor them for myself which was why I thought that they were more common than they are. (Maybe I picked a bad year to start looking!)

I now understand what you're trying to say and thank you again for such an informative answer. It made a lot of sense.

I'll now shut up and let everyone talk about todays 6.9 and once more say that i'm pleased no one was reported to have been hurt.