Quake Watch 2012

Are people grasping the fact, of the depth of a quake like that at 157 km or 100 miles deep, twice as deep as the actually crust.Its not rocket science. This planet is boiling from the inside out!

Originally posted by Mister1k
Are people grasping the fact, of the depth of a quake like that at 157 km or 100 miles deep, twice as deep as the actually crust.Its not rocket science. This planet is boiling from the inside out!

That is not even deep quake compared to those which happen at 500 km depth. These kind of earthquakes are bit different, they are result of mineral transformations, or water deposits deep inside. Deepest earthquake was in Chile 1994 when 8,3 magnitude quake happened in depth of 636 km.

Only deeper than 300 km deep quakes are called deep-focus, this is middle-focus one.

just waking up here in australia to reports from friends f/b pages about being woken by the earthquake. must have been pretty big up there to wake those that live in darwin....there a tough mob up there.

reply to post by bellagirl


Yes, same here - scared a few of my friends in Aus!

edit: wrong

reply to post by PuterMan


So you did Sir, and that is why I spent a whole Sunday researching it.
It didn't look close enough and was out on the Pacific Plate, that is why I didn't think it was an aftershock.
Amazing how quickly you forget stuff, I had the maps at my fingertips all the time, but never looked, I hadn't remembered the 3 x 6's and the 7.5 back in March 2011 out that far.
I should have scrolled your map to the right a bit, now I see the "7.7", is that the JMA's 7.5 at 11/03/2011 06:25:44?

Thought Dec 21st had come early this morning, no Internet connection,
ha! end of the World and no communication with the outside world
Turns out it was TelecomNZ, broke down again, no internet across all the country till 8:30am.

I admit I pulled a total double take at the location. It's never occurred to me that this area could possibly have any shakin' going on.

5.1 100km NW of Fort McPherson, Canada 2012-12-11 00:12:20 68.135°N 136.408°W 9.9
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Type: Earthquake
Magnitude: 4.8
DateTime: Tuesday December 11 2012, 05:37:02 UTC
Region: Owen Fracture Zone region
Depth: 10 km
Source: USGS Feed




Odd that i find this

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Oops! — File Not Found (404)
Did you follow a link from an Earthquake Notification Service (ENS) message or another earthquake information source?

It is possible the event has been deleted or superseded by a new location with a different ID. Please check for the event on the Latest Worldwide Earthquakes List or the Latest USA Earthquakes List.
Did you follow a link on our website?

If you reached this page from another part of earthquake.usgs.gov, please use our Contact Form so we can correct our mistake.
Did you follow a link from another website?

Please check our Site Map or use our Search Form to find the page's location. Do not send us an email about the broken link because it's not on our site, and we can't fix it.
Did you type the URL?

You may have typed the address (URL) incorrectly. Check to make sure you have the correct spelling, capitalization, etc.

reply to post by dreamfox1


Its there for me.on USGS

Earthquake Details

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.
Magnitude
4.8
Date-Time
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 05:37:02 UTC
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 09:37:02 AM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location
14.530°N, 56.231°E
Depth
10 km (6.2 miles)
Region
OWEN FRACTURE ZONE REGION
Distances
315 km (195 miles) NE of Tamrida, Yemen
357 km (221 miles) SE of Salalah, Oman
633 km (393 miles) ENE of Bereeda, Somalia
765 km (475 miles) E of Al Mukalla, Yemen

Source

Earthquake Details

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.
Magnitude
5.8
Date-Time
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 06:18:27 UTC
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 03:18:27 PM at epicenter
Location
0.595°N, 126.247°E
Depth
29.7 km (18.5 miles)
Region
MOLUCCA SEA
Distances
128 km (80 miles) W (260°) from Ternate, Moluccas, Indonesia
184 km (114 miles) ESE (122°) from Manado, Sulawesi, Indonesia
352 km (219 miles) E (89°) from Gorontalo, Sulawesi, Indonesia
1023 km (636 miles) N (4°) from DILI, East Timor

Source

reply to post by Nyiah


seen that one coming

Originally posted by muzzy

I'd say this is a result of the Queen Charolette Is. 7 quake and lead into the 5.8Mw 44km W of Anchorage, Alaska a couple of days ago (subduction).
The Pacific Plate going North.
That 4.5mb, 171km NNE of Mayo, Canada, 2012-12-05 14:35:00 this morning NZDT could be the end of it, or there may be one even further north at the Arctic circle in the next few days, maybe

so is that it now?, how much further North can this NAP (North American Plate) movement go?
Beaufort Sea next?
Baffin Bay?

reply to post by muzzy

Thought Dec 21st had come early this morning, no Internet connection,
ha! end of the World and no communication with the outside world

Truly that IS the end of the world. Forget mega-earthquakes, tsunami, 1000 km/kr winds, umpteen volcanoes going off, sink-holes, blow-outs and anything else you can think of. No Internet tops all of that as an end of the world scenario.

We have one Mag 7 and a handful of Mag 6 to go to get to my estimate for the year on numbers, even if the energy is well over.

My apologies I forgot to respond to the question:

Yes that is the same quake

M 7.7, off the east coast of Honshu, Japan

Date: March 11, 2011 06:25:50 UTC
Depth: 18.60 km (11.56 mi)

Source: Google Earth galleries/earthquakes.

reply to post by dreamfox1


Not sure where you got the first link from but you really should avoid using the old style web addresses for earthquakes as that may vanish any time now.

I did take USGS to task because their Google Earth add-on also takes you to that style of address and they had a problem understanding what I was saying. I had to take screen shots and explain in words of one syllable or less ( D: ) before the penny dropped and they realised they had forgotten about that in the changeover. I don't know if that has been fixed yet, but I doubt it somehow - it was only a few weeks ago.

If that was a Global Incident provided link, which I don't know as I never use that site, you should prevail upon them to get with it and update their links.

reply to post by Nyiah


EMSC tends to be ignored rather more than USGS on this thread, which given the demographics is not particularly surprising, however they actually do a mean sets of maps which I often look at.

On the EMSC page for that quake click on the Maps tab and then scroll down to Seismicity. These maps open up in a pop-up by the way.

Here are two from that quake as an example.

18:55 7 December
Dangerous fault alleged 25 years ago at Shika nuclear plant site

TOKYO, Dec. 7, Kyodo

english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/12/198000.html

Experts had said there was a dangerous fault at the planned site of the Shika nuclear plant in Ishikawa Prefecture in 1987, well before a similar suspicion arose earlier this year, according to government documents given Friday.

The previous claim had been left unaddressed until the government stated in July that a fault beneath the first reactor of the two-reactor nuclear plant was active and dangerous, triggering a detailed survey by the plant's operator, Hokuriku Electric Power Co.

In Japan, nuclear reactors are not allowed to be built on any site that includes an active fault.

If survey determines that the fault is active, the power utility could be forced to decommission the reactor, currently offline, and reconsider its safety check standards for nuclear plant sites.

In an interim survey report given to the Nuclear Regulation Authority on Friday, Hokuriku Electric said it found no data indicating the fault underneath the reactor is active. Its final survey report is planned to come by the end of June.

The documents released by the NRA said that experts serving as advisers to the government checked the site and found a shear alleged to have been caused by an active fault in May-June 1987, before the construction of the reactor began in 1988.

A Hokuriku Electric official said the shear was then concluded to have been caused by tidal erosion and posed no problem.

The shear, which was found in a layer that was 120,000 to 130,000 years old, might have failed to attract attention because safety check standards in 1987 had defined a dangerous fault as having been active up to 50,000 years ago.

The standards were revised in 2006 to define it as having done so up to 130,000 years ago. A dangerous fault is now defined as having been active up to 400,000 years ago.

Copyright 2012 Kyodo News

18:56 10 December
Chronology of events related to Japan's Tsuruga nuclear power plant

TOKYO, Dec. 10, Kyodo

english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/12/198407.html

The following is a chronology of major events related to Japan Atomic Power Co.'s Tsuruga nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture.

March 1970 -- Japan Atomic Power starts operation of the country's first commercial light water reactor, Tsuruga plant Unit 1.

Feb. 1987 -- Operation of Tsuruga plant Unit 2 starts.

March 2004 -- Japan Atomic Power applies for state permission to install Tsuruga plant Unit 3, 4.

Feb. 2005 -- The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency orders Japan Atomic Power to study faults beneath areas where Unit 3, 4 are planned.

Sept. 2006 -- Screening guidelines for the earthquake resistance of nuclear plants revised for the first time in 25 years. NISA orders companies to reassess safety of plants in line with the guidelines.

March 2008 -- Japan Atomic Power submits report that admits the Urazoko fault, located beneath the Tsuruga plant, is active.

March 2011 -- Huge earthquake and tsunami triggers nuclear crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima Daiichi complex.

Nov. 2011 -- NISA orders Japan Atomic Power to evaluate Tsuruga plant's safety against earthquakes and tsunami.

April 2012 -- NISA and experts conduct field survey at Tsuruga plant and point to possibility that faults at the site moved together with Urazoko fault in the past.

Sept. 2012 -- NISA is replaced with the Nuclear Regulation Authority.

Dec. 1-2 2012 -- NRA-appointed experts visit Tsuruga plant for a field survey.

Dec. 10, 2012 -- The experts agree that a fault running underneath the plant's No. 2 reactor is likely to be active.

Copyright 2012 Kyodo News

00:14 11 December
Restart of Tsuruga plant appears difficult due to possible active fault

TOKYO, Dec. 11, Kyodo

english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/12/198449.html

A team of experts under Japan's nuclear regulatory authority agreed Monday that a fault running underneath a reactor at Japan Atomic Power Co.'s Tsuruga plant is likely to be active, an assessment that could leave the company with no option but to scrap the unit.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority will release its own judgment based on the outcome of the experts' discussions, but NRA Chairman Shunichi Tanaka, who also attended the meeting, said he feels the authority "cannot implement safety assessments for the resumption (of the plant) in the current situation."

It has been known for years that a major active fault called Urazoko lies only about 250 meters from the reactor buildings. But the focus of the latest discussions has been on whether a fault zone of crushed rock called D-1, located beneath the plant's No. 2 reactor, could move in conjunction with the Urazoko fault.

The experts agreed that what appears like an extended section of D-1 had moved as an active fault in the past, together with the movement of the Urazoko fault, Kunihiko Shimazaki, an NRA commissioner who leads the team, said in wrapping up the meeting.

It is the first time that a panel under the newly launched NRA has reached the conclusion that an existing reactor may be sitting directly above an active fault, a situation not allowed under safety screening guidance for nuclear power plants in the quake-prone country.

Japan Atomic Power said in a statement that the outcome was "totally unacceptable," noting that the experts focused largely on geological formation data and not other aspects, and vowed to continue an additional investigation on the plant's premises to counter the assessment.

But Shimazaki suggested during a press conference later in the day that he feels no need to wait for the company to carry out further studies, saying his team had "reached a decision based on the data we have now."

The extended section of D-1 falls within the definition of an active fault that Shimazaki thinks appropriate, which is a fault that has moved in the last 400,000 years.

Shimazaki also said the fact that a large fault like Urazoko exists on the premises of the plant was also taken into consideration by the experts.

He added, "If plant operators know there is an active fault at the site in the first place, they will usually not build (a nuclear complex) there."

The Tsuruga plant on the Sea of Japan coast has two units, with the No. 1 reactor starting commercial operation in 1970 and the No. 2 reactor in 1987. But it was not until 2008 that the Urazoko fault was confirmed to be active by Japan Atomic Power.

Japan Atomic Power, which owns the Tsuruga plant and the Tokai No. 2 plant, has run its business by selling electricity to its major shareholders such as Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Kansai Electric Power Co.

Some local residents were stunned by the NRA-led team's judgment. Tsuruga Mayor Kazuharu Kawase said the outcome was "very tough" but added there is a possibility that safety could be confirmed through additional investigations.

Japan has been reviewing the risks posed by active faults in the wake of the nuclear crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima Daiichi complex, which was triggered by a huge earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011.

Of the 50 surviving commercial reactors in Japan, only two reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co's Oi plant, also in Fukui Prefecture, are currently online.

Another NRA-appointed team has already visited the Oi plant to check faults there, but it has not yet reached a conclusion.

The NRA plans to send similar teams of experts to at least four other facilities in the country.

Copyright 2012 Kyodo News

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy

 

Thought Dec 21st had come early this morning, no Internet connection,
ha! end of the World and no communication with the outside world

Truly that IS the end of the world. Forget mega-earthquakes, tsunami, 1000 km/kr winds, umpteen volcanoes going off, sink-holes, blow-outs and anything else you can think of. No Internet tops all of that as an end of the world scenario.

yeah for sure!
this is what you don't want to see when you open your computer in the morning


this is the 21st Century "all is well in the World" set of icons




brings back memories of 12 years back when we had one computer at home and one Web connection and had to take turns on it

Spokeswoman for Telecom NZ says they have been trying to upgrade some technology and it hasn't been going to plan,
was off again this morning for an hour

Northern Molucca Sea, 2012-12-11 UTC, quite a range of magnitudes (and times +/- 6 sec)

5.8Mw= usgs 06:18:27
5.9ML= bmkg 06:18:27
5.2Ms, 5.9ML, 6.0mb= usgs 06:18:27.52
6.0mb= emsc 06:18:31
6.0Mw=geofon 06:18:28.2
6.2mb= ras 06:18:26.1
6.2Mw= geoau 06:18:30
SNZO

This could be an interesting development given the recent activity in and around the San Francisco area of late.

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

geology.com...

reply to post by radpetey


Was your second link supposed to be just a link to maps of California? I was not able to see the significance of a set of maps in relation to squid beaching themselves, and what this has to do with earthquakes?

I think as regards beachings most of these are a) naturally occurring events, b) caused by toxic conditions mainly caused by humans, c) due to the massive increase in recent years of 'radiation' by which I mean not only radio-active materials but microwaves, radio waves etc. We are polluting our planet with these and killing ourselves at the same time.

Now here is a question for all you quake watchers and budding mathematicians.

I will lay down a background and then pose the question.

I created a set of random numbers using this

This is a small sample of numbers and the graph of the average of each set against the count of each set. There is, as you would expect, pretty much no correlation visible at all. (Scroll for the chart)



Now the chart below is just a small part of something I started for the countdown to doom, but dropped as it takes too much time to complete. I do however intend finishing it, but for the full year. So far there seems to be a strange correlation between the number of quakes and the average magnitude of all the quakes, and this does not make sense to me.

This is only looking at Mag 5.0 to Mag 5.9 quakes. I take the count of these and plot it. I then convert each magnitude to an energy equivalent and take the average of the energy and convert that back to a magnitude.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to why the count and the average magnitude based on energy appear to have a significant correlation? Obviously this ample is very small and one would need to assess say the whole year before drawing conclusions but I find it very curious that there is any correlation at all.

Why would the AVERAGE energy increase when the count increases and fall as the count falls?



The other thing that would need to be done would be to see if this holds good in individual seismic areas.

reply to post by PuterMan


Puterman,

I am not sure what you are trying to analyze but a word of caution.

Western medicine has a major flaw in that it looks at problems in isolation. You have something wrong with your bladder or spleen rather than seeing the body as a whole and constantly looking at the whole.

You primarily look at quakes and volcanoes without sensing the planet as a whole. This is not a criticism but represents the field of science as a whole. Sciences are isolated areas of study, you even learn to specialize at University.

Try and look at Mother Nature as a whole being. The Sun warms her and warms the core as well. Wind, rain, heat and cold all play an interconnected role. Trying to understand a single aspect without understanding the whole is near impossible with an entity as complex as She is.

With solar energy decreasing over the past decade or so, changes occur. Those changes as far as earthquakes go, do not have to be a decrease in energy output. It could be the opposite. Prolonged drought over a wide area obviously alters the mass on a section of a tectonic plate. Decreasing ground water has a similar effect.

Try to visualize the whole, the pattern of the whole, in order to start to understand the part.

P