Increase of Significant Earthquakes

23 significant earthquakes 2012(so far in 102 days into 2012)

74 significant earthquakes 2011
68 significant earthquakes 2010
72 significant earthquakes 2009
58 significant earthquakes 2008
67 significant earthquakes 2007
55 significant earthquakes 2006
46 significant earthquakes 2005
48 significant earthquakes 2004
66 significant earthquakes 2003
43 significant earthquakes 2002

43(2002)+66(2003)+48(2004)+46(2005)+55(2006)+67(2007)+58(2008)+72(2009)+68(2010)
+74(2011)=597/10=59.7(Average number of significant earthquakes in the last 10 years(2002-2011))

102(current days passed in this year 2012)-------23(number of significant quakes 2012 so far)

366(days in a leap year)/102(current days passed in this year 2012) = 3.588235(portion of the current year that has passed)

3.588235(portion of the current year that has passed)*23(number of earthquakes so far in 2012)=82.52(An estimation average number of expected quakes based on the number of significant quakes this year so far)

Another way of calculating....
102/23
102/23
102/23
=306 days/69 significant earthquakes
60 day left in the year from day 306
60/102=.588 or 58.8%
Then take 58% of the 23 earthquakes to calculate the remainder of the year = 13 earthquakes

So.....
102(days)/23(earthquakes)
102(days)/23(earthquakes)
102(days)/23(earthquakes)
Ratio for the remainder of the year
60(days)/13(earthquakes)
=366(days)/82(earthquakes)

All date can be found under the significant earthquake lists on USGS.gov
earthquake.usgs.gov...

If the current rate of earthquakes so far this year holds to the end of the year there should be around 82.52 significant earthquakes. This number does not take into consideration possible earthquake declines and inclines throughout the 2012 year so the end result may be higher or lower. As you can see though there have been ups and downs all through the last decade with significant earthquakes increasing in frequency around 2005 and again in 2008.

The average for the last decade is 59.7 significant earthquakes and the estimated number of significant earthquakes in 2012 is 82.52



Side note: 2008 was when the financial crisis started and if you believe the financial crisis was planned, orchestrated, etc.. there might be a connection somewhere. The amount of shelters, bunkers, seed vaults, etc.. has gone up crazy since 2008, I'm not saying the earthquakes are planned or done purposely as some state with HAARP or Nukes but possible knowledge of something out in space that will affect Earth possibly by earthquake, Volcano, etc... fore knowledge of possible disturbances to the Earth and a mass spending to build bunkers, etc.. in preparation for what might happen. Just a side thought...

reply to post by PageAlaCearl

Just need to clarify, what is your defining of "significant" quakes? Anything higher than a certain magnitude?

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by PageAlaCearl

 

Just need to clarify, what is your defining of "significant" quakes? Anything higher than a certain magnitude?

This is based on the USGS significant earthquake list for each year, you can verify the data here USGS.GOV

This is not my defining significant earthquakes, it USGS.GOV data of what they refer to as significant earthquakes

Just want to raise awareness on this issue here with the increase in activity, and
it has a potential for problems due to the nuclear fuel that is stored around and
not widely reported.

Yucca Mountain—a sacred site to the Western Shoshone located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site—was for decades the primary site under consideration for permanent nuclear waste storage until President Obama ended funding and withdrew the license for site construction last year. However, even if completed, it would have only had a maximum capacity of 70,000 tons of commercial waste—less than we already currently have—unless designs were modified and expanded.

As a result, the U.S. has nearly 72,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel—enough to fill a football field more than 15 feet deep—and continues to produce about 2,200 tons annually, stored “temporarily” at 75 sites around the country. This amount is expected to more than double to over 168,000 tons by about 2055. About three quarters of this fuel is still in its original pools at reactor sites, many of which are nearing or have exceeded capacity. To help alleviate this problem, regulations have been changed to allow for re-racking the rods in the pools, placing them closer together than orginially intended. While this does increase storage capacity, it cuts back the safety margin and could increase the likelihood of overheating in a catastrophic event.

The remaining quarter of the spent fuel in the U.S. has been transferred to dry cask storage in Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI). While still not considered permanent, the steel and concrete dry cask storage containers are claimed to be designed to resist floods, tornadoes, projectiles, temperature extremes, and earthquakes, and have an estimated lifespan of about 100 years. The transfer of spent fuel from PG&E’s Humboldt Bay nuclear reactor to dry cask storage was completed in 2008. PG&E states the facility was built to withstand an 8.8 magnitude Cascadia subduction zone earthquake and a tsunami surge between 28 to 43 feet above sea level.

yournec.org...

interesting

nm

Originally posted by sunnybrae
Just want to raise awareness on this issue here with the increase in activity, and
it has a potential for problems due to the nuclear fuel that is stored around and
not widely reported.

Yucca Mountain—a sacred site to the Western Shoshone located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site—was for decades the primary site under consideration for permanent nuclear waste storage until President Obama ended funding and withdrew the license for site construction last year. However, even if completed, it would have only had a maximum capacity of 70,000 tons of commercial waste—less than we already currently have—unless designs were modified and expanded.

yournec.org...

They don't have a way to store spent nuclear material, the sources listed were plans that never happen: see bold letter - "even if completed" the truth is they don't know what to do with the spent nuclear material as the technology to deal with it hasn't been invented.