New Map Fingers Future Hot Spots For U.S. Earthquakes 49
sciencehabit writes Earthquake risk assessments can seem pretty abstract at first glance, with their "percent probabilities" and "peak ground accelerations." But the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) national hazard maps, updated periodically, pack a powerful punch: Insurance companies and city planners rely heavily on the maps, which influence billions of dollars in construction every year. Today, USGS scientists released the most recent earthquake hazard assessments for the country. Although the picture hasn't changed much on a national scale since the last report in 2008, the devil is in the details, the report's authors say—and some areas in the country are now considered to be at higher risk for powerful quakes than once thought.
Re:Protip (Score:5, Funny)
Apple knows this. You think their new building is shaped like a spaceship for no particular reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Oklahoma: new land of the earthquakes (Score:1)
The state had 109 temblors measuring 3.0 or greater in 2013 — more than 5,000% above normal. There have already been more than 200 earthquakes this year, Holland said.
There is controversy in that the quakes have occurred after the start of fracking (and the disposal of wastewater), and the oil companies refuse to acknowledge the connection. However, I find this stance akin to the cigarette companies refusing to acknowledge a direction connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Company say it's Been Proved (Score:2)
Cuadrilla drilling company in UK has admitted publicly the link between fracking and earthquakes. The said this in 2011
This, according to a Reuters report here: http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
Other articles have reported various studies connecting fracking in Oklahoma with the new earthquakes flurries there and elsewhere in the US. Like Ohio: .http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2
Re: (Score:2)
Although i am under no illusion that mining hydrocarbons for energy is without consequence and repercussion, it is worth noting that any production of energy comes with an environmental or social cost.
If we spent half the money on renewable energy development that we spend on was
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't enough "renewable" to go around
B.S.
More solar energy lands on the planet in one hour than the entire world uses in a year.
As such the amount we actually need to capture and store is miniscule.
A solar array 158 miles square could power the ENTIRE WORLD.
We're talking 0.03% of the area of north africa.
Obviously it's more practical to spread the array out, to save on transmission cable...
and you REALLY need a smart grid for it to work most practically (our patchwork system is a mess)...
But even so, it's possible we could turn just one county
Re: (Score:2)
addendum: http://www.iflscience.com/envi... [iflscience.com]
Re:Strawman says it's Been Proved (Score:2)
Your information is false.
Happened in Colorado also in the 1960s (Score:2)
new Colorado quakes due to injection (Score:2)
2) near Trinadad, mine waters
3) near Greeley, oil drilling waste.
Re: (Score:3)
California
California has some pretty big earthquakes but for the really big quakes you need a subduction zone like the Cascadia [wikipedia.org] that covers from just south of the Oregon border up to southern British Columbia or the Aleutian Megathrust zone [wikipedia.org] off of southern Alaska. Those produce magnitude 9+ quakes like the one off of Indonesia a few years ago. Fortunately they don't happen that often.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 1964 Alaska earthquake [wikipedia.org] was magnitude 9.2. I remember when it happened because the resulting tsunami killed 4 kids on the Oregon coast and 12 people in Crescent City, CA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Self-justification (Score:2)
If they spent all that money and time making a map which showed that there was LESS likelihood of earthquakes, people would scream boondogle. Now, because of douchebag grant-suckers, innocent people will suddenly have their insurance rates raised.
Re: (Score:3)
Starting on page 12 of the report is a series of maps showing the changes since the 2008 report. Of note:
* The South Carolina seismic zone has been displaced southward by about 50 miles.
* The New Madrid zone has changed shape, with some areas seeing a substantial reduction in estimated earthquake risk.
* The risk zones in California are more sharply defined.
* The risk for the central Rocky Mountains area is higher, but still relatively low.
* The earthquake risk estimate for coastal Oregon has been reduced.
*
Yadda yadda yadda... (Score:2)
I'll stay here in the northeast (Score:3)
On occasion we do get little 2-4 range tremblors though. Back in 2011 or so we were in the office and all felt a swaying sensation. We all noticed but after noticing just went back to what we were doing.
NE is high seismic risk (Score:2)
Several alrge faults in NYC area.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway is a large fault and has quakes periodically.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy here in North Carolina (Score:2)
where the state legislature is not afraid to make suh environmental dangers illegal.
eastern Tennessee a mystery (Score:2)
Western Tennesee is in the New Madrid tectonic zone with a large 1811 quake. But that is a dfferent tectonic zone.
not new (Score:2)
2) Nearly every high risk zone has an associated large historic earthquake and continuing microseismicity. Seattle's 1700 M9 is just outside of historic memory. Eastern Tennesse has not had a quake.
3) Few seismic building laws in Eastern US, despite sizeable risk.
Re: (Score:1)
3) Few seismic building laws in Eastern US, despite sizeable risk.
In the historic parts of Charleston you can see where they incorporated "earthquake bolts". I'm not sure how much they help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1... [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Baby, it's cold outside. (Score:1)