Earthquake

[bluemamba]

Bring on the 7's!!! 94 was a 6.7

Is that what the news is saying?? we might have a 7??

[canexplain]

I am sure most people know this, but for people that don’t. the reason you see figures like 6.5, 7.4, etc is that the difference between a 6.0 and a 7.0 is a magnitude of 10, in other words, 10x’s as strong ….x****

[miscorrections]

Log scales, man.

[menikmati]

I think you've been watching too many "Top Ten Doomsday Events" on the History channel.

[ghettojournalist]

the earthquake was pretty interesting. i was doing my radio show and the mic started swaying and my chair started to swivel. i totally called it accidentally though. i made a joke 15 minutes prior about the UCSB residence hall rocking, but not due to an earthquake but the music. i felt an odd sense of accomplishment.

[SFChrissy]

Is that what the news is saying?? we might have a 7??

I don't watch, read or listen to the news so I have no idea...I'm just say'n

[BROKENDOLL]

Bring on the 7's!!! 94 was a 6.7

You would have enjoyed the Mayhem Festival.

[leo01g]

To hell with the 7s lets see a 9 something.

yes bring that bad boy! Didnt Turkey get a 9. something a while ago?

[bluemamba]

yeah and they still havent recovered from it. is that what you really want??

[Hopeless Semantic]

In all fairness, Turkey's infrastructure is alot different than ours. However, with a magnitude 9 earthquake and how some archaic areas (Oldtown Fullerton and Pasadena come to mind) are under retrofitted, there could be some serious damage wrecked upon So. Cal if that were to happen. So, I wouldn't want it to actually happen--but you cannot stop what'll come anyhow.

[bluemamba]

9.0+ would kill everyone who was standing next to something. I would rather have a series of nuclear bombs go off than a 9+ quake in la, but fuck I am not living there anymore so I guess I would rather have the quake.

lol 431 post and this one makes sense Wastedlife. Some people are looking at a 9.0 as just a number.... fucking idiots..... A 9.0 WOULD DEVASTATE CALIFORNIA!!! UTTER DESTRUCTION. Northridge back in 94 was shitting BRICKS with a 6.4 or something like that. 9.0 would kill many.

[Hopeless Semantic]

lol 431 post and this one makes sense Wastedlife. Some people are looking at a 9.0 as just a number.... fucking idiots..... A 9.0 WOULD DEVASTATE CALIFORNIA!!! UTTER DESTRUCTION. Northridge back in 94 was shitting BRICKS with a 6.4 or something like that. 9.0 would kill many.

There was a 9.0 in Alaska, wasn't there? I don't recall it killing the whole population of Anchorage, but then again, Alaska isn't as crowded as L.A. is and more lower than the huge buildings in Downtown too...

[bluemamba]

Alaska is different. Theres just houses here and there. There isnt that much population and other shit like So Cal. Big buildings, Freeways, etc etc. You cant rock the foundation of So Cal with a 9.0. Thats too much.

[menikmati]

Uh my dad knows someone who lived through that Alaska quake....he said the ground literally opened up, swallowed shit including people, then closed back in.

[bluemamba]

Uh my dad knows someone who lived through that Alaska quake....he said the ground literally opened up, swallowed shit including people, then closed back in.

Shut the fuck up....... OMG hahahahahah that would suck if it happend here..... ohh man thanks for the laugh. seriously you made my day.

[Hopeless Semantic]

[bluemamba]

ohh shit. Thats nothing to fuck with.

[marooko]

seriously, blue, that quake was no fucking joke.

[Hopeless Semantic]

It says it was felt all the way down the Western Pacific coast to parts of Mexico. Imagine that? Str8 nutz.

[marooko]

4reelz

[bluemamba]

I bet. That shit looks as serious as it can get.

[RotationSlimWang]

9.0+ would kill everyone who was standing next to something. I would rather have a series of nuclear bombs go off than a 9+ quake in la, but fuck I am not living there anymore so I guess I would rather have the quake.

This is silly. You always choose earthquake over nuclear bomb, dude. 1906 in SF was a 7.8. It killed a little over 3,000 people. And that's in a city with a denser stacking of population in higher buildings, all of which are on a fucking 45 degree angle to begin with. A 9.0 would destroy tons of buildings and probably kill less than 1/5 as many people as need to die for So Cal to be tolerable.

[RotationSlimWang]

No a 9.0 would kill everything, its a huge difference between a 7.8 and a 9+ as I am sure you know. Its about 32x as powerful in energy released, A 7.8 is destructive sure, no where near as close as destructive as a hydrogen bomb obviously.

A 9.0 is about 39-35 gigajoules of immediate energy released
The median immediate Nuclear Bomb energy released is about 15,000 - 20,000 terajoules thermal and 20,000 terajoules kinetic.


So obviously the median Nuke is more powerful and therefor thought to be more deadly, but both will kill everything. Just the 9.0 Earthquake would do it overtime. Slowly things like disease, famine, and riot would all break out. I would rather be turned into ionized gas particles instantaneously than have some rican stab me for my tv and die of gangrene or suffocate in my own collapsed house.

But the earthquake is environmentally friendly, so I guess its all about whats best for the earth.

If you're proposing that a 9.0 would cause 32x the actual damage I am calling a general bullshit despite understanding very little to none of the significance of those measurements in practical terms. 32x force will not equate to or exceed the same factor in terms of actual damage--the force is not concentrated, depends on far too many variables to effectively predict whether it would kill 30,000 or 300,000 or 3,000,000 or send part of Cali floating off into the ocean.

I absolutely reject the premise that it would "kill everything." By what means it would do so except the collapse of buildings and other structural facets I cannot imagine, and if you really think the rioting following a quake would be worse to endure than whatever follows an H-bomb, well, that's fucking silly.

See, my grandfather worked in nuclear weapons development for a while as some of you have heard me bring up, probably multiple times. Specifically he was heavily involved in the course of study that raced to insure America would invent the next evolution of atom bomb before anyone else. He spent most of a decade in the course of study that helped to birth the hydrogen bomb, switching projects shortly before some breakthrough that finally gave us a power that made A-bombs look mild.

I asked him once when I was young about whether I should be afraid of nuclear war with Russia. He told me there was no point--being in the middle of New Jersey we were only 60 miles tops from the detonation target in NY and even if not for NY we were only a couple hundred miles from DC.

"But, Grandpa, I thought an H-bomb blast radius was definitely less than 200 miles--you'd told me the exact figure and it was between 100 and 150 miles (in 1990 or so). Would the radiation really be inescapable?" He laughed slightly and explained that what practically no one but other scientists and military figures were permitted to know about hydrogen weapons that made them even more worrisome than just the 100-plus times size of the blast:

We wouldn't even have to worry about radiation poisoning because everyone within at least twice the blast radius would suffocate very quickly. The magnification of the explosions witnessed in Japan through this new technology created a bonus devastation in that an H-bomb going off in DC would consume all the oxygen for up to 300 miles in every direction or so. New Jersey would have all the air sucked out of it into the detonation and the atmosphere wouldn't stabilize in anywhere close to soon enough for anyone to live unless they had a private oxygen supply.


So bring the quake. I'll take my chances, maybe get lucky and be outside when it happens. Always take the gamble when the sure thing is a fucking H-bomb, Little Miss Scientist.

[menikmati]

yeah, quake over nuclear blast for sure

[Hopeless Semantic]

I would take my chances with the quake. The overall fall-out from a nuclear blast would create problems for so many reasons as Randy pointed out. Also, an earthquake will probably be limited a smaller regional area while a nuclear attack will more than likely have a recourse and other cities would be annihilated. I don't believe an attacking entity would limit itself to L.A. in its quest to destroy the U.S.

[RotationSlimWang]

Also I ain't exactly that afraid of a building collapsing on me compared to nuclear blasts. People survived the WTC collapses for fuck's sake. My duplex ain't exactly terrifying me more than Terminator 2's dream sequence, sorry.

[Somewhat Damaged]

You are right about what we feel though, its is all a percentage, it doesn't necessarily mean anything but, I again would take the nuclear bomb, because I would not want to die I an earthquake which is very fucking likely for me, I have plenty of loose and sharp objects around my house that would impale me. Also if an H-bomb were to go off, people would think twice about war and military. If an earthquake occurs, people will just think twice about money, money has given me nothing but debt and greed.

I got your solution: get rid of all the shit that could potentially impale you. Duh. And I doubt people's big concern would be "Man, maybe we should reconsider our military exploits across the globe" in the wake of an H-bomb blast; they'd more likely be caught up in the minutiae of sorting their lives out before their inevitable impending deaths. And for those on the other end of the country, assuming there wasn't a simultaneous attack near them, they'd probably want to retaliate in kind, which would also go against your retarded "think twice about war and military" statement. Additionally, I'm sure that in the aftermath of a massive earthquake, the first concern would be about the lives of those who were in the effected area, not how much money it's going to cost to take everything back to how it was before.

[miscorrections]

Science.

[bluemamba]

Wow wasted you really think So Cal is better off with a nuclear blast then a 9.0 earthquake huh?? its been said before but ill say it again. A lot of people would die with an earthquake, somewhere probably along the thousands especially around the L.A. area, but MILLIONS would die with a nuclear blast. Not to mention how sick people would become by the radiation that will be swept across after the blast. Hell, all of Los Angeles would disappear. How is that better than a quake??

Why is this even discussed?? maybe you would prefer a nuclear blast because god only knows whats going on in your disturbed mind but im sure 99.9% of the population here would prefer a quake.

And as for your place. Go to your local hardware store and buy a hammer and a sack of nails. Nail everything dangerous in your house that could fall on top of you and crush your small childish body. Duct tape EVERYTHING down. It may not look too appealing but its safe.

[fatbastard]

...