Re: Japanese papers reveal huge quake

Gerard Fryer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
 
> What is new is the additional analysis. The BBC picked up on the
> latest issue of JGR (probably prompted by a press release) which has
> an article by Satake, Kelin Wang, and Brian Atwater. The paper is an
> attempt to work out rupture dimensions and moment, guided by the
> shoreline geological evidence (Atwater), the GPS and plate locking
> evidence (Wang), and computer modeling (Satake).
> 
> True, the determination that there was a giant earthquake on Jan 26
> 1700 is not news, but there were plenty of sceptics (including me)
> waiting for stronger evidence. The new compilation further justifies
> the giant earthquake hypothesis, and imposes valuable constraints on
> what the event was really like. This follow-up work was essential, and
> this paper will not be the end of it--the earthquake hazard assessment
> for the Pacific Northwest deserves no less.

Being a resident of the PNW (between Seattle and Tacoma), I'd
be interested in an analysis of how that same earthquake would
have affected the inland region, considering that it was two
orders of magnitude stronger than our M6.8 of a couple of years ago.

Granted, it was out in the Pacific and likely deep, but I suspect it
might have done more than slosh Puget Sound into downtown Seattle.

--Damon