Re: Japanese papers reveal huge quake

"Skywise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gerard Fryer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:gerard-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> <Snipola>
> > 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.
>
> New analysis? That's good. But the BBC article didn't mention
> anything about NEW data. I just went back and re-read it to
> make sure I didn't overlook something. I saw nothing that
> was NEW news to me.
>
> Although this is new news to some, the article was written
> in such a way that one get's the impression that it IS new
> news, period. That's why it received my sarcastic remarks.
> It's like turning on the TV and the top story is that there
> was a magnitude 6.7 quake in Northridge, CA on January 17, 1994.
> Certainly not NEW news.
>
> As for the reality of the 1700 event, from the books I've
> read, paricularly "Living With Earthquakes In The Pacific
> Northwest" I had the impression that 1700 was a forgone
> conclusion.
>
> Of course further study is needed. We need to determine the
> extent of potential damage from a repeat, to determine the
> recurance interval, and to determine if the whole Cascadia
> Subduction zone was more likely to go at once in a 9+ or to
> be a "decade of terror" with multiple 8+ quakes over several
> years.
>
> I have the impression that if the whole thing went most
> of Western North America would know it. Almost makes the
> San Andreas sound like a ride in the park.
>
> Brian

Except, of course, no one has done an assessment of the potential for the
San Andreas to go all at once, or what would be the effects of such
movements.  Of course, current theory says it won't go all at once.  But who
really knows?  No one has yet gotten a single quake in California correct.