Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roebear who wrote (93222)	8/7/2001 5:24:46 PM
From: Ditchdigger	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

Roebear ldeo.columbia.edu google.com

To: Roebear who wrote (93222)	8/7/2001 6:50:57 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

The only east Coast earthquakes of any significance, as far as I know, are connected with slumping caused by accumulation of offshore sediments. Charleston SC has had the worst ones, but I was in one in Boston that was pretty good, though it did little damage. Inland, there are occasional minor grunts and groans from the Appalachians, perhaps adjusting slowly as erosion removes layers, or even rebounding from the last continental collision. St. Louis is a much more likely candidate. The New madrid quake of about 1805 would have leveled much of present St. Louis. There are numerous quakes there, small mostly. But the Mississippi Delta sediments (extending up to Cairo), and possibly even very early beginnings of continental separation, make that a much higher risk area that is commonly recognized.

To: Roebear who wrote (93222)	8/7/2001 9:26:52 PM
From: jim black	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

As a previous resident of Seattle I developed (duh!) an interest in major quake zones, since by USGS accounts Mt Rainier is most dangerous volcano in US considering proximity of major populations areas. I don't have at this minute access to the E. Britainnica but if memory serves me correctly Boston's earliest history is marred by a total destruction event, having to build city from scratch. A google search of major destructive quakes is US histroy should prove useful. More on the New Madrid quake of 1805. It was gigantic by any scale. Good read and fun sci fi is Clarke's Richter 10, describing among other horrors, the modern nightmare of a New Madrid quake today. In fact the Kispicotha Shawnee recorded it as "when the rivers changed course for days, trees shook for as far as the eye could see though there was no wind..." Something like that and you get the picture. Actually all of Chicago, Memphis, St Louis, Boston, New York, are at extreme risk from rare events ( at least by Tokyo standards where the astute observer, I understand, can feel a quake every hour. But I'll really give you something to worry about as I have done a whole lot of research on it for a novel never having been published...maybe I'll find a publisher one day... Statistics can be scary Here goes. The risk of dying from a massive tsunami hitting entire west coast of US, caused by a ~500 meter asteroid ( not very big) is larger than dying in a Richter 7+ in L.A. But rare events occur rarely thank heavens, but when shit happens of such a type, and it WILL, someday, then it really distorts the numbers. PM me if you are interested in more details. I really don't consider all of this entirely off topic as we all follow these threads for our interests and survival and I think it is NOT inconsequential to entertain thought of the risk and sequelae of a Richter 7.5-8 hitting Tokyo. It has happened many times in their recorded history. Sleep well jim black