"Rod Speed"
Robert Green wrote
stuff snipped
RG but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
RG hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.
RS Thats just plain wrong.
RG How so?
RS If you build in the middle of one of the major plates,
RS you wont get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.
RG Without any reasoning to support your statement, it's just your word.
RS Nope, its also a fact.
Oops. I guess you're really Rod Slow and haven't read the news. I'll quote
a geologist this time, so you don't get your underoo panties all in a "pig
ignorant" bunch about sources:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2027&page=11:
"As recently as 15 years ago, there was no geologic explanation for the four
magnitude 8 earthquakes that struck New Madrid, Missouri, in 1811-1812 and
devastated the area. Because they occurred in the middle of the North
American plate, ordinary concepts of plate interaction did not fit.
Geologists now understand that those earthquakes were caused by flexing
within the North American plate, causing reactivation of a rift in the crust
of the earth that formed over 500 million years ago. That rift has been
reactivated repeatedly."
His credentials: Dr. Robert M. Hamilton is with the USGS. Dr. Hamilton's
doctoral degree is in geophysics from the University of California at
Berkeley. He has been with the U.S. Geological Survey since 1968 in a
variety of roles, including Chief Geologist, Chief of the Office of
Earthquake Studies, and coordinator of the Deep Continental Studies program
What you want to linger on is "occurred in the middle of the North American
plate." Can you imagine that? You're dead wrong. And so would thousands
of people if there was a nuke plant sited over your supposedly earthquake
proof plate center.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Is+an...+earthquak es
"Ninety percent of the world's earthquakes occur along plate boundaries
where the rocks are usually weaker and yield more readily to stress than do
the rocks within a plate. The remaining 10 percent occur in areas away from
present plate boundaries -- like the great New Madrid, Missouri, earthquakes
of 1811 and 1812, felt over at least 3.2 million square kilometers, which
occurred in a region of southeast Missouri that continues to show seismic
activity today."
Source:
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/P...tectonics.html
That's not "any journo" as you implied, it's the USGS/Cascades Volcano
Observatory, Vancouver, Washington. In case you're totally ignorant, the
USGS stands for US Geological Survey - now slowly say it with me - run by
GEE-OL-O-GISTS. You may think simply saying "you're wrong" proves your
point, but it proves instead that your points are mostly pointless and
merely represent your own rather deluded opinions that you try to present as
fact via bluster with nothing by pixie dust to back your comical claims.
Of course, when you insist that a helicopter carrying water to a reactor
building that's burning isn't a fire-fighting helo, it's going to be hard to
convince you of even the most fundamental truth. The truth is that plates
are
subject to rotational stress and other forces that can cause severe seismic
activity smack dab in the middle of the plate, 100's of miles from any plate
boundary.
http://www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv...hbulletin1.htm
"Due to the harder, colder, drier and less fractured nature of the rocks in
the earth's crust in the central United States, earthquakes in this region
shake and damage an area approximately 20 times larger than earthquakes in
California and most other active seismic areas"
So, that pretty much shoots to **** your mistaken theory - let me quote you
so I get it righ. You said:
RS "If you build in the middle of one of the major plates, you wont get
the
RS M9.0 hell shaken out of you."
Go look on a map of the US. Tell me why one one of the largest quakes in
US history happened smack dab in the middle of the plate you say is a "safe
zone?" What tectonic plate do you claim is responsible for the New Madrid
quake, one of the largest on record, occuring far inland on the North
American continent? (Here's a Geography 101 plate map for you to check
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt...roduction.html
RG I'll agree that some places are far more likely to pop 9.0 on the
RG Richter scale. However, I happen to know you're dead wrong
RG in this case because time and time again I've read that there's
RG no immunity to earthquakes anywhere in the world.
RS Just because some fool claims something repeatedly doesnt make it
gospel.
Sage advice, Rod, it's just that in this case, you're the "some fool." (-:
Beyond irony.
RG Do you have contrary information?
RS Yep.
Sure you do, Rod. There is NO earthquake proof area on earth. Do the
research instead of pulling "factoids" out of your Aussie arse and saying
things that are completely, demonstrably false.
--
Bobby G.