Haiti as a prelude to Armageddon

[FIREd]

For a disaster of local or regional proportion:

We always keep several weeks worth of food/water in the pantry and plenty of firewood at the ready in case we need to hunker down at home for several days. DW and I spent 10 days without water or electricity a few years ago during a snow storm, and we managed just fine, using the fireplace for heat and cooking.

If we need to leave town post disaster, it would not be very difficult since "out of town" starts in our backyard. We just have to hike it out of there through the woods.

Once we make it outside the disaster area, access to money to pay for a motel room, a rental car or airplane tickets would not be a problem. Almost all of our net worth is portable and consists of liquid assets held at large, national banks and they can be accessed very quickly from anywhere in the US. The majority of it could actually be accessed from anywhere in the world with a simple debit card. If our area was ravaged by a natural disaster of biblical proportions, we would not hesitate to leave our cheap house and cars behind and immediately start rebuilding our lives in another part of the country or the world.

I can identify three natural disaster risks in our area: hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.

We live several hundred miles away from the coast, so the risk of a cat 4-5 hurricane landing on our door steps is remote, but we could still have to deal with the remnants of the storm: destructive winds, flooding and landslides. If a strong hurricane was to target our area, we would evacuate beforehand. But again, given our location, the risk of wild spread destruction due to hurricanes are very remote.

Tornadoes are frequent visitors to our area and they represent our highest risk. But the aftermath of a tornado doesn't concern me much. A F2 tornado touched down in downtown last week and only a small part of the city was impacted. Rescue crews from the city/county were on location very swiftly and cleanup was prompt. In any case, it would be easy enough to hike out of the relatively small disaster area and quickly resume a fairly normal life.

The last risk we are facing is earthquake. We live a few hundred miles away from the New Madrid fault line and although it is has not caused widespread devastation in almost 2 centuries, the risk is definitely there.

 

[LOL!]

Are We Prepared for an 8.8 Quake? - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
is a discussion of the "are we prepared" topic now that Chile has had an earthquake.

 

[brewer12345]

Despite the destruction and death in Chile, the better infrastructure and buildings seem to have made the losses several orders of magnitude less than in Haiti. It would not surprise me at all if insured losses from the weekend European windstorm did not turn out to be higher than the Chilean earthquake losses.

 

[Zathras]

It was also deeper than the Haiti quake, which helped.

 

[TromboneAl]

I would like to see some measure of the severity of the shaking in, say, Concepcion versus Port-au-Prince rather than the Richter scale measurements of the quakes at the epicenter .

Imagine: if the Chilean earthquake were 500 times stronger than that in Haiti, a ground movement of one inch in Haiti would correspond to a movement of 42 feet in Chile.

 

[FUEGO]

Imagine: if the Chilean earthquake were 500 times stronger than that in Haiti, a ground movement of one inch in Haiti would correspond to a movement of 42 feet in Chile.

I'm no geologist or seismologist, but I would guess that earthquake force at a given location would be roughly proportional to the cube root of the total magnitude or total energy. The energy is spread over a three dimensional area. So a 500x increase in strength might equate to a roughly eight fold increase in "force" at a given location.

Any science people know for sure? I'm just purely guessing.

 

[Brat]

Based on my limited understanding of seismology FUEGO's analysis is correct.

Of course how the energy is dissipated will depend on the nature of the soil (rock) in the adjoining area. For example, in areas with a lot of recent (in geological time) sediment the soil will liquefy and the way the energy is expressed will have a different effect on the same structure sitting on granite or other hard rock.

My father was a soils engineer. He once opined that nuclear waste should be deposited just under an uplift plate and leave it to nature to drive it deeper into the core using plate dynamics.

 

[ls99]

I spent some 14+ years in the "moving the earth" and related businesses aka Seismology. Rather than try to do a long winded explanation, the link below at one of my former places of amusement should be helpful.

It was written by Art Learner-Lam of Lamont observatory a division of Columbia University. He was one of many freshly minted Phds when I was getting ready to move on to more amusing work.

Just as a point of info: There is no such thing anymore as the Richter scale. That scale was invented by the fellow named Richter. He made a seismometer. The scale he devised was only applicable to that specific instrument, and the peculiar frequency response and sensitivity. Nothing like it has been in use for many decades. They only use the term because the media just can't seem to drop it.

Just call it magnitude.



Haiti: Physics of Quakes Past, and Future | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Add: In those days one of my favorite answers to to the question of what do you do, was " I make the earth move". Interested ladies usually got friendler after that.

 

[TromboneAl]

Thanks for the correction. Is there any measure of the amount of shaking at a point on the ground (unrelated to epicenter) that correlates with damage? For example, something that takes into account the length and nature of the shaking.

For example, the news could say "Although the Chilean earthquake had a magnitude of 8.8, a DMAG reading of only 6.2 was registered at the Concepcion International Airport."

 

[audreyh1]

I did hear them talking on the news about the degree of shaking at various locations and the amount of shaking versus Haiti - plus discussion of the soil differences between Haiti and Chilean mountains. But I don't remember any details or who was the science expert in the discussion.

Audrey

 

[Nords]

Here's another seismologist jumping into the discussion:
Why Chile fared better than Haiti: Scientific American

 

[ls99]

Yeoooweee, Roger has joined the enemy. That is Roger Bilham in the article.
He was doing strain gauge and tide gauge experiments in the Aleutians one of the years when I was working up there with seismologists. In those days Roger was less than impressed with seismologists.

Recall one early morning Roger coming into a school classroom where we made home for summer, at oh dark thirty hours with his indomitable British cheerfulness trying to get the rest of us awake and functioning.

A barrage of boots and other handy items persuaded him to wait a bit,, after giving him a long list of four letter words to contemplate, and directions as to where to go and what to do, we added: and go and do make some coffee. Make sure it has teeth.

By the way, Roger is one of the very few scientists I actually hold in very high regard. Besides he could play the accordion quiet well. But I digress.

So anyway, regarding the earthquake intensity away from the epicenter. As was elaborated earlier by others, the material composition locally and along the propagation path has a huge effect.

Now if all things are equal (never the case) it is the classic inverse square law that would be applicable. (see Wikipedia). At very long distances even though it may have been a long rupture at the subduction zone, it could look like a point source. The man made structures along the way are hit by pressure then shear waves. Very ungood.

Usually some time, usually weeks, after the event they do a lot of massaging of the raw data, and do come up with answers to Q like that of T Al.

As for nuclear waste, or other solid waste the place to put it is at a high speed subduction zone, (that causes the uplift and the volcanoes) where the Pacific plate is diving under some other, Like the Aleutians or Chile, though 80 mm/year in our lifetime does not seem all that fast. OTOH the environmentalist would surely burst some blood vessels in their brains.

 

[Brat]

As for nuclear waste, or other solid waste the place to put it is at a high speed subduction zone, (that causes the uplift and the volcanoes) where the Pacific plate is diving under some other, Like the Aleutians or Chile, though 80 mm/year in our lifetime does not seem all that fast. OTOH the environmentalist would surely burst some blood vessels in their brains.

Oh indeed they did!!

Dad threw that out at a meeting in Portland probably 30 years ago when folks were just beginning to realize that there was no executable plan in place to deal with nuclear waste.

Were he still alive he would be 100. He was a cork shoe kind of guy who took great pleasure at watching the COE Engineers try to out-think a fish.

[having fun with smiles today]

 

[ls99]

But if you reaaaally want know how these things work, Jon Stewart analyzes CNN's Rick Sanches' presentation: Video: The Uninformant | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

 

[Gumby]

I have been confused by the news reports saying that the Chile earthquake was 500 times as powerful as the Haiti earthquake, given that Chile was 8.8 magnitude and Haiti was 7.0. On a logarithmic scale, that would give 10^8.8/10^7.0 = 10^(8.8-7) = 10^1.8 = 63. Hmmm.

So I did a little more research and learned that the magnitude number just measures the comparative amplitude of the ground movement as measured by the seismograph. The comparative energy released is actually 10^(1.5)(m1-m2). In this case 10^(1.5)(1.8)= 10^2.7 = 501.

Mystery solved, but not quite. Now I wonder why the 1.5 factor for energy versus amplitude? My investigation continues.

 

[ls99]

Note the word Empirical.

Energy, E
The amount of energy radiated by an earthquake is a measure of the potential for damage to man-made structures. Theoretically, its computation requires summing the energy flux over a broad suite of frequencies generated by an earthquake as it ruptures a fault. Because of instrumental limitations, most estimates of energy have historically relied on the empirical relationship developed by Beno Gutenberg and Charles Richter:
log10E = 11.8 + 1.5MS
where energy, E, is expressed in ergs. The drawback of this method is that MS is computed from an bandwidth between approximately 18 to 22 s. It is now known that the energy radiated by an earthquake is concentrated over a different bandwidth and at higher frequencies. With the worldwide deployment of modern digitally recording seismograph with broad bandwidth response, computerized methods are now able to make accurate and explicit estimates of energy on a routine basis for all major earthquakes. A magnitude based on energy radiated by an earthquake, Me, can now be defined,
Me = 2/3 log10E - 2.9.
For every increase in magnitude by 1 unit, the associated seismic energy increases by about 32 times.
Although Mw and Me are both magnitudes, they describe different physical properites of the earthquake. Mw, computed from low-frequency seismic data, is a measure of the area ruptured by an earthquake. Me, computed from high frequency seismic data, is a measure of seismic potential for damage. Consequently, Mw and Me often do not have the same numerical value.

For the rest of the story:http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/eqhazard/eqhazard1.htm

For another set of gory details:Richter Magnitude

 

[Gumby]

Thanks. I ran into that equation earlier and deduced that the relationship was based on empirical observation rather than calculation, but W2R's post got me thinking that I must have forgotten something obvious about elementary physics.

 

[W2R]

Thanks. I ran into that equation earlier and deduced that the relationship was based on empirical observation rather than calculation, but W2R's post got me thinking that I must have forgotten something obvious about elementary physics.

Nah, I realized that my post was incorrect right after posting, which is why I deleted it in just microseconds. Sorry if it confused the issue.

 

[Nords]

But if you reaaaally want know how these things work, Jon Stewart analyzes CNN's Rick Sanches' presentation: Video: The Uninformant | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

I don't watch a lot of TV and hardly any news. When I saw Sanchez on CNN I thought it was a skit or a spoof, and I kept looking for the SNL cast commercial. He made Jerry Springer look like Walter Cronkite.

I think one of the directors got some pretty direct feedback after a few minutes and gave him the hook. Or maybe they just wanted to know if he'd share whatever he was using.

It's good that he eventually was assisted in learning the correct location of the Hawaii islands, no matter how many English meters that may be. But if he was trying to raise his profile with his intensity or his "shock jock" tactics, I think it backfired. It's one thing to be controversial, but quite a different career effect to be a laughingstock...

 

[Mr Gadget]

Relative newbie here, and I always learn something from perusing these forums, but I'm gonna try to hijack this thread back to the OP's question, but wanted to comment that the next video with Neil drGrasse Tyson had me thinking I need to be able to relocate to the Moon or Pluto. Video: Neil deGrasse Tyson | The Daily Show | Comedy Central He's always so cool when I see/hear him speak.

I've spent many years in many different locations due to the military. Always paid attention to the local hazards and have a morbid joke that wherever I had just been stationed was in for it - due to random occurrences after I left. Los Angeles - Riots, Philippines - Mt Pinatubo, Virginia - Hurricane Ivan/floods. North East - Nor'Easter/snow storms. Since I currently live in the midwest, the New Madrid Fault is not looking so good. Had a 5.2 in 2008 that woke me up and the flooding has been at record levels the past few years, and I plan on moving this summer. Just be glad it's not to Yellowstone. That would be a disaster!

Now the reality is you should always have a bug-out bag/container. Something you can grab in a heartbeat and go if required to, additionally store some water and packaged/canned food in your abode that doesn't require heat and follow the advice on the 72 hour shelter in place if that is needed. But if your talking the true Armageddon scenario, there really isn't much you realistically can plan for due to the various possibilities (unless your a hardcore survivalist) you just have to be flexible according to the situation. Every location has its known hazards, just know what they are and plan accordingly, since most of the people on this forum have planned/are planning much better than most of the sheeple I know, I have high hopes for most of us.