ToiletBowl
Banned
- Feb 21, 2003
- 19
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: ToiletBowl
Any destruction?
Originally posted by: SuepaFly
And heads right to the computer to post, thats dedication for you.
Originally posted by: Millennium
I was just playing around. I would think a 9.5 would be the end of Cali. I still remember the damage the Northridge caused and it wasn't even in the 7's. Which is worse a shallow quake or a deep quake? I figure I would get out of bed if I felt it. We have quakes here in AL every so often but they are never over 4.![]()
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: Millennium
I was just playing around. I would think a 9.5 would be the end of Cali. I still remember the damage the Northridge caused and it wasn't even in the 7's. Which is worse a shallow quake or a deep quake? I figure I would get out of bed if I felt it. We have quakes here in AL every so often but they are never over 4.![]()
I think a shallow quake causes more damage. The shockwaves are much more violent, compared to deeper.. where they are allowed to spread out more.
The 6.8 that happened in Washington 2/28/2001 was realitivly large, and did cause some significant damage.. but it woul have been much worse if it was not so far underground.
Originally posted by: Millennium
I was just playing around. I would think a 9.5 would be the end of Cali. I still remember the damage the Northridge caused and it wasn't even in the 7's. Which is worse a shallow quake or a deep quake? I figure I would get out of bed if I felt it. We have quakes here in AL every so often but they are never over 4.![]()
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: Millennium
I was just playing around. I would think a 9.5 would be the end of Cali. I still remember the damage the Northridge caused and it wasn't even in the 7's. Which is worse a shallow quake or a deep quake? I figure I would get out of bed if I felt it. We have quakes here in AL every so often but they are never over 4.![]()
I think a shallow quake causes more damage. The shockwaves are much more violent, compared to deeper.. where they are allowed to spread out more.
The 6.8 that happened in Washington 2/28/2001 was realitivly large, and did cause some significant damage.. but it woul have been much worse if it was not so far underground.
The last one here that was widely felt was in NE AL and was a 3.8 or something. They do not happen very often though. Now my parents lived in Washington and Oregon for a little while and they felt a few while they were up there.
Originally posted by: JonnyDuke
At the time that one occured I lived about 45 min north of Vancouver, felt it very well... it woke me up from a Graveyard shift workers type of sleep.
Did not know that about the Cascades, interesting though.
Would definitly not want to see the destruction caused if Hood erupted even half as much as St. Helens did.
It's just too close... especially if it points in MY direction (NW):Q
:QMount Hood (45.4N, 121.7W) is the tallest mountain in Oregon (11,237 feet, 3,426 m) and popular with skiers, hikers, and climbers. It is 45 miles (75 km) east-southeast of Portland, Oregon. Mount Hood is a stratovolcano made of lava flows, domes, and volcaniclastic deposits. Most of the volcano is andesite composition. The main cone of Mount Hood formed about 500,000 years ago. In the last 15,000 years the volcano has had four eruptive periods. During the most recent eruptive period, 250-180 years ago, lava domes collapsed and produced numerous pyroclastic flows and lahars which buried the southwest flank of the mountain. Crater Rock, a prominent rocky pinnacle just below the summit, is the most recent lava dome. Similar eruptions in the future pose the greatest risk to communities on the flank of the volcano.
Originally posted by: JonnyDuke
Timebombs...that's for certain...
But how are things down there in Cali, Frontline?
Any more news about the surroundings?
Any big aftershocks?
