Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:54:25 PM permalink
Quote: avargov

I thought the New Madrid quakes were in 1811-12. Was there another smaller quake there in 1895?

Edit: I guess there was, but compared to the big ones there, 6.6 is nothing.

The smaller quake in 1895 was in fact the largest to hit the same seismic zone since the big one in 1811. Since it happened so long, it is very speculative about what Richter level the 1811 quake was. It was certainly at least a 7.4 .

However the damage contours were designed to show how much larger an area the 1895 quake would affect, compared to the costly 1994 Northridge quake. But even in 1895 the area was still lightly populated.

A repeat of the 1811 earthquake would be the costliest earthquake in American history. In addition to the size of the area affected, unlike California, very few buildings are built to any kind of earthquake design code.

A population density map can be misleading since LA or San Francisco is so much larger than Memphis, St Louis,Nashville, Louisville or the Ohio cities. But all of them could be affected, whereas the California earthquakes only affect part of the city.

Joined: Apr 28, 2011
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 193
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:55:38 PM permalink
Quote: Toes14

Best tweet of the day related to the Earthquake - "As all of Washington, DC leaves work at the same time, the US experiences a brief economic recovery"!

So true

  • Jump to: