PDA

View Full Version : 7.3 Magnitude Earthquake hits Japanese coast

Freakin
11-14-2005, 06:11 PM
Can't find any articles yet, but I'll post one as soon as I get a link.

It's a bad year for planet earth....
pokerdirty
11-14-2005, 06:15 PM
at least we still have oil
phixxx
11-14-2005, 06:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
at least we still have oil

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for long /images/graemlins/frown.gif)

I think it was a smart choice to base our entire world's infrastructure and way of life on a completely unsustainable natural resource.

Or maybe they didn't know any better. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
partygirluk
11-14-2005, 06:17 PM
How bad is 7.3?
pokerdirty
11-14-2005, 06:18 PM
just about as bad as they get
samjjones
11-14-2005, 06:19 PM
http://kensforce.com/04konggojira2.jpg
wayabvpar
11-14-2005, 06:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
just about as bad as they get

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really- 7.3 is reasonably large, but no where near the size of the earthquake that caused the tsunami last year (9.1).
Brom
11-14-2005, 06:20 PM
How big was the one that caused the Indian Ocean tsunami? 8.0?

NM I see it got posted while I was typing. The scale is logarithmic correct? 8.0 = 10x7.0?
pokerdirty
11-14-2005, 06:20 PM
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/magnitude.html
Lazymeatball
11-14-2005, 06:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]

I think it was a smart choice to base our entire world's infrastructure and way of life on a completely unsustainable natural resource.

Or maybe they didn't know any better. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like trees?
utmt40
11-14-2005, 06:21 PM
Geez if this stuff keeps up we all are going to be dead before too long.
Freakin
11-14-2005, 06:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it was a smart choice to base our entire world's infrastructure and way of life on a completely unsustainable natural resource.

Or maybe they didn't know any better. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like trees?

[/ QUOTE ]

trees are considerably more sustainable than fossil fuels
pokerdirty
11-14-2005, 06:22 PM
What's next?
http://www.foxhome.com/dayaftertomorrow/wallpapers/images/03-800.jpg
11-14-2005, 06:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just about as bad as they get

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really- 7.3 is reasonably large, but no where near the size of the earthquake that caused the tsunami last year (9.1).

[/ QUOTE ]

7.3 is a monster man.

The San Fransisco 89 quake was I believe 6.9. And the increase in numerical value is an exponential increase. 7.3 is bad.

Plus it's not the number, but the proximity to the epicenter that is the huge determinant.

I'd rather be 1 mile from 9.1 than right by a 7.3.
wayabvpar
11-14-2005, 06:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What's next?
http://www.foxhome.com/dayaftertomorrow/wallpapers/images/03-800.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]



That movie was a bigger disaster than anything we have seen in history. Ye gods it was bad.
wayabvpar
11-14-2005, 06:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just about as bad as they get

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really- 7.3 is reasonably large, but no where near the size of the earthquake that caused the tsunami last year (9.1).

[/ QUOTE ]

7.3 is a monster man.

The San Fransisco 89 quake was I believe 6.9. And the increase in numerical value is an exponential increase. 7.3 is bad.

Plus it's not the number, but the proximity to the epicenter that is the huge determinant.

I'd rather be 1 mile from 9.1 than right by a 7.3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bold mine. This is what I was referring to when I said it was reasonably large, but no where near as large as the 9.1 (!!) from last year. It is a major quake, but not a monster one (or 'Great', as the scale goes).
diebitter
11-14-2005, 06:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What's next?
http://www.foxhome.com/dayaftertomorrow/wallpapers/images/03-800.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

there's worse

http://www.graphicexpectations.com/posterimg/ishtar.jpg
Freakin
11-14-2005, 06:27 PM
One story so far, from the company that sent me the flash (*they finally got the story up).

It was 300 Miles off the coast of Honshu. There's notices of tsunamis and stuff already out in Japan all up and down that coast

It occurred at 1:38 Pacific

web page (http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=4117215)
11-14-2005, 06:28 PM
Mother Nature heard Bush was coming.
benza13
11-14-2005, 06:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just about as bad as they get

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really- 7.3 is reasonably large, but no where near the size of the earthquake that caused the tsunami last year (9.1).

[/ QUOTE ]

7.3 is a monster man.

The San Fransisco 89 quake was I believe 6.9. And the increase in numerical value is an exponential increase. 7.3 is bad.

Plus it's not the number, but the proximity to the epicenter that is the huge determinant.

I'd rather be 1 mile from 9.1 than right by a 7.3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bold mine. This is what I was referring to when I said it was reasonably large, but no where near as large as the 9.1 (!!) from last year. It is a major quake, but not a monster one (or 'Great', as the scale goes).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what you say, any quake near/over 7 is quite large. Sure there are more powerful ones, but they are not very frequent.
The once and future king
11-14-2005, 06:29 PM
Best thread hijack ever.
Freakin
11-14-2005, 06:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Mother Nature heard Bush was coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

So did The Terrorists (http://www.kuna.net.kw/home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=787166)
CORed
11-14-2005, 06:35 PM
7.3 is a bad quake, but no where near as bad as the one in Indonesia last year. Also, Japan has building codes mandating quake-resistant construction. A 7.3 will do some significant damage for sure, but probably nothing like the wholesale collapses you get when a quake of similar magnitude hits a third-world country with lots of cheap, crappy concrete buildings, or old masonry buildings.
phixxx
11-15-2005, 01:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it was a smart choice to base our entire world's infrastructure and way of life on a completely unsustainable natural resource.



Or maybe they didn't know any better. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like trees?

[/ QUOTE ]

Trees are quite sustainable.
wacki
11-15-2005, 01:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's next?
http://www.foxhome.com/dayaftertomorrow/wallpapers/images/03-800.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]



That movie was a bigger disaster than anything we have seen in history. Ye gods it was bad.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bad enough FoxNews decided to interview the director for 40 minutes during their 60 minute special on global warming.
Blarg
11-15-2005, 03:23 AM
Yeah but 9.1 is incredibly large. You almost never hear of quakes that size. It's really rare.

7.3 is still pretty darn big.
diebitter
11-15-2005, 03:27 AM
Do they go up to 11?
Blarg
11-15-2005, 03:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do they go up to 11?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mine do. I had them custom made.
Blarg
11-15-2005, 03:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
7.3 is a bad quake, but no where near as bad as the one in Indonesia last year. Also, Japan has building codes mandating quake-resistant construction. A 7.3 will do some significant damage for sure, but probably nothing like the wholesale collapses you get when a quake of similar magnitude hits a third-world country with lots of cheap, crappy concrete buildings, or old masonry buildings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or California.
BreakEvenPlayer
11-15-2005, 03:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather be 1 mile from 9.1 than right by a 7.3.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you wouldn't dude...
veganmav
11-15-2005, 04:24 AM
I'm in tokyo, I didn't feel anything.
But I am playing online games.
Just thought i'd put my 2 cents in
11-15-2005, 05:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do they go up to 11?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mine do. I had them custom made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hope Im not the only one who caught this.

Nice quote.