Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Nevada Earthquake Swarm Increases Chance of Larger Quake 65

Posted by samzenpus from the whole-lot-of-shaking-going-on dept.
An anonymous reader writes Hundreds of small earthquakes have been gaining in strength in northwestern Nevada. The Nevada region bordering California and Oregon was hit by 18 quakes in less than 24 hours, with magnitudes measuring from 2.7 to 4.5. According to CNN: "This does not necessarily mean a big one will come, state seismologists said, but they added that it's good to be prepared, just in case. Seismologists refer to such quake groupings as swarms, and the U.S. Geological Survey has detected them regularly. They can produce thousands of small tremors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nevada Earthquake Swarm Increases Chance of Larger Quake More

Nevada Earthquake Swarm Increases Chance of Larger Quake

Comments Filter:

  • hm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by notequinoxe ( 2668889 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @06:08AM (#48348781)
    Sounds like fracking to me....

    • Re:hm... (Score:4, Informative)

      by RevGregory ( 585273 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @07:13AM (#48348921)
      One would think that the quakes would be on the faults where the fracking sites in Nevada are rather than a completely unrelated set of faults 400 miles away where they aren't.

    • Re:hm... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @09:56AM (#48349351)

      Sounds like fracking to me....

      Given that fracking was illegal in Nevada until about a month ago, I'd say you're wrong.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Nevada is a tectonically active area undergoing substantial amounts of stretching [ucar.edu] (purple dots = historical quakes). It's the whole reason for the "basin-and-range" topography that typifies the region. But, no, it sounds like hydraulic fracturing?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rakarra ( 112805 )

        ....

        "Nature's fracking?"
        Come on, there has to be a way to pin earthquakes on fracking somehow.

        California didn't have any quakes until the oil companies moved in and started fracking up and down the coast.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Highly unlikely. According to this map of oil and gas potential in Nevada [unr.edu] [PDF], there aren't any oil and gas wells in that part of the state (western edge of Sheldon National Antelope Refuge), and even the oil and gas potential in that area is essentially nil due to the geology, such as the presence of an old volcanic caldera there (the northwesternmost red blob is practically on top of the area of the earthquake swarm). The conodont samples referred to on that map are a way to assess how much the local

    • How about ... it is a fucking Volcano zone? (near Lassen, Shasta). No, it must be Fracking!

    • There is not much in that area except sagebrush and antelopes. The geologic survey found nothing of economic interest: a lot of old basalt flows. There are some wildlife study areas. It is an 8 hour drive from San Francisco, the same from Portland OR, and hundreds of miles from any fracking activity.

      I've been watching this swarm on the USGS World Earthquake Map [usgs.gov]. If it were not so inaccessible, I'd drive out there, but to do that safely would require carrying jerry cans of gas, and water and food for severa

  • SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Informative)

    by lesincompetent ( 2836253 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @06:10AM (#48348791)
    L'Aquila, Italy, 2009.
    Mistakes must not be repeated.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The only mistake in L'Aquila was mentioning that a swarm of small earthquakes doesn't necessarily mean a larger one is on the way, and isn't cause for heightened concern, both of which are true. There's no reason for an elevated risk. Earthquake swarms come and go without major quakes all the time. People then mistakenly interpreted this to mean that there was no risk at all, which is NEVER true in a well-known earthquake prone area such as L'Aquila and pretty much anywhere in Nevada.

      Putting it another w

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MRe_nl ( 306212 )

      "Increases chance" is not the opposite of "does not necessarily mean".
      "There is a slightly elevated risk of a larger earthquake while the swarm is active" said seismologist Ian Madin from neighboring Oregon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tomhath ( 637240 )
      Furthermore, a swarm doesn't increase the chance of a larger quake. It just makes us more aware of the possibility that has existed all along.
      • The science seems to still be out on whether earthquakes may trigger other earthquakes, but many consider it plausible: http://news.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com] "Earthquakes Can Trigger More Earthquakes, Experts Say" "Can one earthquake cause another? A developing theory holds that quakes can pressure highly stressed fault lines and trigger subsequent seismic events" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

  • Preferable to Rarer, Larger Quakes (Score:3)

    by Egg Sniper ( 647211 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @07:20AM (#48348937)

    I was in Reno for the small swarm mentioned in the article; only a couple were even perceptible. I've also lived through a couple [wikipedia.org] large [wikipedia.org] earthquakes. I'd prefer little tremors all year round over the more damaging one-offs.

    Of course, I'm also the type of person who would rather be in (another) earthquake than a tornado or hurricane (neither of which I've experienced). The devil you know, I suppose.

    • Re:Preferable to Rarer, Larger Quakes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dtmos ( 447842 ) * on Monday November 10, 2014 @07:50AM (#48348989)

      Having been in all three (well, I wasn't exactly inside the tornado, but it was much too close for comfort), I agree that the earthquake is the choice of the lot -- if one has to be in one of the three.

      However, if the question is, "Which would you rather live in -- an earthquake-, tornado-, or hurricane-prone area?", my answer would be the hurricane-prone area, because these days they're by far the most predictable and, therefore, escapable. I'm comforted by the fact that should one appear, I will have enough warning to be elsewhere when it hits. It's a lot harder to say that about tornadoes and earthquakes.

    • I'd disagree on that. I've been through Hurricanes and tornadoes myself. They are relatively easy to prepare for. Don't live in a flood plane (New Orleans!?!?!) You can get hurricane straps at Home Depot for 50 cents each and do your whole house for under $50 on a Sunday. Buy a house with a basement so you have somewhere to shelter and you're good. Most importantly, hurricanes and tornadoes have an upper limit to their strength. You could get hit with the strongest of either (or both in some cases) and at w

      • This is usually the response I get from folks who have been through big storms (and sometimes zero earthquakes). At least with earthquakes, it's been my experience that people who've been through one are much less anxious about them than those who haven't. I suspect the same can be said for big storms. The main difference that comes up between earthquakes and storms is the predictability or prior warning. While it is certainly true that you can see a storm coming, I would guess that earthquake prone are

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Teancum ( 67324 )

          I've lived in both earthquake country and in the tornado belt (southern California and southern Minnesota respectively). Neither one really has all that much predictability, although tornadoes generally (from my experience) do much more localized damage than earthquakes.

          Floods are by far more destructive than either one, where I've seen flood waters come up gradually over the course of a day or two and gradually wipe out entire neighborhoods. You can take things out of such homes (even get a U-haul to mov

          • But I wasn't talking about destruction. Gods wrath can have my house, leave me out of it. Which is more likely to kill me? Earthquake. You can see Hurricanes and tornadoes coming from a long long way off. Tornadoes sound like a freight train approaching. There's no mistaking that. The people that get killed are usually living in trailers or don't have basements. Hurricane? You usually have DAYS of warning. Eathquake? You're just sitting there, reading the paper and BAM! Buildings falling on you. Not cool.

            Oh

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Teancum ( 67324 )

              If you are really paranoid about such things, one of the best places in the USA to avoid all of that is the city of Blanding, Utah [wikipedia.org] It is geologically stable (very few earthquakes), enough older mountains to keep tornadoes from spawning, and far enough away from any ocean that any hurricanes that might form are at worst a mild tropical storm dropping some extra rain. There aren't even major rivers nearby that can cause significant flooding and it is far enough from major metro areas that you likely could su

  • Que the stories... (Score:3)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @08:49AM (#48349099)
    California slides into the ocean. Lex Corp opens new beach front developments in Nevada. Superman is dead.

  • OBVIOUSLY (Score:5, Funny)

    by l0n3s0m3phr34k ( 2613107 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @09:12AM (#48349151)
    The Yucca deposit has "attracted" Something that is slowly burrowing it's way through the Earth towards it.
  • The title says increases chance of larger quake yet the summary says does not necessarily mean a big one will come. So which is it? Don't you dare think I'll read the article to see what it says.
    • It's not really a contradiction. Increasing the chance from .0000001% to .000002% is not just increasing, but DOUBLING the chance of something, but still means that there is very little chance of it occurring. (Numbers not related & for illustrative purposes only) They don't go into numbers, but it's basically along those lines. TLDR from the article: Quake swarms *can* mean that a larger quake is coming, but they do not believe that it is the case based that they have had several swarms in the area r

    • They are not conflicting statements, so there's no "which is it" - it can just be both.

      It's slashdot, so how about a car anology:

      By driving my car today I have increased my chance of being involved in a car crash (compared to if I just stayed home all day). That does not necessarily mean I will be involved in a car crash.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by dkman ( 863999 )
        I absolutely get what you're saying. I'm not sure why I didn't read it that way to begin with. I think it was early and I wasn't really awake yet.

        After your post I had to go back and look at the original because I was convinced that it conflicted, but you are right that it does not.

  • Yellowstone hotspot/McDonalds/Impact Crater (Score:4, Funny)

    by __aapopf3474 ( 737647 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @11:10AM (#48349961)

    The area is near where the Yellowstone hotspot [wikipedia.org] was over 16 million years ago.

    Also, this area was the furthest from a McDonalds in 2010.

    South of the swarm area, in the Black Rock Desert, was a suspected impact crater [blackrocknevada.info].

    Sounds like the start of a bad horror movie.

  • The govt dept full of evil villains. (Score:4, Funny)

    by CODiNE ( 27417 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @11:58AM (#48350427) Homepage

    the U.S. Geological Survey has detected them regularly. They can produce thousands of small tremors."

    The USGS is not one to be messed with.

  • The leader in fake news. Make up something, Make it loud. "Just the facts, Ma'am" - Joe Friday, AKA Jack Webb. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear... [usgs.gov]{%22feed%22%3A%227day_m25%22%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Atrue%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3Atrue%2C%22timeZone%22%3A%22local%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A[[30.221101852485987%2C-131.30859375]%2C[43.229195113965005%2C-106.69921875]]%2C%22overlays%22%3A{%22plates%22%3Atrue}%2C%22viewModes%22%3A{

  • uh (Score:2)

    by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

    I thought a swarm decreased the chances of a big one by virtue of the smaller releases of tension between plates? I'd be worried if an area prone to tremors suddenly went quiet.

    • There is contradicting evidence of series of small earth quakes are an indication for a bigger one to follow. Whether the actual earth quakes have an effect on the likelyhood of a bigger one happening is even a step further in the kind of science we are only starting to figure out. Causation, correlation and chance when it comes to earth quakes so far has been historical statistics and no significant trustworthy method has yet been discovered. Sure, we've made progress and statistics are favorable, but righ

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Close