earthquake/Archive 1

This website contains up-to-date information on the latest crustal plate movements. jlchyleJlchyle 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Where should we go for official information on earthquakes? I've only seen references to the United States Geological Survey. I didn't see even that in this article, except in a caption for a picture, and in the external links. [[User:Brianjd|Brianjd]] 07:41, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

I was going to set raw signature first thing today... 07:42, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Is the signature right now? Brianjd 07:43, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

I came across your page and noted quite a few inaccuracies and, I'm afraid, a few things that were plain wrong (for example, suggesting that earthquake intensity is associated with the Richter scale, and reference to "seaquakes", a term I've never heard in thirty years as a professional seismologist). So I've tidied it up quickly. I don't think there's anything in the present page that any of my colleagues would argue with -- and they are folk who are only too happy to pick up a good argument -- but there's plenty more that could usefully be added to the page. The long-running debate on the extent to which earthquakes might be predicted, for a start!

Russ

Thanks for being bold! feel free to edit other articles you think needs some work. There are apparently not many professional seismologist editing so your additions are highly important, take a look also, at the article about Seismology, it's currently a stub (only a beginning of an article) so much further work is needed on this field! -- Rotem Dan 13:56 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

chiken

Suggestion: We were just wondering if you could add something mentioning about how long significant aftershocks will occur after a mainquake. Thanks : )

kl;

-- Aftershock is a really loose term.

This is sort of written like breaking news and doesn't really fit with the list of earthquakes info very well:

Bam, Tehran Earthquake (2003) Tehran city earthquake of 9 March 2003 at 22:50:23 (GMT) a moderate earthquake, M=4.1 (IGTU) struck north east of Tehran. Its epicenter has been estimated at 35.74N and 51.46E (IGTU) up to now,the following stations have recorded the strong motion due to this event: Abbasspur University, Jamshidiyeh Park, Ministry of Agriculture (20Th floor), among which the maximum acceleration is 0.055g.

Northern Iran earthquake magnitude 6.3, 2004 28 May 12:38:46 UTC, Preliminary Earthquake Report, U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center, World Data Center for Seismology, Denver, A strong earthquake occurred at 12:38:46 (UTC) on Friday, 28 May 2004. The magnitude 6.3 event has been located in Northern Iran.

I linked the Bam earthquake in the list of earthquakes but the other probably doesn't make the cut as far as prominent quakes go. Don't want to lose this info however since it's pretty detailed even if out of place. Gabe 17:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed the first line as it was a poor defintion of an earthquake, the current one is more accurate but might need some more explanation or to even be changed again. I removed the comment from the end beacuse it is largely inaccurate. Whilst the cause of deep focus earthquakes i.e those in the Benioff zone is unclear as it mentions in the article. this has nothing to do with the large magnitude quakes or melting. Bumfluff 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this page deserves a link to the moonquake page? And any other pages related to earthquakes on other planets.

This is also sometimes called "The World Series" Earthquake, since it had struck just as thw World Series Game was just getting underway. It had hit in 1989. Martial Law 20:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Maybe I'm just a bit dense, but even after having thought about it for a while, I can't see the relavancy of the following analogy, or any parallelism between it and the size of a fault and potential earthquake magnitude, and the size of a speaker and how big a sound it can produce.

Just as larger loudspeakers can produce a greater volume of sound than smaller ones, larger faults can cause higher magnitude earthquakes than smaller ones can.

If someone feels the analogy is appropriate and puts it back, I will figure the problem is mine and not protest/revert. But I think the section reads better without it. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 04:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally got around to reworking this section, which I felt lacked logical flow and sounded slightly dumbed-down. OTOH, if some middle-school students put their heads together to write it, I'd say they'd done a pretty descent job; either way, I hope my editing has done justice to the work that my predecessor contributors put into it.
Because I'm still not quite sure that I understood what earlier contributors meant about "relative size of different events in different places", I'd really appreciate the input of a seismologist on the content about seismic moment and moment magnititude. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 06:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I think the section on the scales is way too technical and overdetailed for the purposes of this page. Since this information is discussed in detail on the corresponding pages for each scale, it would be best if the Earthquake page only included a brief overview.

2. The same goes for the seismic maps, which deserve a page of their own where all the details could be provided on how the maps are created and used. The earthquake page would be better off if, instead of getting into the details, it served as a portal for all earthquake-related subjects.

Wiki rules! :) 24 April 2006

Just wondering if it would be useful - in all the pages about specific major earthquakes - to mention local time as well as UTC (where possible). I know it can of course be worked out fairly easily, but it would be worthwhile information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.178.53 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This separate section created is congruent with its earlier section of "Measuring and mapping earthquakes" that talks about measurement of the characteristics of earthquakes, and could be better being under it. Thus, I do not really see a need to create a separate section just for it. —Sengkang 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The title seems more congruent, but not the content; content-wise, I think it's better where it is now. I assume that's why the person who moved it inserted the link to it. OTOH, the section on size and frequency could do with some more information.

Also, what do you think of adding some shake maps from other localities than the US, such as these that the Japanese Meteorological Agency publishes? These are usual available within minutes of a quake's occurrence and show shindo (shaking) intensities in areas affected. Jim_Lockhart 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to the contributors. (Maabahuka 06:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

I note the that the section on Size and frequency covers a time frame of less than 120 years. It also seems to imply that only seismometers can detect earthquakes. The majority of our knowledge about frequency of what most people think of as an “earthquake” comes from a much longer and more helpful time frame.

We should note a distinction in the difference in detecting small earthquakes and large earthquakes that meet the “common mans” definition.--69.237.68.70 (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)This post by Me--Richwierd (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the material for seismic scales has grown more detailed and is now far beyond the simple introduction to earthquake topics. I'd like to propose creating a Seismic scale article, which could have an overview of scale types and links to articles for specific scales (we have a number of those - see Scale#Seismology). Any thoughts? Asknine 17:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Then the briefest of overviews could stay here, a discussion of the (5?) different scales (and their uses) at Seismic scale (maybe Seismic scales?) with the most detailed discussion at the individual articles. Let me know if you get started and want any help! Inner Earth 18:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested the singular form for the word "scale" because (a) it seems in line with Wiki's article naming conventions Wiki: Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns and (b) the article may beging with explaining the general purpose of "a sesimic scale" as a measuring tool. The plural form as in "Seismic scales" is more appropriate in a category name. We can also create the "Seismic scales" article and redirect it to the "Seismic scale" to avoid confusion. Asknine 18:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:74.132.8.81 for catching the additions to the seismic scale section by User:128.205.145.139 on September 1 regarding the Richter scale. Having unsourced POV statements is one thing, but a bald assertion that "neither this article nor Wikipedia in general should be used for any serious purpose" doesn't belong here. I removed that bit, but left the substantive POV statement. Could others who are more knowledgeable take a look? Waitak 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What is POV exactly in this section? Moment magnitude is the scale currently used. Read any seismology publication, you'll see M_w being used... David.Monniaux 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for sticking this here, but I can't seem to find a relevant WikiProject. I just started the 1138 Aleppo earthquake article and according to the 2004 source I used, the 230,000 death toll figure taken from USGS and used in {{Deadliest earthquakes}} is completely bogus. This is quite amusing as the template is on that page. Can someone who actually knows something about earthquakes take a look at the source I used and see if I've been taken in some sort of elaborate misinformation or if the USGS really is propagating bad info? Thanks, BT 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, did anyone living in Hong Kong feel an earth tremor at 7:53pm today, September 14? Trying to work out if it was just a few of us... —preceding unsigned comment by 202.64.169.72 (talk • contribs)

I didn't feel it, but got a phone call from someone asking if I did. Waitak 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited a mistake where it was stated that the epicenter was the origin of an earthquake and the hypocenter the point on the surface above it... I changed it around

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, editors of Earthquake/Archive 1! I am currently working on an essay on Wikipedia, part of which will feature a comparison of articles of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Brittanica. To ensure that I send reviewers articles that have not been recently vandalized or have not been involved in an edit war, I would like, by December 31st, a revision of this article to be listed at User:Chrisisme/Research-permalinks that is not vandalized and/or is generally at peak quality. Thank you! Chrisisme 19:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey: It says "hello" in the first sentence and i cant seem to get rid of it.

There is a passage in the article that states "As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past -- currently, about 35 per day worldwide". I think there needs to be a link to where this information is coming from, as taking a look at this link from the Japanese Bureau of Meteorology, on 25th December 2006 there were many more that 35 in just Japan alone. 219.123.91.104 04:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I like earthquakes. Earthquakes are coool. But this website should have iformation on all he earthquakes like the saguenay eathquake because i have to do a project on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.106.121 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 03:05, 30 January 2007.

Am I right?

Yes, it should be in the 20th century. Check this out: 20th century.Tohlz 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The coincidence(?) of having three strong earthquakes on 12/26 within four recent years prompts my question. 12/26 is close to Earth's perhelion with the sun, and Jupiter's pull causes activity on Io. Can gravitational pull from our sun and/or moon be strong enough to trigger an event that was building up? If so, there would be more quakes around our perhelion (about 1/7) and during the semi-monthly periods when our solar and lunar tides coincide. 128.255.157.250 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no statistical documentation of this or any other calender-related thing that gives more than random relationship to earthquake occurrences. Sorry. Cheers Geologyguy 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found one case where there is a seasonal influence. It seems that monsoons trigger them in the Himalayas. See: http://www.livescience.com/environment/080104-quake-season.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.137.12 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested, please sign up to help establish the Geology Project. See Wiki: WikiProject Council/Proposals#Geology. Solarapex 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a registered user, so I can't jump right in and make content changes without all hell breaking loose, but could someone review which earthquakes are significant enough to warrant a mention please. This thought is spurred by the inclusion of the 28/4/07 Kent, England earthquake - it is major in terms of the UK, but way below every other quake listed in magnitude and damage. Same goes for the other unlinked quakes, if it doesn't have an article what is achieved by listing it other than vanity. Many thanks. 86.134.233.151 09:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the issues regarding quakes that has always confused me a bit is how the UK can be affected like it was today? If they are related to plate tectonics, shouldn't the epicentre of an earthquake be near the plate edge? How can an earthquake occur 10 miles offshore from the UK, the nearest edge being over 100 miles away? How does this happen? -Localzuk^(talk) 10:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

By far most quakes do occur near zones of plate interaction. The mechanisms of intraplate earthquakes are poorly understood - consider the New Madrid earthquakes, far from any modern plate boundary. It seems that the whole earth is just continously readjusting. I know this doesn't help much. Cheers Geologyguy 13:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I just find it fascinating that we know so much, for example look at a computer - an amazing device, so complex in its workings, yet we know so little about our actual planet.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Try intraplate earthquake. :-) Carcharoth 13:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to tidy it up myself unfortunately, but the lists at the end need to be removed and synchronised with List of earthquakes and other lists. The other lists (such as the fault lines) also need to be turned into good summary style sections, with links out to the main artices. But really, this article shouldn't try and cover everything. It should give a general overview and leave details and long histories to other articles. Carcharoth 13:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just randomly browsing, and I must say this article is absolutely horrible. One of the worst I've ever seen in Wikipedia about such a mainstream subject. I'm not knowledgeable enough on earthquakes to fix it or skilled enough in wikis to know how to add this to a "make it better" list of articles or a "make it better" template or something like that, so please someone just do SOMETHING. Honestly, this is horrid.192.198.152.98 11:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we request semiprotection for this article? This article is vandalized several times a day from different IP addresses. I'm sure those who revert changes would focus on new articles or improving existing ones. Solarapex 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag appears to have expired yesterday. Does anyone know why it is still there? Robin S 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed it. If anyone has any concerns about this, please let me know on my talk page. Robin S 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This may seem like an odd question, but it seems relevant. Do earthquakes, particularly in areas where small ones are frequent, often result in accidents for people undergoing delicate procedures like surgery, tooth drilling, etc. I imagine that everything shaking would be more than enough to thouroughly f'k up an operation. Just curious about the actual statistics conscerning this. Thanks. - Xvall

Could we semiprotect this page again? I looked down the article history, and almost every other edit is a revert. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This topic is in some kind new to me, but as I have not found any article mention 'focal mechanism' I would suggest that an article should be created and 'fault plane' should lead there or should be the article title, which in the latter case treats 'focal mechanism' as well. Ausgerechnet alaska 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is absolutely horrifyingly written, but I cannot edit it myself since the page is semi-protected: "At the Earth's surface, earthquakes may manifest themselves by a shaking or displacement of the ground. Sometimes, they cause tsunamis, which may lead to loss of life and destruction of property. An earthquake is caused by tectonic plates getting stuck and putting a strain on the ground. The strain becomes so great that rocks give way by breaking and sliding along fault planes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.136 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially when it asys "An earthquake is caused by tectonic plates getting stuck and putting a strain on the ground." Perhaps one of you geologists could come up with a better explanation that doesn't sound like it was written by an 8-year-old. Astronaut 16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be glad to fix it, being a seismologist. Unfortunately, it seems to have full protection, not semi-protection, although I don't know the intricacies of wikipedia. Anyone know how I can edit it? John 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't fully protected - not sure why you can't edit, I'm not an admin and I edited it the other day and could now. Cheers Geologyguy 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, or maybe my permissions are meager. The next section down is only semi-protected, but that first chunk of text shows a lock on my screen, and when I click on it, I just get the discussion of what is "protection". John 05:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
To edit the introduction, there is no "edit" tag on the right - you have to click the "edit this page" tab at the top. When I do that, it does say the page is semi-protected, but it gives me the edit box as usual. If this does not help, you could post what you want to add here, and someone else can add it... Oh, and don't click on the lock! Cheers Geologyguy 16:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, that works. I took a pass, but someone cleaned up much of the problem before I got there. And in making the prose more accurate, I messed up the links to the vocabulary for the magnitude scales. John 17:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I added the links back. Cheers and thanks - Geologyguy 17:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You've all done a good job. It reads much better now. Thanks.
One comment... someone said the Richter scale was now mostly obsolete; yet the news media always use the Richter scale - the Mercalli and Moment scales are never mentioned.
Astronaut 19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The media may not always know it, but the biggest quakes (M>7) are almost always measured by moment, and the range of magnitude scales used for the smaller ones is too broad to explain in a sentence. The Harvard CMT (now the global CMT, since Goran Elkstrom moved to Columbia) moment magnitude is the gold standard of large-quake magnitudes. The California seismologists converted to moment magnitude, too, when they started computing moment tensor solutions a few years ago. John 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the "mostly obsolete" should be qualified by adding "(except in the news media)" or something similar? Astronaut 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block this vandal and reverse his/her edits, as I do not know how to do it. Thanks!--曹孟德 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Human Impact section is poorly written and is in desperate need of a rewrite. Stating that "earthquakes cause disease" is over-simplifying the problem. Kobe is not capitalized, and there are sentence fragments that need to be taken care of. -- 12.116.162.162 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For all the clever and kind people in Wiki, I have I question that I really need to be answered to put on the earthquake page. It will be very useful. Why do people live in areas that are plagued with earthquakes? e.g. San Francisco and Kobe. (San Francisco is the 4th most populated area in U.S.A) Please answer the question. Thnx. Da G007 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not answering the question above, but it would be helpful if the major earthquake articles mentioned the population density of the affected areas at the time of the quakes... e.g. the largest, Chilean, quake killed 6,000 but there is no mention of how many people lived in the vicinity. The 2008 Sichuan quake has reportedly killed 75% of the population of some of the smallest towns in the area (reported elsewhere, that is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.35.164 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A reality that one must arrive at and should be indicated in the article is that earthquakes in essence is a form of population control. Like diseases and other 'acts of nature' sadly, it does thin the masses and takes care of what could be consideded 'the weak'. 64.201.173.189 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There are earthquakes that hit under peoples homes and they dont fell it! Look Google Quake Map does USGS or the police call them and tell them or what?!--LoliMedia (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC.

Since there already is a list for earthquakes, why does this article have so many listed? Can the admins transfer these earthquakes to the list of earthquakes? For this article, how about a Top 10 deadliest earthquakes and Top 10 Strongest earthquakes for easy reference? 67.105.21.234 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone with edit rights please remove the UK earthquake of 27/2/2008 from this list? Although a novelty in the UK, a 5.3 quake is in no way "major". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grnslves (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Oda Mari (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the M5.2 quake was undoubtedly exciting for people living in the Midwest, it's not notable enough to be included on this page, which is providing an overview of earthquakes in general. I also agree with the suggestion from 67.105.21.234 above, that the article duplicates the list of EQs, and should be trimmed to just have a top ten strongest/deadliest. Eve Hall (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it should only list the most notable earthquakes (ie. ones that caused many fatalities or M7.5+), because eventually the 21st Century section is going to become very long even if every M6.7+ quake was to be added. Just like the recent UK quake, the Midwest earthquake is a good example of the 'vanity' additions you get added to this list, lots of significance to the country in question but only moderate by world terms. RapidR (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Given that this article receives so much active attention (from both readers and editors), what if we were to include brief mention of "notable recent" earthquakes, with whatever criteria consensus indicates for both "notable" and "recent"? I'd be inclined to say that, if somebody wants to put any recent earthquake on the page, let 'em, at least for a week or two.

The recent Illinois earthquake is a case in point. Although it's not notable by world standards (and I'm not arguing that it should be include on the basis of notability) it was nonetheless on the front page of CNN for a few days, and the WP page on the earthquake got some press. It seems to me that it can only benefit WP if, when people go looking for material on earthquakes - because one just happened that they've been made aware of - they find mention of the earthquake that led them to the article. Once the moment's passed (bad pun, sorry), then fine, delete the reference. Maybe make the period of time explicit, as in: Notable earthquakes within the last 30 days or whatever.

What's the community think? Waitak (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not entirely convinced. Surely that's what wikinews is for? Any 'within the last x days' section is going to need to be updated daily, which is going to be a large and ongoing task. Plus by its very nature it's going to have a regional bias, and the smaller and less significant an earthquake, the less it's going to interest someone from outside the area. I suspect in practise the list is going to fill up with M1.5 quakes in God's Armpit, Nebraska; we're going to spend all our time pruning and then edit warring with people who think their local M0.5 hiccup should be on the list. This is only supposed to be an overview, there's the list of earthquakes for anyone wanting info on a particular one. Eve Hall (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many stories about animals being able to detect earthquakes and other related natural disasters and going to the safest ground as a result. I think an article about this should be started. 75.164.209.139 (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Blaylockjam10

Earlier, I listed some links here. I notice this article gives many links for Europe and the U.S., but none for Canada. You might want to consider adding the Earthquakes Canada website (government of Canada). I leave it to others to decide, per WP:COI. 132.156.40.110 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

http://photocdn.sohu.com/20080514/Img256851772.jpg" border="1" alt="" width="500" height="352" />

people in Nanjing

http://photocdn.sohu.com/20080514/Img256851773.jpg" border="1" alt="" width="372" height="500" />

people in Zhengzhou

http://photocdn.sohu.com/20080514/Img256851774.jpg" border="1" alt="" width="500" height="328" />

people in Wuhan

http://photocdn.sohu.com/20080514/Img256851775.jpg" border="1" alt="" width="362" height="500" />

people in Nanjing

http://photocdn.sohu.com/20080514/Img256851841.jpg" border="1" alt="" width="500" height="368" />

people in Nanjing

http://photocdn.sohu.com/20080514/Img256851842.jpg" border="1" alt="" width="500" height="339" />

people in Tangshan

NEWS FROM http://i11022.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.20.223.1 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a list? Tabletop (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Before plate tectonics was accepted, how did scientists explain earthquakers? Did they theorize local crustal movements, or something more exotic? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• http://entrypoint.bl.uk/Results.aspx?Web=True&BLD=True&ILS=True&CB=True&query=Earthquake
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation

194.66.226.95 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When the earthquake list was removed from the article last month, I felt that this was a real improvement. The links to the various lists of earthquakes were there in the article and the list itself unbalanced the whole thing IMO. I personally vote to remove the list, what do other people think? Mikenorton (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The size of the article with the list is towards the upper end of what is regarded as reasonable (Wiki: Article size). However, there are still technical areas that lack coverage so it will only get bigger. Mikenorton (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It follows on directly from the {{Main|List of earthquakes}} redirect: superfluous.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove, as superfluous. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, as the remover, I obviously endorse my action. And by the way, this article was crap; it still it, but my removal helped with that. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A section needs to be added on historical earthquakes and the growth of knowledge about what causes them. Only in the last few hundred years has the cause of earthquakes been understood. Trojancowboy (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I read in the comments sections of news reports that the recent L.A. temblor had a swaying motion, or was a "roller", or involved movement back and forth and side to side. I have no idea what a "roller" or a "rolling" motion is supposed to feel like - maybe a ship or whaling boat at sea? Maybe an artificial-wave swimming pool? Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed descriptions such as "getting legs and back massaged" in San Diego and "shock" (it's a sharp jerk, I presume...) Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a rolling motion is where you can hear it coming in the distance, the shaking gradually builds up, hits its peak, and then dies down again, similar to a large road vehicle passing the house, which is why you always hear people saying 'it sounded like a passing truck'. RapidR (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.