New quake hits Sumatra

[Clark2008]

January 10, 2005

A STRONG earthquake has been recorded off Indonesia, shaking buildings and sending people scrambling for cover.

The Hong Kong Observatory said the earthquake was recorded off Sumatra at 6:18 am (0918 AEDT).

It was estimated to measure 6.2 on the Richter scale, the observatory said.

Its epicentre was initially determined to be at sea about 60 kilometres southwest of Banda Aceh, the capital of Aceh province, it said.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11899596%255E28477,00.html

[nolabels]

1. This can't be good

Hope they don't have a bigger one (unless it swallows * )

[daleo]

2. A 6.2 is roughly 1/1000 as energetic as the 9.2 that caused the tsunami.

Just for scale (logarithmic). Also, this is a tectonically active area of the world.

[Clark2008]

6. True, but wasn't the big San Fran quake close to that large

7.1?

Which is still about 1/100s bigger - but, still shaking buildings on already shaky ground cannot be a good thing.

[LeftCoast]

8. The epicenter of the 1906 quake was only a few miles from SF though

Makes a big difference...

[Clark2008]

10. I was talking about the quake of 1989

I wasn't around for the one in 1906. ;)

[Der Blaue Engel]

11. The 1906 quake was magnitude 8.25

and centered very close to San Francisco. The damage from the 1906 quake was largely due to the subsequent fires.

The 1989 Loma Prieta quake was 7.1 (I had moved here just in time for that one), with an epicenter some 70 miles south of San Francisco.

But the major factor for quake damage and death is often, sadly, whether you live in a third-world country or not. They just don't have the money for seismically sound buildings and infrastructure.

BTW, there is no current method of reliably predicting earthquakes, so there is no such thing as an earthquake "warning."

[daleo]

9. Yes, distance makes all (well most) of the difference

Another thing that comes into play is the structure of the soil, etc. that the inhabited area sits on. Some types of ground are very effective at transmitting energy with little loss (I believe the old lake bottom that Mexico City rests on is an example of this), while others are quite inefficient (for example, if there is a lot of folding or faulting in the underlying geology).

The depth of the earthquake epicenter is also important.

[stepnw1f]

3. Man...

These people have been through enough.

[CornField]

4. Here's hoping it causes no damage

and the area simmers way down. Those folks have been through enough.

[DulceDecorum]

5. DID THEY BLOODY WARN THEM?

I really do NOT want to recent history repeat itself.

[Der Blaue Engel]

12. Not possible

See my post #11 above. Tsunami warnings are another matter, however.

[Fridays Child]

7. There have been numerous aftershocks in the 5.7 to 6.2 range.

Not as bad as the 8.9 they had but Sumatrans are probably being harmed by these smaller ones, too.

[Whoa_Nelly]

13. The USGS info and map

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/ustbat.htm



http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Maps/region/Australia.html

[alfredo]

14. Here's something worth checking out.

http://www.seis.sc.edu/gee/

[Whoa_Nelly]

15. Thanks for the link!

Saw it on the Taal thread, and saved it for later download (dial-up sucks...lol...gotta choose the 'load times.)
Looks like an awesome site!
Thanks! :hi:

[alfredo]

16. I am monitoring the Shri Lanka

station right now.