Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: San Andreas Fault

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 09:29 AM 9/26/98 EDT, you wrote:
>The below shown article is, sort of, interesting. . 
___________
        Yes, but I'm still wondering what to be interested in about it. It
says,
>>The report released Thursday found that the section of the fault that begins
>>on the San Francisco Peninsula may be as long as 55 miles, not 32 miles long. 
>
        And then it says,
>>A 300-mile stretch of the San Andreas ruptured in 1906, causing the great San
>>Francisco earthquake and fire.

        I am aware that in 1906 the fault ruptured for more than 55 miles in
both directions from San Francisco, which is located at the north end of the
Peninsula in question. Presumably that rupture included the section now the
subject of this article. Or is the article about a parallel section? These
faults seem to have many parallel tracks in places, like the stretch marks
on a pregnant woman's abdomen. You know, like when a structure has
redundancy and ductility. So I wonder if they know what they're talking
about. Or if they're talking about what they know.

        Next I wonder what I might do with this knowledge. Should I wear a
hard hat when visiting San Francisco? Perhaps a life jacket as well? Sell my
investments in insurance companies? Contribute more to the Red Cross?

        Then I wonder who made the "study" that the Associated Press relied
on, and whether the article identified this source. If not, why not? Was it
some hen in a barnyard that felt something alight on her head?  Whomever, is
there a spin agenda of theirs that's not openly revealed in the article?

        Yes, it is interesting.       

Charles O. Greenlaw, SE     Sacramento CA 

___________________________________
>Study: San Andreas May Be Longer
>
>
>.c The Associated Press 
>
>SAN MATEO, Calif. (AP) -- A new study concludes that the San Andreas Fault may
>be longer than earlier thought and would cause significantly more damage if it
>ruptures and triggers a major earthquake. 
>
>The report released Thursday found that the section of the fault that begins
>on the San Francisco Peninsula may be as long as 55 miles, not 32 miles long. 
>
>The added mileage, in the event of a major earthquake, could quadruple the
>amount of damage to strike the San Francisco Bay area. 
>
>``It potentially exceeds Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Hugo, and greatly
>exceeds the Northridge quake,'' said Doug Sandy, Red Cross deputy director for
>disaster services in the San Francisco Bay area. 
>
>It means the fault could produce a 7.3 magnitude earthquake rather than the
>7.1 predicted in a previous report. In San Francisco alone, damage could be
>three to four times as heavy as planners had estimated. 
>
>Up to 107,000 homes would be left uninhabitable, up from 45,700 homes, and 836
>roads would be closed rather than 428, the report said, updating a report
>released three years ago. 
>
>The report did not contain estimates of casualties. 
>
>A 300-mile stretch of the San Andreas ruptured in 1906, causing the great San
>Francisco earthquake and fire. A section of the fault broke in the Santa Cruz
>Mountains in 1989, and the Loma Prieta quake in the San Francisco Bay area was
>the result. It killed 67 people and caused $6 billion in damage. 
>
>AP-NY-09-25-98 2135EDT 
>
>
>Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news
>report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed
>without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.  All active
>hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. 
>
>
>