I feel the earth move...

[Hypoxia]

I got all shook up about 40 minutes ago, a bit after midnight here in the central Sierra Nevada mountains, sub-freezing at 4000 feet. Two long earthquakes which USGS says were 5.8 and 5.7 about 80 miles east of here. Everything shook for close to a minute for both, about 4 minutes apart. More minor quakes followed in the region. I've been through more than a few quakes in my many decades in California; this was certainly exciting here!

Plot points: Folks are fiucking when The Big One hits. Do they stop? Are orgasms intensified? Do they even notice (unless the roof collapses)?

EDIT, 5 minutes later: another long jittery one. Will we get any sleep tonight?

ANOTHER EDIT: USGS says the last shaking we felt was THREE 5.6 quakes all in the same place but at different depths. Plus a swarm of minor quakes in the area east of the Sierras between Lake Tahoe and Mono Lake. Are these isolated shocks, or precursors of The Big One?

 

[Handley_Page]

Plot points: Folks are fiucking when The Big One hits. Do they stop? Are orgasms intensified? Do they even notice (unless the roof collapses)?

EDIT, 5 minutes later: another long jittery one. Will we get any sleep tonight?

"Wow !
Was it good for you, too?"

 

[Hypoxia]

"Wow !
Was it good for you, too?"

They won't even notice if they're on a waterbed. Unless it spouts.

 

[Noor]

Too exciting
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/
Hi HP!

 

[Handley_Page]

Too exciting
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/
Hi HP!

Good Morning Noor,
The USGS failed to find and volcanic activity round me [I'm pleased to report].

 

[NicoleZ]

Plus a swarm of minor quakes in the area east of the Sierras between Lake Tahoe and Mono Lake.

Isn't that between Long Valley and Mammoth Mountain and if so couldn't it be volcanic rather than tectonic?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Scary. I don't like earthquakes. Was in LA for the Northridge quake.

Not to sound like a nervous Nelly but sounds like (possible) warning signs of the Big One.

I got all shook up about 40 minutes ago, a bit after midnight here in the central Sierra Nevada mountains, sub-freezing at 4000 feet. Two long earthquakes which USGS says were 5.8 and 5.7 about 80 miles east of here. Everything shook for close to a minute for both, about 4 minutes apart. More minor quakes followed in the region. I've been through more than a few quakes in my many decades in California; this was certainly exciting here!

Plot points: Folks are fiucking when The Big One hits. Do they stop? Are orgasms intensified? Do they even notice (unless the roof collapses)?

EDIT, 5 minutes later: another long jittery one. Will we get any sleep tonight?

ANOTHER EDIT: USGS says the last shaking we felt was THREE 5.6 quakes all in the same place but at different depths. Plus a swarm of minor quakes in the area east of the Sierras between Lake Tahoe and Mono Lake. Are these isolated shocks, or precursors of The Big One?

 

[NotWise]

Isn't that between Long Valley and Mammoth Mountain and if so couldn't it be volcanic rather than tectonic?

The cluster is in Nevada ~30 mi NNE of Mono Lake, so not associated with Long Valley. I haven't found an interpretation of the the event but when the USGS gets it figured out I imagine they'll post it.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't think worry about "The Big One" is warranted, unless the quake is associated with a large fault that's overdue for a big quake. I haven't seen anything to suggest that's the case.

"The Big One" is sort of a silly, urban legend-ish way of thinking about earthquakes. There is no "Big One." Earthquakes, including big ones, are a recurring feature of the movement of tectonic plates. No one knows when they are going to come, or how strong they are going to be, or even where they are going to happen, but it doesn't stop people from making silly predictions and getting worried needlessly. If you live in earthquake country, as I have, it's best just to relax and not worry about them too much. They may happen tomorrow, or one hundred years from now. From the Earth's view of time, there's no difference. Tornadoes seem scarier to me than earthquakes, anyway.

 

[dead_niinja]

Time to hit the mosque.

 

[Haulover]

This all begs the question:

Why do people live in a known earthquake region?

We've often thought about where we want to live when we grow up. (Okay, maybe I'll never grow up ) But we've mapped out the regions with the biggest threats of earthquakes, wildfires, river floods, and so on ... and they're off the list. I.e. why would we move to a known disaster area?

Disasters can obviously occur anywhere, but we're avoiding the areas where they're most likely. We've often thought that if we ever lived in one of those areas, we'd make plans to get out ASAP.

 

[TxRad]

The weather channel has a short story posted. According to their reports over 30 events have occurred total.

 

[SimonDoom]

Why? Because the risk of death or injury from an earthquake is miniscule, even in a relatively high-risk area like San Francisco or Los Angeles. You are at more risk of being shot by a mugger if you live in Chicago or being hit by a crazy driver if you live in Boston. Dangers and risks are all around us and natural disasters are just one very, very small part of the sum total of risks we face. Disaster avoidance is not a rational strategy if your goal is to lead a safe life. It's better to concentrate on avoiding the less spectacular but much more common risks we face. Car accidents, for example.

That, plus the fact that there are all sorts of great things about California that appeal to people -- things you don't find in most parts of the country. It's a matter of risk/reward.

 

[TxRad]

When it is your time, not even hiding under the bed will help.

 

[sr71plt]

Plot points: Folks are fiucking when The Big One hits. Do they stop? Are orgasms intensified? Do they even notice (unless the roof collapses)?

Wrote that already. They discover their latent attraction for each other. https://www.literotica.com/s/day-the-earth-moved

On another level, I thought the new administration would wait until after inauguration to start separating California off and moving it out to sea.

 

[sr71plt]

This all begs the question:

Why do people live in a known earthquake region?

We've often thought about where we want to live when we grow up. (Okay, maybe I'll never grow up ) But we've mapped out the regions with the biggest threats of earthquakes, wildfires, river floods, and so on ... and they're off the list. I.e. why would we move to a known disaster area?

Disasters can obviously occur anywhere, but we're avoiding the areas where they're most likely. We've often thought that if we ever lived in one of those areas, we'd make plans to get out ASAP.

Specifically, why live in tornado alley? There's nothing appealing much about the topography even.

 

[Haulover]

...I thought the new administration would wait until after inauguration to start separating California off and moving it out to sea.

ROFLMAO

 

[Handley_Page]

I don't think worry about "The Big One" is warranted, unless the quake is associated with a large fault that's overdue for a big quake. I haven't seen anything to suggest that's the case.

"The Big One" is sort of a silly, urban legend-ish way of thinking about earthquakes. There is no "Big One." Earthquakes, including big ones, are a recurring feature of the movement of tectonic plates. No one knows when they are going to come, or how strong they are going to be, or even where they are going to happen, but it doesn't stop people from making silly predictions and getting worried needlessly. If you live in earthquake country, as I have, it's best just to relax and not worry about them too much. They may happen tomorrow, or one hundred years from now. From the Earth's view of time, there's no difference. Tornadoes seem scarier to me than earthquakes, anyway.

I beg to offer an alternative view.
At the end of August 1883 there took place the biggest natural Bang on the planet; the destruction of Krakatoa. It was so loud that it was heard 1900 miles away, in Perth, Australia. The tidal wave (tsunami?) was so strong, it was measurable in London, England. It is reckoned to be responsible for the death of 40,000 people.
About five cubic miles of 'ash' was deposited over an area of 420,000 miles. There are reports of some unusual rain in 1884 in California, the global temperature dropped by more than 1 degree C and for the next five years, the weather was not noted for being benign - anywhere on the planet.
And the island is growing even yet. About 100m in 70-odd years.

Now then, given that the US has a less-than-stable caldera at 'Yellowstone'[?], if that were to go off, the whole damned USA would suffer; so would the rest of the world.

As if these ain't enough, such wonders as "Stromboli," "Mt Etna" and others have not quite settled down.
Now tell me please, do you Really think we should be so complaisant ?

 

[Hypoxia]

Okay, I'm awake and not too shook-up now. The quakes originated about midway between Hawthorne NV and Bridgeport CA, roughly around 119w and 38-20n (according to my topo atlas) in or near the Bodie Hills, which rise to over 10,000 feet. USGS calls the shocks 'moderate' and yes, I wonder what fault they're on? I see scores of microshocks on the logs and maps. Western Nevada is on the move!

As for relative risks: California gets a fairly big one every decade or two, usually causing less death and destruction than a SINGLE ONE of the numerous cyclonic storms hitting the midwest and east coast EVERY YEAR.

A much bigger risk is much closer: a major storm coupled with high tides and maybe a small quake could / will break levees in our Central Valley, drowning much of the Delta area between Sacramento, Stockton, and Vallejo.

As for a Big One, that's a function of an active fault's length. The San Andreas, which so discomfits coastal California, maxes out at around magnitude 8.0. IIRC the much longer faults off Fukushima (Japan) and Cascadia (Ore-Wash coast) max-out somewhere around 9.5, which is like 35 times stronger, if my mental math isn't too fuzzy. The Cascadia is due to slip Real Soon Now with Katrina-level devastation. Bye-bye Seattle...

But I'm still safer here than in Kansas or Louisiana or Florida or Virginia.

 

[SimonDoom]

I beg to offer an alternative view.
At the end of August 1883 there took place the biggest natural Bang on the planet; the destruction of Krakatoa. It was so loud that it was heard 1900 miles away, in Perth, Australia. The tidal wave (tsunami?) was so strong, it was measurable in London, England. It is reckoned to be responsible for the death of 40,000 people.
About five cubic miles of 'ash' was deposited over an area of 420,000 miles. There are reports of some unusual rain in 1884 in California, the global temperature dropped by more than 1 degree C and for the next five years, the weather was not noted for being benign - anywhere on the planet.
And the island is growing even yet. About 100m in 70-odd years.

Now then, given that the US has a less-than-stable caldera at 'Yellowstone'[?], if that were to go off, the whole damned USA would suffer; so would the rest of the world.

As if these ain't enough, such wonders as "Stromboli," "Mt Etna" and others have not quite settled down.
Now tell me please, do you Really think we should be so complaisant ?

Pretty much, yes. For a few reasons. For one thing, I suppose it's possible the Yellowstone supervolcano could blow tomorrow, but it also could blow 500,000 years from now, and I will be long gone then. The probability it will affect my life is so small there's no point in taking it into account. Plus, I'd pretty much have to leave the US to avoid it's reach. I'm not going to do that.

As for volcanic explosions that affect the whole world -- well, what's the point of worrying about them? I'm not going to live underground to avoid the risk that ash causes my roof to collapse. There's no point in adjusting one's worrying habits if the adjustment won't make a meaningful difference in one's life. The cost is likely to outweigh the benefit.

Consider the 2005 Tsunami that killed 200,000 people in coastal areas around the Indian Ocean. Is it rational to resolve in the wake of something like that never to take a vacation on the beach? I would say no.

As I said before, the sensible thing is to worry about the mundane risks we face every day, rather than the very remote but spectacular risks we see in disaster movies.

 

[holliday1960]

This all begs the question:

Why do people live in a known earthquake region?

We've often thought about where we want to live when we grow up. (Okay, maybe I'll never grow up ) But we've mapped out the regions with the biggest threats of earthquakes, wildfires, river floods, and so on ... and they're off the list. I.e. why would we move to a known disaster area?

Disasters can obviously occur anywhere, but we're avoiding the areas where they're most likely. We've often thought that if we ever lived in one of those areas, we'd make plans to get out ASAP.

People live where they live for numerous reasons. Economics to sentimental attachments. Most folks won't desert a place where they grew up just because it is prone to earthquakes or hurricanes. And, some people can't afford to move to a different region. There's not a 100% 'safe' place on the globe you can go. Let's face it, we could be hit by an asteroid anytime, any place.

Besides the odds of getting hit by a bus are higher than getting killed in a quake. Go to Alaska and you could get eaten by a Grizzly. Moving to a brothel might increase your chance of dying by massive orgasm but I wouldn't bet on it. More likely you'll slip in the tub.

 

[sr71plt]

As for volcanic explosions that affect the whole world -- well, what's the point of worrying about them? I'm not going to live underground to avoid the risk that ash causes my roof to collapse. There's no point in adjusting one's worrying habits if the adjustment won't make a meaningful difference in one's life. The cost is likely to outweigh the benefit. . . .



As I said before, the sensible thing is to worry about the mundane risks we face every day, rather than the very remote but spectacular risks we see in disaster movies.

Still, there's "sensible" and "just dumb" in these conditions. I visited Pompeii recently, drove through congested Naples, looked at all of the buildings going up the sides of Vesuvius, looked at the smoke plum coming out of the top of the still-active Vesuvius, clucked, and got back in the car and drove back to Rome.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

As I recall there were two 5.5 quakes right before Northridge.

You don't have to spazz out or sit in your room trembling with fear. On the other hand, it's not crazy to know LA is due for a huge quake at any time. Its going to happen sooner or later.

Pretty much, yes. For a few reasons. For one thing, I suppose it's possible the Yellowstone supervolcano could blow tomorrow, but it also could blow 500,000 years from now, and I will be long gone then. The probability it will affect my life is so small there's no point in taking it into account. Plus, I'd pretty much have to leave the US to avoid it's reach. I'm not going to do that.

As for volcanic explosions that affect the whole world -- well, what's the point of worrying about them? I'm not going to live underground to avoid the risk that ash causes my roof to collapse. There's no point in adjusting one's worrying habits if the adjustment won't make a meaningful difference in one's life. The cost is likely to outweigh the benefit.

Consider the 2005 Tsunami that killed 200,000 people in coastal areas around the Indian Ocean. Is it rational to resolve in the wake of something like that never to take a vacation on the beach? I would say no.

As I said before, the sensible thing is to worry about the mundane risks we face every day, rather than the very remote but spectacular risks we see in disaster movies.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Why? Because the risk of death or injury from an earthquake is miniscule.

Tell that to between 250,000 and 500,000 dead people (estimates differ) who died in the 1976 Tangshan earthquake. Miniscule risk?

Other than war, earthquakes tend to kill higher numbers of people in the shortest amounts of time than most any other event. Tsunami death tolls?? You've mentioned yourself 200,000 deaths from one recent event. You don't think we should pay attention?

The thing about one in a hundred year and one in two-hundred year events is that they are BIG. Governments insure against them - my state government figures out where its earthquake, fire and flood risk zones are by over-laying post codes over the risk maps, so there's an easy way of apportioning the premiums against the assets. It's big bucks, "just in case". The other thing about these big events, historically, is that they are always overdue.... I for one pay attention, there's plenty of places I wouldn't go live.

 

[Handley_Page]

Pretty much, yes. For a few reasons. For one thing, I suppose it's possible the Yellowstone supervolcano could blow tomorrow, but it also could blow 500,000 years from now, and I will be long gone then. The probability it will affect my life is so small there's no point in taking it into account. Plus, I'd pretty much have to leave the US to avoid it's reach. I'm not going to do that.

As for volcanic explosions that affect the whole world -- well, what's the point of worrying about them? I'm not going to live underground to avoid the risk that ash causes my roof to collapse. There's no point in adjusting one's worrying habits if the adjustment won't make a meaningful difference in one's life. The cost is likely to outweigh the benefit.

Consider the 2005 Tsunami that killed 200,000 people in coastal areas around the Indian Ocean. Is it rational to resolve in the wake of something like that never to take a vacation on the beach? I would say no.

As I said before, the sensible thing is to worry about the mundane risks we face every day, rather than the very remote but spectacular risks we see in disaster movies.

I tend to think that it's the second level of impact that's worse. Drowning in a Tsunami is quick, as is being gassed like at Pompei. but not to take reasonable precautions is plain stupid.