Well, That Has A New Tone...

Belegon

Still Kicking Around
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Posts
17,033
For the first time in quite awhile, San Diego county just had a Tsunami Warning issued. There was a 7.4 mag earthquake off the coast of Eureka, CA and the regional center has issued one because they sometimes can happen, not because one is known to exist.

It just struck me how much more of an impression it made on me after what happened last year. It is a reminder of how much events in our (or others) past can have an effect on our present, even when things are just theoretical...
 
Belegon said:
For the first time in quite awhile, San Diego county just had a Tsunami Warning issued. There was a 7.4 mag earthquake off the coast of Eureka, CA and the regional center has issued one because they sometimes can happen, not because one is known to exist.

It just struck me how much more of an impression it made on me after what happened last year. It is a reminder of how much events in our (or others) past can have an effect on our present, even when things are just theoretical...

My 9 year old is visiting my dad on Monterey Pennisula. That's a ways south of Eureka, right?
 
No worries, Logo

Calif. Post-Quake Tsunami Warning Canceled


21 minutes ago

A major earthquake struck about 80 miles off the coast of northern California on Tuesday night, briefly prompting a tsunami warning along the Pacific coast.

The 7.0-magnitude quake struck at about 7:50 p.m. southwest of the coastal community of Crescent City and 300 miles northwest of San Francisco, according to the U.S. Geological Survey Web site.

Witnesses felt buildings shaking along the California coast but there were no immediate reports of damage.

A tsunami warning was briefly in effect from the California-Mexico border north to Vancouver Island, British Columbia, but was called off about an hour after the quake hit.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration runs the warning system, which includes 25 other countries with Pacific coastlines.

Crescent City was the site of the only known tsunami to cause deaths in the continental United States. Eleven people died and 29 city blocks were washed away when a tsunami spawned by a quake hit Crescent City in 1964.
 
logophile said:
My 9 year old is visiting my dad on Monterey Pennisula. That's a ways south of Eureka, right?


It's almost 400 miles baby, don't worry...
 
Warning Systems

The Pacific has a tsunami warning system financed by the countries around the Pacific. It has been in existence for many years as has a method of reassuring people and appropriate emergency procedures are in place.

The Indian Ocean had no tsunami system and no way to tell people that a tsunami was coming. It is hoped that a tsunami watch and a warning system will be set up in the next few years. In some countries around the Indian Ocean, even if they know that a tsunami is on the way, they have no method of evacuating people, nor the funds to set up emergency procedures.

As for the Atlantic? The most likely source of a tsunami is a volcanic eruption in the Canary Islands that would send a mountain into the sea. The expected tsunami is estimated to be 2950feet high (The Times - today). How far would US citizens on the Atlantic seaboard have to run? Or UK citizens at Bournemouth?

The estimate is that the eruption will not happen this century. Estimates can be wrong.

Og
 
logophile said:
My 9 year old is visiting my dad on Monterey Pennisula. That's a ways south of Eureka, right?
A fair day's drive. Glad it was cool.

For reference: Undersea quakes generate ordinary tsunamis. There is a theretical maximum of thirty feet on them, because of the wavelength, as I understand the thing.

The mountain Og speaks of is what they call a "mega-tsunami." Those have to be made by landslide action, like a major calving of a slice of cliff into the ocean. There was at least one in a bay on Alaska's coast. Geologists saw the destruction line so high up the sides of the bay, and they knew no tsunami could do that. It turns out a piece of the mountain at the foot of the bay dumped into the sea down a ramp.

There is, as Og tells us, a particular mountain in the Canaries whose likely next crash will aim a mega-tsunami at the eastern coast of North America. There are not many sites in the world where mountains are abruptly dropping into oceans, though, and the wave has to propagate toward habitations to be a threat, too.

Just off the top of my head. You can probably google for more details. The kind of wave California was worried for would be a mere flash-flood-sized thing, as far as its destructive force is concerned. That's not to sneeze at, but it is not possible for the Calif. thing to have been 2900 feet high.
 
Last edited:
Regarding tsunamis and the continental U.S.

Didn't a tsunami hit Alaska in the early '60s? Isn't Alaska part of the continental U.S.?
 
rgraham666 said:
Regarding tsunamis and the continental U.S.

Didn't a tsunami hit Alaska in the early '60s? Isn't Alaska part of the continental U.S.?

No, the continental US refers to the 48 states that make up the largest part of the US. This does not include Alaska and Hawaii.
 
Yes, the Asian Tsunami has changed the way many think and react to earthquakes and possible large sea waves.

There was a 7.9 event in Chili just a few days ago and I emailed my daughter on the Oregon coast to be alert for a Tsunami warning, she is only about a half mile from the beach.

There was no Tsunami created by that quake as the epicenter was apparently not on the seafloor.

While writing for a newspaper on the Oregon coast, several years ago, I did an article on the history of Tsunami's along the Pacific Coast. Although they are rare in modern times, archeological evidence shows many occasions in the pre history of the area.

This is of particular interest to me as I intend to 'write in' a tsunami episode in my native american novel taking place several thousand years ago.

A good thing to always be on the alert...one never knows.

amicus...
 
AppleBiter said:
No, the continental US refers to the 48 states that make up the largest part of the US. This does not include Alaska and Hawaii.

Thanks AppleBiter.

Not sure that makes sense to me. Alaska is on the North American continent, but what the hell.
 
It doesn't have to make sense. But if you grow up seeing the "lower 48" on every map in every classroom, surrounded by Alaska and Hawaii, neither to the same scale, as a sort of constellation-- it does detach Alaska from everything else in the psyche somewhere.
 
Time to divest myself of any Silicon Valley or Hollywood stocks I own and invest in soon to be lakefront property on the other side of the San Andreas Fault. ;)
 
Back
Top