could you imagine if you slept with parts of your limbs hanging off the side of the bed? bye bye arm & a leg :)



Surrey RCMP

Was watching Star Wars when the earthquake hit. I was like I don't recall there being d-box seats in the UltraAVX theatre, damn the force really has awakened :lawl:

but if your mattress is ontop of the supplies how would you have access to it? there doesnt seem to be much room to move around with the mattress inside

Which of those statements pertains to what we were talking about?

Also I don't see what the scale of measurement has to do with it either. Logarithmic or not, the idea of relieving pressure that is building up still makes sense [whether it's true or not, the scale itself is irrelevant]

"FICTION: You can prevent large earthquakes by making lots of small ones, or by 「lubricating」 the fault with water.

Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are about 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5's, 1000 magnitude 4's, OR 32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are far too few to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake.

As for 「lubricating」 faults with water or some other substance, if anything, this would have the opposite effect. Injecting high-pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes—to cause them to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. This would be a dangerous pursuit in any populated area, as one might trigger a damaging earthquake."

Basically it requires way too many small quakes to release the pressure of a big one (should the big one be preparing to happen). So, smaller earthquakes, although helps from a simple physic perspective (reducing pressure), it's not enough to stop a big one to become a moderate one.

Thought someone was pushing the chair I was on. Looked back no one was there. I thought I was just baked lol :high:

I could have used that...
I went to bed early and missed out !

In PoCo. Strong enough to wake me up.

House shook violently here in Victoria. Pretty intense!

I didn't feel anything, as I was sleeping. How scary is that.

Dang. Time to buy earthquake insurance

lol at first i thought it was the cat pawing at the door
then the bed shook and i finally realized


i shud really finish putting together a kit...or just get a gun

Good reminder to have people check their survival kits and rotate out anything that may be close to expiring or need replacing. Glad I have one in my car already, though it's designed more for winter breakdowns in the middle of nowhere than a proper multi-day disaster kit.

No kidding. We had an earthquake up here in Kamloops a couple weeks back. I simply sat on my chair, wondering wtf was happening. Chances are if a strong enough earthquake hit me up here, as my house is on the side of a mountain, it's just gonna go for a ride to the bottom due to the inevitable landslide. No point hiding under a desk or table. :lol

There was a guy in Japan who was live posting on RS after the earthquake there. Can't remember his name, but all the while I found it slightly amusing.

Yup. Vancouver Island and the rest should (theoretically, at least) shield the mainland from any massive tsunami buildup. Doesn't necessarily mean there wont be any rush of water hitting our coast, but it shouldn't be as bad as the ones you hear about on the news. That said, what's good for the Coast isn't necessarily bad for the islanders...

I'm also genuinely curious how Richmond would hold up in a full blown earthquake. I don't mean the residents, since I know exactly how they'll react. No, I mean the land itself as it's not particularly stable.

Isn't Richmond technically under the water level and the dikes keep the water out? Wouldn't it just....flood?

Not saying it can prevent large earthquakes indefinitely, only delay them/make them smaller

Meh like I said I'm not sure, it just makes sense to me physics-wise.

I didn't feel shit in whistler. I guess that's a good thing.
What I want to know is, what magnitude will it take for Richmond to break off and fall into the ocean?

I think the dikes are high enough to withstand any inrush of water that may try to invade. What I'm thinking is that because the ground is basically silt and sand, what sort of liquefaction will occur. That sort of soil is good for absorbing high frequency vibrations, but it also amplifies and extends the length of other vibrations.

I'll settle for the bridges to and from Richmond simply becoming damaged enough to be unusable.

There also is no proper structure to the ground there. So soil liquefaction is the big issue. It's been tested a thousand times on the shake table (unrelated to the milking table), Richmond will pretty well cease to exist after any size able earthquake event. The buildings will sink into the ground, there is no way to build. Earthquake proof anything there, short of building you house on a fucking raft or something.

i believe his username was chun

People unaware of fracking? lol

http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geo...s/GM2010-3.pdf

When they build the Massey tunnel bridge :lawl:

Exact same thing happened to me. Posted in previous page.

i've always thought it would sink due to liquefaction. if richmond will sink due to extreme liquefaction, is the city of richmond allowed to say that it will not due to the infrastructure in place? just curious b/c it's on their website

City of Richmond BC - Earthquakes & Richmond

or is it a matter of it's true unless proven otherwise