Jump to content

Talk:Earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 165.235.122.19 (talk) at 16:32, 24 December 2014 (→Edit request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeEarthquake was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 25, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

War vs Earthquakes

Anyone care to gather data on the phenomenon of Earthquakes around the same time as Wars? Is there any correlation between the collateral damage that bombs create and the increased presence of Earthquakes immediately there after?

It's a bunch of data farming and I don't have the time but it would be interesting to see a graph of Natural Disasters and Wars. Another reason to advocate peace!?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.23.252 (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put the bong down....174.71.82.103Niyaa , Kennedy ,AND Briana were here <3 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}


Under Earthquake Fault Types, third paragraph, "which may break in one go are approximately 1000 km." Not sure "one go" is proper nomenclature.



The sentence, "In recent years, the number of major earthquakes per year has decreased, though this probably a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic trend. More detailed statistics on the size and frequency of earthquakes is available from the USGS." contains a minor typo, 'though this probably a' should be either 'though this probably is a' or 'though this is probably a'. Amsler (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Amsler(talk) 12:39, 13 March 2011 (EST)[reply]


in the section "tsunami" there is a little error:

In the open ocean the distance between wave crests can surpass 100 kilometers (62 miles per hour),

should read: ..(62 miles),...


Raymondweber (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: You are correct, thank you! --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the seismometer's result was written on the seismograph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.149.60 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

volcanoes

does eruption of sills and dykes block the original eruption as magma after solidification forms rocks??. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.211.134 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Мониторинг землетрясений , их причины , солнечно-земные связи , ядро Земли.

ядро земли и мониторинг землетрясений 

 http://forum.web.ru/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2605&start=195
 http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=0

cтроение земли 

 http://forum.web.ru/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2599

солнечно-земные связи. http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=175 сообщение #198 и далее в авторской разработке от Арсеньева Алексея. Россия Приморский край г.Арсеньев Шевченко 3 86.102.35.158 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different statistics

I was about to add the following about statistical frequency, but they differ so much from the article, I am reluctant. Walter Mooney, a seismologist with the US Geological survey is quoted as saying "14 to 17 magnitude 7 on earth every year." See Presler, Margaret Webb (14 April 2010). "More earthquakes than usual? Not really". KidsPost. Washington Post: Washington Post. pp. C10.

What should I do with this information? (No obscenities please!  :). Student7 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article, referencing this USGS web-page, says "The USGS estimates that, since 1900, there have been an average of 18 major earthquakes (magnitude 7.0-7.9) and one great earthquake (magnitude 8.0 or greater) per year, and that this average has been relatively stable.[16] In recent years, the number of major earthquakes per year has decreased, although this is thought likely to be a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic trend. More detailed statistics on the size and frequency of earthquakes is available from the USGS." I'm not sure how that differs significantly from the numbers you quote. Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I misread it. The article is "close enough". Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Induced seismicity

My feeling is that the language here is a little strong -- e.g. the attribution of the Australian quake to human causes is presented as fact, when in fact the citation itself (#26) is to a transcript of a radio news segment where two experts disagree about whether the cause can be identified. The language on the dedicated induced seismicity page is more guarded, which sets a better example I think.

My suggestion: Add "There is evidence to suggest that" before "The greatest earthquake in Australia's history was also...". 130.123.96.23 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. The citations on the 1989_Newcastle_earthquake article seem to indicate that the mining was probably unrelated, given the depth, location and seismo-geological history of the Newcastle area. 124.171.239.145 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An important discussion about origin of earthquakes

I propose to include in the main article studies on the possible causes of earthquakes or rather about the true origin of these events. Are extremely important characterization of precursory phenomena, as are the studies and monitoring that will allow them to save lives and not only study the signatures of seismic waves. By studying only the mechanics of seismic waves, the bullet has been fired and can not be stop it, but if we understand better the Earth's interior, especially on the chemistry of earthquakes is likely we can save many lives in areas of greatest risk.

As stressed by the scientist Thomas Gold, earthquakes are caused by the migration of primordial gases within the earth, especially methane. Gases such as helium, nitrogen and radon may be present. The monitoring of radon emanations in areas at risk, as was the case of Aquila earthquake, in Italy was one example of how we can save lives studying phenomena precursors and we must take it as a good example.

Also the study of methane clouds from satellites, the behavior of animals such as frogs and various aquatic or terrestrial animals with sensitive skin or poweful nose that could realize variations that humans do not feel. Therefore, to study the chemistry of earthquakes (methane, helium, nitrogen, radon) and animal behavior in the areas of seismic risk is something precious to mankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.205.182.196 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any mention of the migration of methane as a cause of earthquakes will need to be backed by reliable sources, as far as I know this is definitely a fringe view. Mikenorton (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong, please, see links below and read it all.
I am well aware of Thomas Gold's ideas but to include them in this article would be giving them undue weight, he is more a or less a lone voice suggesting that movement of methane is a major cause of earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shambler

Shambler redirects here. Possibly because Shamber -> Quake and Quake -> Earthquake? Whatever the reason, this doesn't make much sense... 92.0.33.165 (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't, changed redirect to point to Quake (video game). Mikenorton (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Induced seismicity

"The greatest earthquake in Australia's history was also induced by humanity, through coal mining. The city of Newcastle was built over a large sector of coal mining areas. The earthquake was spawned from a fault which reactivated due to the millions of tonnes of rock removed in the mining process.[29]"

This is an unproven hypothesis and should be treated as such. The activated fault was deep whilst the fault reactivation associated with mining is most often restricted to the immediate vicinity of the mine and related to destressing of the surrounding strata. Numerous Australian experts have spoken out against the conclusions drawn in the paper by Dr Klose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.145.48.99 (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too true, there has been no conclusive scientific evidence ever presented for this pseudoscience. I find it disturbing the article presents this as the sole cause for the Sichuan earthquake, almost as though someone is pressing an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.11.51 (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What we need then is sources that clearly state that these events were not induced. I think that the argument that they were induced is stronger for the Newcastle quake than the Sichuan quake, I suspect that this latter idea is a somewhat 'fringe' view. However, we need to have the sources or we can't change what's there now. I tried searching for any informed comments opposing Klose's arguments, but could fine none. Mikenorton (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot judge the sources for the popular article "Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake" by Alexis Madrigal (June 4, 2008) at wired.com, there at least five suggested man-made causes. The link is here XXX://YYY.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/ [change the XXX and YYY for http and www, respectively]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preferences (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake sequence image

Do you know about an earthquake sequencing image of the whole World similar to the EC-EU-enlargement animation? I think it would show vividly how occurances of earthquakes are dispersed on the time scale. A time resolution of months would suffice. Sae1962 (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Buitrungthong, 24 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}


Buitrungthong (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC) geologic fault by Bui Trung Thông[reply]

Not done: Could you be more specific about exactly how you want the article edited? Thanks, — Bility (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add Astronomical Alignments as the cause of M6+ seismicity.

Ramsesthe2 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mensur Omerbashich's abstract:

I here demonstrate empirically my georesonator concept in which tidally induced magnification of Earth masses' resonance causes seismicity. To that end, I show that all strong (~M6+) earthquakes of 2010 occurred during the Earth's long (t>3 day) astronomical alignments within our solar system. I then show that the same holds true for all very strong (~M8+) earthquakes of the decade of 2000s. Finally, the strongest (M8.6+) earthquakes of the past century are shown to have occurred during the Earth's multiple long alignments, whereas half of the high-strongest (M9+) ones occurred during the Full Moon. I used the comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin), as it has been adding to robustness in terms of very strong seismicity since 2007 (in terms of strongest seismicity: since 1965). The Elenin will continue intensifying the Earth's very strong seismicity until August-October, 2011. Approximate forecast of earthquakes based on my discoveries is feasible. This demonstration proves my hyperresonator concept, arrived at earlier as a mathematical-physical solution to the most general extension of the georesonator concept possible.

Paper is here:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.2036.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsesthe2 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a case of WP:FRINGE, a single paper published who knows where is insufficient to support inclusion in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The data is easily verifiable using Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Orbit diagram (available in the below link)
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=elenin;orb=1;cov=1;log=0;cad=1#cad Ramsesthe2 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do WP:OR to verify someone's paper. We wait until secondary sources report on it. Vsmith (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)earthquakes are often statred by heat problems. after earthquakes the groung has cracks in it and it takes a while to recover the damage it tKES bout 3 years.[reply]

earthquake is the shaking of earth which influence by volcano the highest degree of an earthquake is 9.1 it happen in 1961 in north Carolina in the united state it kills about 7,00 254 people in that day according to history i just want to know if an earthquake happen to a country which has high rate sun could it kill many people and i want to know the highest of it all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enintr (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major earthquakes are a result of movement on faults and have nothing to do with volcanoes. The most powerful earthquake known was the 1960 Valdivia earthquake in Chile at 9.5, while the most deadly was probably the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake in China, killing an estimated 830,000 people. I don't really understand the rest of your question such as "high rate sun", could you clarify it? Mikenorton (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EMSC link, as the information website in the Euro Med zone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanthiCSEM (talk • contribs) 07:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Q & A resource

Recent reversions

I have recently reverted the addition of images by User:CES1596 on two occasions. The images were File:Farallon Plate.jpg and File:GRACE globe animation.gif. In my view neither if these images is sufficiently relevant to earthquakes to be included, but maybe I'm missing something. Mikenorton (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both removals appear to be warranted. The images, though scientifically interesting, don't seem to bear specifically on the topic of this article. They certainly aren't of direct enough relevance to appear in the article's introduction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


EMSC link, as the information website in the Euro Med zone? Sorry I did not get any answer. Could you please add our website?

Thanks for your patience, I meant to check this one out earlier. It looks very useful, so I've added it. Mikenorton (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Earthquakes - General Information

Earthquake impacts are many and varied, ranging from minor structural damage to a few buildings to complete devastation over huge areas. At their most powerful, earthquakes are capable of annihilating major urban centres and severely disrupting the social and economic fabric of nations. As a consequence, the range of earthquake phenomena and impacts are of concern to a broad spectrum of professions including insurance, construction, engineering, land-use planning, and disaster management.


In recent years, large earthquakes have caused two of the most costly natural disasters of all time - the 1994 Northridge quake in southern California, and the Kobe earthquake that rocked Japan in 1995. This last event resulted in over six thousand deaths and economic losses estimated at around 100 billion US dollars. Such devastation and loss can be significantly mitigated through advance assessment of seismic hazard and risk and the implementation of appropriate land-use, construction codes, and emergency plans. Together such initiatives can substantially reduce the level of death and injury, dramatically diminish the economic impact, and limit the exposure of insurance companies.

ABUHC seismologists, structural geologists and earthquake engineers can provide esearch-led expertise and advice on the complete range of phenomena related to seismic hazard and risk. Current research focuses on the use of geological fault-slip data to construct better seismic risk maps; seismic hazard in the South China region, earthquake mechanisms, building vulnerability in regions of relatively low to moderate seismicity, the seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete building populations, and human loss estimation in earthquakes. Consultancies have addressed seismic hazard and risk in Israel, Peru, Iceland, the Caribbean and China.


Bansalparth (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, this is all original research unless you can provide sources, however it seems much of this is already covered throughout the article anyway--Jac16888 Talk 14:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seismic scales and other means of measurements

The blabber about measuring seismic effects in the introductory part of the article is inappropriate and misleading.

For example, the statement "Earthquakes are measured using observations from seismometers." is only partially correct. Earthquakes are also measured by visual observations and then comparing them against intensity scales. See explanation on the USGS page: "After the occurrence of widely-felt earthquakes, the Geological Survey mails questionnaires to postmasters in the disturbed area requesting the information so that intensity values can be assigned."

Then there is a wordy discussion about "most common" scales and how they are applied. It implies that only modified Mercalli scale and the moment magnitude scale are used by the scientific community throughout the world. Nothing could be further from the truth since a wide range of scales is currently employed worldwide. There is a separate article on seismic scales that is dedicated exclusively to this subject. The section Measuring and locating earthquakes would be a more appropriate place for such discussion and should have a link to the Seismic scale article.

And stuff like that is simply naive if not imbecile: "The largest earthquakes in historic times have been of magnitude slightly over 9, although there is no limit to the possible magnitude." What is that, a high-school dropout logic? Most certainly there were earthquakes larger than mag 9 in Earth's history. The humans did not record those earthquakes because the human civilization simply didn't exist when those quakes happened. And yes, there is a limit to the possible magnitude - it is defined by the total amount of energy stored in the Earth, which has not been yet precisely measured.

"The most recent large earthquake of magnitude 9.0 or larger was a 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan in 2011 (as of March 2011), and it was the largest Japanese earthquake since records began. This is more like a news than an example. The 2011 Japan earthquake was not historically largest, nor most devastating. Therefore its value as an exemplar is questionable.

"Intensity of shaking is measured on the modified Mercalli scale." Not true. There are other intensity scales that are actively used.

"The shallower an earthquake, the more damage to structures it causes, all else being equal." Misleading. The degree of damages to man-made objects is influenced by a complex web of numerous factors with the depth of the seismic source being just one of many such factors.

I suggest replacing that:

"Earthquakes are measured using observations from seismometers. The moment magnitude is the most common scale on which earthquakes larger than approximately 5 are reported for the entire globe. The more numerous earthquakes smaller than magnitude 5 reported by national seismological observatories are measured mostly on the local magnitude scale, also referred to as the Richter scale. These two scales are numerically similar over their range of validity. Magnitude 3 or lower earthquakes are mostly almost imperceptible and magnitude 7 and over potentially cause serious damage over large areas, depending on their depth. The largest earthquakes in historic times have been of magnitude slightly over 9, although there is no limit to the possible magnitude. The most recent large earthquake of magnitude 9.0 or larger was a 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan in 2011 (as of March 2011), and it was the largest Japanese earthquake since records began. Intensity of shaking is measured on the modified Mercalli scale. The shallower an earthquake, the more damage to structures it causes, all else being equal."

with this:

Earthquakes are measured using a number of techniques ranging from visual observation of earthquake effects to analyzing data recorded by seismometers. Based on the assessment of information received, each earthquake is then assigned values according to the appropriate seismic scales.

The remaining sentences should be deleted. See reasons above. 76.197.181.206 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it the article should be clearer on how the size of earthquakes is measured, magnitude and intensity being very different animals and that it belongs in the 'Measuring and locating' section as you suggest rather than in the lede. I'll make the change when I've come up with an expansion to that section, but I won't complain if someone else gets there first.
The upper limit to magnitude is the largest fault surface that we can possibly imagine rupturing in the present plate configuration and that probably means less than 10, but I'll see if I can find a source for that. Mikenorton (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major earthquakes increasing or decreasing

"the number of major earthquakes per year has decreased, though this is probably a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic trend. More detailed statistics on the size and frequency of earthquakes is available from the United States Geological Survey (USGS).[34] Alternatively, some scientists suggest that the recent increase in major earthquakes"

Make up your mind. 190.140.144.18 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've added a 'citation needed' tag for the decrease and tweaked the language of the increase claim (which is rather better supported by the sources). Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. Mikenorton (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strike slip maximum magnitude contradiction?

In two places the text about strike slip fault earthquakes notes that these kinds of earthquakes max out at about magnitude 8. However, the recent earthquake near Indonesia was magnitude 8.6, roughly 8 times larger than magnitude 8.0. Now the text is ambiguous in that magnitude 8 could be taken as meaning anywhere in the 8.0 to <9.0 range, but I didn't take it that way and probably others won't either. I do not know enough about these kinds of earthquakes to know if the size of this recent strike slip earthquake is a shock to geologists or is the existing article text just wrong (or a little bit wrong). SoylentPurple (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we need to rewrite that section - the magnitude was a shock to seismologists [1]. Mikenorton (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe should. It would be nice to have an interpretation to refer to, other than just calculating http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/calculator.php that it was 8 times the energy release of an m8.0, that even the 8.2 aftershock was twice an 8.0. The 2004 Quake was about m9.1-9.3, 9.2 would be 8 times an m8.6. I haven't found anything but secondhand press paraphrases while they're apparently studying this, but Japanese scientists at least must now be researching how mega-thrust quakes may be followed by these extra-large strike-slip ones ″nearby″. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.156.161 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to wait a few months (maybe several months) until the first scientific papers (or at least conference abstracts) start to appear, unless it's covered by something like New Scientist in the interim. Mikenorton (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fault lines

Can it be mentioned that "most earthquakes occur near fault lines, however the presence or absence of earthquakes does not necessarily indicate that an earthquake will occur there.Fault lines and earthquakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.143.14 (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking and the link that you've given (which I took out of the ref template so that it could be seen) isn't in my view very useful - it's written by someone who doesn't appear to know much about earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a one-line section here, Earthquake#Tidal forces, which links to a section at Earthquake prediction#Tidal forces. The latter is likely to be deleted soon, and I would suggest that the section here also should be deleted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 August 2012

It would be nice to add another external link (to the external links section) for an excellent near real-time earthquake map app. For example, the moderator can add:

ObservableDeveloper (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Not done. It looks like you're trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. (editors see the user's contribs for other similar requests) RudolfRed (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes

An earthquake is caused when two transform boundaries rub against each other. This is caused by a sudden release of energy in the Earth's crust that creates seismic waves. Earthquakes can also be known as a quake, tremor or temblor. Earthquakes are measured on the Richter Scale by a seismograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenani Koren (talk • contribs) 07:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes

An earthquake is caused when two transform boundaries rub against each other. This is caused by a sudden release of energy in the Earth's crust that creates seismic waves. Earthquakes can also be known as a quake, tremor or temblor. Earthquakes are measured on the Richter Scale by a seismograph.

Earthquakes can cause great damage or not be felt at all (Earthquakes that can not be felt are known of because the seismographs can feel them) depending on where they are on the Richter Scale.

The earthquake of largest magnitude occurred in Chile on the 22nd of May, 1960 and had a magnitude of 9.5. Most earthquakes occur along the edge of the oceanic and continental plates. The earth's crust is made up of several pieces, called plates. The plates under the oceans are called oceanic plates and the rest which are under the land surface are continental plates. The plates are moved around by the motion of a deeper part of the earth (the mantle) that lies underneath the crust. These plates are always bumping into each other, pulling away from each other, or past each other. The plates usually move at about the same speed that your fingernails grow. Earthquakes usually occur where two plates are running into each other or sliding past each other. Earthquakes mostly occur in places where there is a Fault Line. Plates under the Earth's surface move and push against each other. Some of these places are:

South America North America Japan New Zealand Africa Philippines India Caribbean Haiti


Alaska is the most earthquake-prone state and one of the most seismically active regions in the world. Alaska experiences a magnitude 7 earthquake almost every year, and a magnitude 8 or greater earthquake on average every 14 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenani Koren (talk • contribs) 07:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake sensitivity?

There is a lot said about animals knowing when seismic events are supposed to happen, but what strength is needed to for humans to feel them? What's minimum magnitude? Apparently in the UK there are up to a 100 tremors-a-year but just about all of them are never noticed by the British population. Has any research done on what the threshold level is for humans? Or is that just a geologist secret?86.147.56.32 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The perception of earthquakes relates to the seismic intensity as measured on scales such as the Mercalli intensity scale, not magnitude. Intensity II shaking can be detected by a few people who are awake and at rest. This amount of shaking equates to a ground acceleration of about 0.0017 to 0.014 of g [2]. Mikenorton (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology and religion

In christian tradition/eschatology, earthquakes are considered as one of the "sign of the end of times" or of the "second coming of Christ" (see End of times, Matthew-24:7, Mark-13:8). They generally expect the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes to be greater and greater (which is of course contradicted by scientific evidence). The article is locked, but I'm posting this here for an editor to consider adding. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hej vi keder os så ha en god dag alle sammen ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poulnarskæg (talk • contribs) 07:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been almost 6 months. Any taker? Why is this article still protected if noone's in charge to improve it? Thanks. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

adding another picture??

The tectonic plates.

i think this could have room for another picture--Venajaguardian (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Types Of Earthquakes

There are two main types of earthquakes: Natural and Man-made. Naturally occurring (tectonic) earthquakes occur along tectonic plate lines (fault lines) while man-made earthquakes are always related to explosions detonated by man.

Tectonic earthquakes will occur anywhere there is sufficient stored elastic strain energy to drive fracture propagation along a fault plane. Plate boundaries move past each other smoothly and aseismically if there are no irregularities or asperities along the boundary that increase the frictional resistance; however, most boundaries do have such asperities that lead to stick-slip behavior. Once the boundary has locked, continued relative motion between the plates leads to increasing stress and stored strain energy around the fault surface. The energy increases until the stress breaks through the asperity, suddenly allowing sliding over the plate and releasing the stored energy. This energy is released as a combination of radiated elastic strain seismic waves, frictional heating, and cracking of the rock, which all adds up to an earthquake. This process is called the elastic rebound theory. It is estimated that only 10 percent or less of an earthquake’s total energy is radiated as seismic energy. Most of the earthquake’s energy is used to power the fracture growth or is converted into heat generated by friction.

Occasionally, naturally occurring earthquakes happen away from fault lines. When plate boundaries occur in continental lithosphere, deformation is spread out over a much larger area than the plate boundary, so earthquakes occur away from the plate boundary and are related to strains developed within the broader zone of deformation caused by major irregularities in the fault trace. Also, all tectonic plates have internal stress fields caused by their interactions with neighboring plates and sedimentary loading or unloading. These stresses may be sufficient to cause failure along existing fault planes, giving rise to intraplate earthquakes.

The other type of earthquake is the artificial or man-made quake. This type of quake has been felt all over the world after the detonation of a nuclear weapon. There is very little actual data that is readily available on this type of quake, but, of the two types of of earthquakes it is the only type that can be easily predicted and controlled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas1903 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? Mikenorton (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the site is managed by a NASA engineer who manages an amateur seismograph setup in his basement. This is not being requested for promotion. The calculator provides useful comparisons between earthquake magnitude and common energy sources.

Tranders (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Tim Anderson[reply]

Please Add the category "Types Of Earthquakes"

Please Add the category "Types Of Earthquakes" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_earthquake The page says it is an orphan. So, you can introduce it to its parents.

Thank You. We love Wikipedia and its sister projects. Mridul942 (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - but others may revert it. Your request was confusing, as Types of earthquake (singular, only a capital T) is not a category at all, but a list in article-space. - Arjayay (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not one word of prevention

Mention somewhere in the article if anybody has ever thought of ways to prevent earthquakes, e.g., by inducing little ones to relieve stress, etc. Jidanni (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned, because it isn't done as far as I know (happy to be proved wrong), probably for the reasons mentioned here - basically no-one wants to trigger a major earthquake while trying to release stress by inducing a small one, a real ethical minefield. Mikenorton (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then mention that! Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC) P.S., it says a limit has been reached so one cannot read that book.[reply]

A hypotheses (i.e. stored elastic strain energy) is being stated as if it were a Fact which it is not.

This statment in the article:

"Tectonic earthquakes occur anywhere in the earth where there is sufficient stored elastic strain energy to drive fracture propagation along a fault plane."

should have the word "hypothetically" added:

"...anywhere in the earth where _Hypothetically_ there is sufficient stored elastic strain..."

No one has proven the statement to be true as originally written and therefore the added word is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.43 (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The association between most earthquakes and the release of tectonically-generated strain energy along faults is universally accepted by seismologists. Strain is routinely measured (often in terms of uplift or subsidence) in areas where large faults are locked, in an attempt to better forecast (not predict) future earthquakes. I've added a citation to that paragraph to a recent book, which explains this in more detail. Mikenorton (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to avoid disasters, new technologies

in order to protect the existing buildings, monuments (churchs, nuclear power plant ....) it is a way tested near Grenoble (France) : a grid of holes around the target. The digs cancel quake

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earthquake&oldid=639487118"