Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday November 20 2018, @05:36PM   Printer-friendly

Phys.org:

World War II-era oil pumping under Los Angeles likely triggered a rash of mid-sized earthquakes in the 1930s and 1940s, potentially leading seismologists to overestimate the earthquake potential in the region, according to new research published in AGU's Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth.

Six independent earthquakes and two aftershocks of magnitude 4.4 to 5.1 shook L.A. between 1935 and 1944, a rate of about one every two years. The area also experienced a higher rate of low-intensity earthquakes during that time frame. After 1945, the rate dropped to one moderate earthquake every seven years.

The new study re-examined historical information about the earthquakes from archived newspaper reports of earthquake damage, postcard questionnaires collected by the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and other sources pulled from old files and the dusty corners of cyberspace.

The authors used this information to refine the earthquake locations identified by early earth-motion sensors. The first seismometers in the United States began monitoring earthquake activity in the L.A. region in 1932. It is known that these early instruments could err in locating earthquake epicenters by tens of miles because of the limitations of their clocks, and because the low-sensitivity instruments were so few, according to the study's authors. Extrapolation of earthquake location from seismometer recordings relies on accurate time measurements.

The oil companies active at the time associated their activities with increased earthquakes, because the quakes would often sever pipes and shutdown production for months.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 20 2018, @07:00PM (11 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 20 2018, @07:00PM (#764341)

    Fracking is not a problem, the new EPA website tells me so, it must be true.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday November 20 2018, @07:24PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 20 2018, @07:24PM (#764354) Journal

    The new EPA website must be better than the old EPA website . . . because . . . well, . . . it's new.

    --
    To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 22 2018, @03:39PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 22 2018, @03:39PM (#765231) Journal
    I notice you don't mention any reason to doubt the EPA on this matter.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 23 2018, @04:43PM (6 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday November 23 2018, @04:43PM (#765581)

      Anything directed by the present executive office is random at best, almost as suspect of behind the scenes financial motivation as prior executive tenants, more likely based in crazy than any office since James Buchanan's, and probably the most suspect of influence by a potentially hostile foreign power ever (though that seems unlikely to be a factor in the fracking change...)

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 24 2018, @06:42AM (5 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 24 2018, @06:42AM (#765827) Journal

        more likely based in crazy than any office since James Buchanan's

        One doesn't need to look that far back. Obama's administration was pretty loony too with the EPA coming up with such gems as arguing in court [wikipedia.org] that someone had to pay a massive fine before they could contest the fine.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 24 2018, @05:51PM (4 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 24 2018, @05:51PM (#765931)

          There's a difference between lawyers being assholes (part of the job description, really) and actual crazy, ignorant, etc. For examples, sample any 3 presidential statements since February of 2017, at least one should stand out as something not worthy to come from the highest office in the land.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:15AM (3 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:15AM (#766099) Journal

            There's a difference between lawyers being assholes (part of the job description, really) and actual crazy, ignorant, etc.

            And that difference is?

            For examples, sample any 3 presidential statements

            Presidential statements aren't testimony before a court. Obama said some wacky shit too, but I didn't count that.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:16AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:16AM (#766100) Journal
              I meant to say court argument not court testimony.
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:23PM (1 child)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:23PM (#766191)

              Everybody says some wacky shit, the difference is the frequency and magnitude.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 01 2018, @08:22PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 01 2018, @08:22PM (#768713) Journal
                Ok, a wacky argument in court is a higher magnitude than a wacky tweet.