Mike Dayton CA Emergency Management Over 7.5 not likely in California

[itsrobert]

Says the science doesn't support that happening.

This was on MSNBC with Chuck Todd interviewing.

Anyone have facts to this? Is above 7.5 really out of possibility?

[bullwinkle428]

1. Is he auditioning for the opening scene of a disaster movie?

[spanone]

2. he was very unconvincing

[itsrobert]

3. I hate to say it, but I think the guy has a weed problem

Maybe he had to get up early?

[spanone]

4. he talked like a used policitican.....i would place NO trust in him

[vanlassie]

5. That guy just scared the crap out of me.

He had nothin.

[still_one]

6. The 1906 SF earthquake was above 7.5, how can that idiot make a statement like that. However, even

if he is right, and it is a 7.0, that does not mean it won't have major consequences, so if he is trying to give the impression there is nothing to worry about, and we don't need to take extra precautions, he is a jerk

[hatrack]

7. What a relief!

1857 1 9 16 0 35 42.00 120 18.00 8.25 Great Fort Tejon earthquake

1872 3 26 1030 36 42.00 118 6.00 7.6 Owens Valley

1899 4 16 1340 41 0. 126 0. 7.0 W. of Eureka

1906 4 18 1312 37 42.00 122 30.00 8.25 Great 1906 earthquake

1915 11 21 013 32 0. 115 0. 7.1 Volcano Lake, B.C.

1923 1 22 9 4 40 30.00 124 30.00 7.2 Cape Mendocino

1927 11 4 1350 34 42.00 120 48.00 7.3 SW of Lompoc

1932 12 21 610 38 45.00 118 0. 7.2 Cedar Mountain, Nevada

1940 5 19 436 32 44.00 115 30.00 7.1 Imperial Valley

1952 7 21 1152 35 0. 119 1.00 7.7 Kern County earthquake

1954 12 16 11 7 39 19.00 118 12.00 7.1 Fairview Peak, Nevada

1980 11 8 1027 41 7.00 124 40.00 7.2 W. of Eureka

1989 10 18 0004 37 2.19 121 52.98 7.1 Loma Prieta

1991 8 17 2217 41 41.00 126 3.00 7.1 W. of Crescent City

1992 4 25 1806 40 20.00 124 14.00 7.2 Cape Mendocino

1992 6 28 1157 34 12.00 116 26.00 7.3 Landers

1999 10 16 947 34 35.64 116 16.26 7.1 Hector Mine

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/sca/ca_eqs.php

Obviously, some of the older quakes have been reconstructed using amount of ground movements & recorded seismic sea wave heights as proxies.

[wysimdnwyg]

14. Filtering and trying to make this a bit more readable

DATE	        TIME(GMT)    LATITUDE	LONGITUDE	MAG	LOCATION
year  mth dy    hr min	(N)  (W)		
===== === ===	=========== 
========	===========	=======	======================
1769  7   28	0 0	     34  0.00	118  0.00	6	Los Angeles Basin
1857  1   9	16 0	     35 42.00	120 18.00	8.25	Great Fort Tejon
earthquake
1872  3   26	1030	     36 42.00	118  6.00	7.6	Owens Valley
1906  4   18	1312	     37 42.00	122 30.00	8.25	Great 1906
earthquake
1952  7   21	1152	     35  0.00	119  1.00	7.7	Kern County
earthquake

[studmoose]

8. Never say never

Wow! And the folks in Japan never thought a 9.0 was possible either.

[HereSince1628]

9. True, and although it's parsing 'not likely' isn't 'not possible.'

When pressed most scientists are open to the possibility that future events changing their understanding.

[CreekDog]

10. The Bay area and SoCal are on Strike-Slip faults which don't generate as big of earthquakes

also less likely to cause tsunamis.

In Japan and in the Pacific Northwest, by contrast, there are subduction zones which can generate mammoth quakes.

that said, the San Andreas did create a 7.9 in 1906.

[spanone]

11. it will happen here....in north ca.

March 15, 2011
Oregon suffered only minor damage from the tsunami that swept across the Pacific in the wake of Thursday's colossal earthquake in Japan. Minor, that is, when compared with the horrific devastation suffered by the Japanese.

Still, one man lost his life, and U.S. ports will spend millions rebuilding after waves destroyed boats and docks up and down the West Coast.

The good news here is that tsunami warning systems worked as they were designed to. Buoys installed in the ocean after the 2004 Indonesia quake registered the swell, and U.S. coastal residents were alerted, by sirens and then by telephone calls, that the tsunami was on its way.

Americans had the luxury of time because the swell took hours to cross the Pacific. That won't be the case when a major subduction zone quake strikes on our side of the ocean.

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110315/OPINION/103150301/-1/NEWSMAP

[vanlassie]

12. But there is also a deep ocean fault capable of producing a 100 foot tsumani off CA coast, correct?

[liberal N proud]

13. He might want to recant that statement before he has to eat those words

I don't think statements like that will prevent a fault from moving