[143973] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: East Coast Earthquake 8-23-2011
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Howard)
Wed Aug 24 17:16:57 2011
In-Reply-To: <CAACFE01-749B-48E9-A718-BA789BF51460@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:15:56 -0700
From: Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> A 5.8 (or 5.9, I've seen conflicting numbers) really isn't likely to do all
> that much damage, even on the East Coast.
>
A 5.6 quake in Newcastle, Australia in 1989 caused, according to Wikipedia,
"13 fatalities, 160 people hospitalised, 300,000 people affected. 50,000
homes damaged, 300 buildings demolished. Damage estimated at $4 billion".
I left Newcastle in 1997, and even then there were will houses that had not
been fully repaired from the damage caused.
A smaller 5.2 quake in 1994 "only" caused $35 million worth of damage.
So whilst it's not unusual for 5.x quakes to pass without causing any real
damage, there's a lot more to it than just the magnitude...
Even the 3.6 magnitude one in CA last night was enough to cause my mini-UPS
at home to jump onto battery for a few seconds.
Scott.
