Tsunami effects (San Diego, Carson, Brea: buy, shop, to move)

[.highnlite]

thanks for that.

[nullgeo]

One man's disaster is another man's adventure.

Some rivers around the world are famous for twice-daily tidal bores ... where the rivers run upstream for miles when high tides come in ... in Nova Scotia, the Bay of Fundy has the world's highest tidal range, a 55 foot change - low to high, and the Shubenacadie River is a major tourist attraction for the phenomena ... One of my very most favorite places in the entire world.

People surf, kayak, and raft these bores ... here's some rafting footage on the Shubenacadie:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR5c8...eature=related

so too the Pororpca River in Brazil where some surf the bore dramatically:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZuZi...eature=related

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by tijlover

The most powerful earthquakes tend to be closer to the North or South Poles, for whatever reason.

I wouldn't worry about CA having an 8.0 or better, I'd worry more about Washington state, BC or Alaska. Didn't Alaska set all records back in 1964 with their 9.2 quake?

Towards the South Pole there's those awesome tremors in Chile.

That 9.2 was the second strongest quake I believe. One in Chile was the strongest. Here's the kicker; the big island of Hawaii is capable of producing a huge Tsunami on the west coast. It's possible part of the volcano could slide into the ocean. Not quite on the scale as the one on the Canary Is. of the Atlantic but still.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

9.1 is fairly impressive. What is more important than Richter Scale is type of fault, normal, strikeslip or reverse.

A 6 on a strikeslip is likely worse than an 8 on a normal fault.

I think you may have strike slip confused with subduction. Subductions are the worse. California's faults are strike slip.

[wit-nit]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

I've tried to make sense of this, but I can't.

• Inland depth of underwater charts?

• "Coastal areas will drop off the face of the earth over a 100 miles inland"? When did 100 miles inland become "coastal areas"?

I'm so confused.

California as well as the rest of the west coast sits on a continental shelf which is eroded about a hundred miles inland underwater. If you were to go into the ocean and dive down under water and followed the erosion pattern you would find that CA and the west coast from Baja to Canada is a ledge jutting out. A high magnitude earthquake is predicted someday to break off that area into the ocean.
Check these CA earthquake maps and you can see the red zones are inland about 100 miles and are the areas where the drop off is possible.
SCEC Probable Earthquakes 1994-2024 (http://www.data.scec.org/general/PhaseII.html - broken link)

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by nitram

California as well as the rest of the west coast sits on a continental shelf which is eroded about a hundred miles inland underwater. If you were to go into the ocean and dive down under water and followed the erosion pattern you would find that CA and the west coast from Baja to Canada is a ledge jutting out. A high magnitude earthquake is predicted someday to break off that area into the ocean.
Check these CA earthquake maps and you can see the red zones are inland about 100 miles and are the areas where the drop off is possible.
SCEC Probable Earthquakes 1994-2024 (http://www.data.scec.org/general/PhaseII.html - broken link)

Sounds like a great plot for a good movie. Let us know when you're done man

[atjl72]

umm no! stop trying to scare people with this false info. cal-tech said that ca CAN NEVER have an earthquake like the ones in japan. they are in a subduction zone...as is oregon, wa and alaska. japan has a huge fault that does not even compare to the san andreas. ca CANNOT have that type of earthquake. youneed to study subduction zones and fault lines before you come on here scaring people. my info straight form cal-tech and usgs.

[atjl72]

nitram, you need to stop with your ca falling off into the ocean talk. seriously. this is not funny and you are factually wrong. it is proven that unless God himself calls for the end of the world, no earthquake can break ca off.

[atjl72]

the moon has no scientific correlation to earthquakes...large solar flares/storms do...it's documented that large solar flares/storms are connected to earthquakes.

[atjl72]

Did you catch the comment by one geologist who was asked if such an earthquake was in California's future? He said no but it is along the Cascadia fault off Oregon and Washington. Well, I hope not in my lifetime. that was from an interview. nitram...think subduction zone-think cascadia fault...look it up and stop spewing the scare tactics. oh, i'm sorry, the arizona heat must have fried your brain! muuhahahaha.