Slashdot Mirror

Oh, please. This 5.6 quake is the seventh 4+ earthquake in Oklahoma since 1995 (eighth if you include the 4.7 foreshock). As much as I would love to see this linked to fracking (seriously, don't get me started on the energy industry), let's not jump to conclusions.

See this link for the list.

And did you notice that, of those 8 earthquakes, 4 of them have been since 2010? According to this there are 181 fracking facilities in the county where these earthquakes have been occurring. Maybe it's not caused by fracking, but I find it hard to believe that 181 fracking sites devoted to breaking up the earth's crust within a single county has no effect on seismic activity.

Oh, please. This 5.6 quake is the seventh 4+ earthquake in Oklahoma since 1995 (eighth if you include the 4.7 foreshock). As much as I would love to see this linked to fracking (seriously, don't get me started on the energy industry), let's not jump to conclusions.

See this link for the list.

Here's the official info on the quake from the USGS: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/usb0006klz.php

I'm in Norman, OK, and there was definitely some pretty good shaking here, although not enough to cause any real damage (it knocked a stack of dvd cases off of my dresser... not sure if that counts as "damage"). In the small towns closer to the epicenter there was certainly some damage, however. At least one highway was buckled in a spot, and there were apparently multiple instances of chimneys collapsing and falling through people's roofs, so some luck was involved in no one getting seriously hurt. Not California level earthquake damage, sure, but perhaps more than just "minor", at least by OK earthquake standards.

There was also a 4.7 quake centered near the same spot around 2:15 local time yesterday morning. The area where the quakes occurred has occasionally been having small tremors for well over a year now, although the last one before yesterday that was strong enough for everyone in Norman to feel was last October (in 2010).

Within the last 5 hours there have been 7 quakes of 3.0 or greater. I lived in that general region for several years and never saw or heard of any activity (not that I was glued to the USGS or anything).

Of course the largest earthquake recorded was on April 4th, 1952 around El Reno, Oklahoma. However, if you discount the last 24 hours, there doesn't seem to have been much recent activity of note in that region of the state (some of the source material is quite dated). Here is more information on the region.

Within the last 5 hours there have been 7 quakes of 3.0 or greater. I lived in that general region for several years and never saw or heard of any activity (not that I was glued to the USGS or anything).

Of course the largest earthquake recorded was on April 4th, 1952 around El Reno, Oklahoma. However, if you discount the last 24 hours, there doesn't seem to have been much recent activity of note in that region of the state (some of the source material is quite dated). Here is more information on the region.

Within the last 5 hours there have been 7 quakes of 3.0 or greater. I lived in that general region for several years and never saw or heard of any activity (not that I was glued to the USGS or anything).

Of course the largest earthquake recorded was on April 4th, 1952 around El Reno, Oklahoma. However, if you discount the last 24 hours, there doesn't seem to have been much recent activity of note in that region of the state (some of the source material is quite dated). Here is more information on the region.

Within the last 5 hours there have been 7 quakes of 3.0 or greater. I lived in that general region for several years and never saw or heard of any activity (not that I was glued to the USGS or anything).

Of course the largest earthquake recorded was on April 4th, 1952 around El Reno, Oklahoma. However, if you discount the last 24 hours, there doesn't seem to have been much recent activity of note in that region of the state (some of the source material is quite dated). Here is more information on the region.

1. It wasn't past it's design lifetime. The reactors were each 35-40 years into a 40 year initial license (but only 25-30 years since first criticality). With a design lifetime of at least 50 years.

2. It was designed for a maximum of a magnitude 8 quake. A magnitude 8+ earthquake did not have "a relatively high probability" in it's lifetime when it was built. There is an average of 1 per year worldwide, 81% of those along the 40,000km "ring of fire". That does not translate into a "relatively high probability" for one in a 60 year span even in Japan. If you look at the history of large earthquakes in Japan, you'll find that M8+ quakes were very infrequent prior to it's construction, and that it has survived a number of magnitude M6.5-M8.3 quakes in it's lifetime. I would say it performed extremely well.

3. It wasn't predictable: "It was the most powerful known earthquake ever to have hit Japan."

4. While the actual ground movement from the earthquake at the plant was only 1/2 what it was designed to withstand, the tsunami was nearly 3x what it was designed to withstand. "The design basis accident for an earthquake was between 0.42 g (4.15 m/s2) and 0.52 g (5.12 m/s2) and for a tsunami was 5.2 m" Actual ground movement was 0.21g-0.28g and the tsunami was 14m-15m.

In short, everything you claimed is false.

Geothermal mapping has been happening for decades, publicly and privately funded, in many countries of the world. The potential is real, though the technological challenges are real too (how do you drill a well in rock that's hot enough to turn your drilling fluid super-critical? I work in drilling, and I see it as a whole host of inter-related problems. Which is not saying that it's impossible, just that it's difficult. And therefore it's expensive. Which you've got to make economical within certain energy price ranges.)

Example : USGS map of geothermal potentials, dated 2008 ; a little research will give you ones dated further back for some areas.(This link appears very flaky - I can't get the PDF to download fully, but the cover page implies there are maps there.)
A page with working maps back to 2006.

I work on the Landsat project.

Yes, Landsat 7 is controlled from Sioux Falls. But every downlink station (and we have over a dozen of them, including one in China) has the ability to communicate with the satellite to trigger a download of recorded imagery. I assume that's all the hackers did, which means all they would be able to do is wipe some imagery out of the archive. That's a hair-raising scenario for us but not significant for most people.

Only EROS has the ability to upload flight commands to the satellite. That's not to say that Svalbard couldn't, they just don't have the software and one would hope they don't have the documentation needed to form the command syntax. But if they had those things and a hacker took control of them, they could burn the satellite into the atmosphere or send it careening around in its orbital neighborhood. Chances of it hitting another satellite and breaking into a million disaster-causing pieces are minor but not zero.

This is a scary news story for us. I'm interested in seeing the full report when it's finally released.

Um... unless something has changed, Landsat 7 is controlled from EROS which is outside of Sioux Falls, SD.

> Still think the gases are so bad

These radioactive "gases" like Radon are indeed worse, are you lucky and out of the 'zone'?

USGS Radon map

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/rnus.html

For the same reason that the people in California help pay for flood monitoring
http://nd.water.usgs.gov/floodtracking/

Why should the people of North Dakota pay for tsunami monitoring for California? If the west coast wants earth quake and tsunami warning, they can pay for it.

North Dakota is not geologically inert. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1909_05_16.php

He also wants to axe NOAA, of which the National Weather Service is a part, which tracks weather events like thunderstorms and blizzards that affect North Dakota.

Besides, your callous attitude would seem to lead to something like this:
"Why should I have to do anything to help anyone? Screw 'em." (later) "Eeek, I'm in trouble, why won't someone help me?!"

A Tsunami can be caused by any sudden change in the sea floor level. (other causes are also possible) The ocean rushes in to level things out (fill in the hole) and the momentum of that rushing movement causes the surge.

Fill a bucket with water in a swimming pool starting with the top of the bucket level with the water. Try to yank it out quickly it without a wave propagating and you will see the problem. There were probably tsunamis at the same time as the quakes that lowered the water levels. The waves themselves did not cause the prolonged flooding.

See this link. http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/sumatra05/subsidence.html Also similar effects happened in Japan in March.

What I will argue against however is the constant use of bullshit to try and convince people that they should hate themselves for existing, in the name of global warming.

What an awesome strawman!

I am sure that recent volcanic activity alone has affected the global climate far more than human activity.

So much for relying on facts & science. Man makes about 150 *times* more co2 than volcanoes. Per year.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html

Or volcanic CO2 production is about 1% of man-made CO2 production (as of 4 years ago):
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
Maybe you should go back and actually look at what these changes might make to the chemical & temperature balance of the atmosphere.

But, no, we're not affecting anything by dumping that much CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level rise of only one-half meter.

So a 15% melting should show a 12m rise in ocean level.

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2009/climate-change-sea-level

Measurements gathered by tide gauges through the 20th century show that global sea level rose at an average rate of 1.7 mm per year – this translates to about two-thirds of an inch per decade. Satellite altimeter data gathered from 1993 to 2003 indicate that the rate of global average sea level rise increased to 3.1 mm per year, or about one and a quarter inches per decade.

There has been an 18 cm rise since 1900, and the rate of rise is increasing.

The point that is often made is that a single volcanic eruption absolutely dwarfs mans CO2 emissions such that they become irrelevant.

That is not factually true.

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 exceeds the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times.

According to the USGS, volcanic eruptions emit 130 M ton of CO2. According to newscientist, human CO2 emissions are in the 26.4 G ton range in 2007.

Guanxi, your links are appreciated. Don't forget the US Geological Survey ( http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/irene ), they will make the raw data available in a few more days. It looks like the baby-faced politicians are making mockery of the serious science of weather forecasting in a very apparent attempt to defund and dismantle another of our "Crown Jewels". If an agency doesn't drop bombs, wreck havoc or kill people ("Let God Sort Them Out", to use the vernacular), these numbskull pols consider it a waste of tax revenue. President Bush defunded the USGS to such an extent that he refused to issue a Tsunami warning to Indonesia; I guess Hurricane and severe weather forecasting is next on the chopping block.

It wasn't much of a storm. people from Vermont just don't know how to respond to a Hurricane. It was barely a Category 1. Let a 3-4 roll through, and then come back and try to tell me Irene was a bad storm. I've slept through worse.

We didn't have bad winds here in Vermont, but 10" of rain in several hours caused flash floods 7 or 8 times the volume of normal spring flooding. Almost every major road in the state has been washed out in at least one place and there are dozens of bridges gone or damaged. See: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110829/NEWS02/110829007/Governor-Vermont-seeing-worst-flooding-century

As one example, my local New Haven River normally flows at ~200 cubic-feet/second (cfs) through the summer and winter and floods to 2,000-3,000 cfs each spring. Last night it flash flooded to 20,000 cfs and took out several sections of roads and bridges. In southern VT, the Williams river flashed from 80 cfs to 50,000 cfs (normal spring flooding of 5,000-8,000 cfs).

I live on a hill, so we slept through much of the storm without worry. Those in the valleys had to be evacuated.

It wasn't much of a storm. people from Vermont just don't know how to respond to a Hurricane. It was barely a Category 1. Let a 3-4 roll through, and then come back and try to tell me Irene was a bad storm. I've slept through worse.

We didn't have bad winds here in Vermont, but 10" of rain in several hours caused flash floods 7 or 8 times the volume of normal spring flooding. Almost every major road in the state has been washed out in at least one place and there are dozens of bridges gone or damaged. See: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110829/NEWS02/110829007/Governor-Vermont-seeing-worst-flooding-century

As one example, my local New Haven River normally flows at ~200 cubic-feet/second (cfs) through the summer and winter and floods to 2,000-3,000 cfs each spring. Last night it flash flooded to 20,000 cfs and took out several sections of roads and bridges. In southern VT, the Williams river flashed from 80 cfs to 50,000 cfs (normal spring flooding of 5,000-8,000 cfs).

I live on a hill, so we slept through much of the storm without worry. Those in the valleys had to be evacuated.

It is a thought-provoking idea - "When" did Irene become a hurricane - and well worth my time to consider it. The US Geological Survey is an E-X-C-E-L-L-E-N-T source of information, and, in my humble opinion, criminally underfunded by our tax dollars (especially those companies that won't pay U.S. Taxes).

Use the following link inacoupladays
http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/irene/coastal-change/updated-assessment.php

Most people think water in rivers comes from snow and rain at the top of some mountain and just flows (Slashdot crowd is most likely not part of that "most people"). The reality is that the water comes 'up' from the ground into the river system after the precipitation over much much larger area http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthrivers.html . This is why environmentalist (and everyone else should) get pist when people bury and improperly dispose of stuff that is toxic - it's feeding ourselves waste not fit for consumption.

With a river as long and wide as the Amazon it's not surprising that the not all of the saturated water in the soil wells up to the ground but goes through porous rocks into a sub river. That combined with aquifer regions can hypothetically coalesce(sp?) into an underground river or lake system.

The number of actively erupting volcanoes is rather high actually, not from a historical stand point, but certainly into the hundreds. So if its true that one emits more than all of humanity, than certainly humanities impact means nothing if there are hundreds of other volcanoes all emitting more than man.

According to Wikipedia:

World total CO2 emissions by man kind: 29,888,121 metric tons (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

Volcanoes emittssions total per year: 117,934,016 (converted from 130M short tons from this source http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php)

So, they make up about 1/6th of the worlds CO2 emissions ... IF you ignore all other sources. Significant? Certainly, but we're not big buy on the block by far, and we're only looking at 2 sources which dilute our effect on the pool even more.

Human caused CO2 emissions are, by their very nature, significantly different in their geographic dispersion than a few volcanoes, but that couldn't be a factor at all, could it?

No. Well, it could be a factor, but its a safe bet it isn't, otherwise there would be much harsher (certainly massively higher CO2 levels) environments around these locations, there aren't once you get out of the immediate vicinity, which means the CO2 is being dispersed into the rest of the atmosphere equally. So the end result is that evidence says no, volcanoes don't get any special treatment compared to humans because of there limited numbers. If there was a difference, Hawaiians would know about it, and they don't. Well, they do know that when your house gets ran over by lava that its time to move, but I don't think the CO2 emissions up the mountain are bothering them a whole lot or making their islands hotter than you'd expect for being in the Tropics.

Of course, if you want to have real fun, start browsing 'climate' websites for 'facts' about the numbers and I'm sure you can prove me right and wrong 8 different ways to Sunday.

1. Considering CO2's IR absorbance is extremely easy to test and the information is vital to the accuracy of medical equipment used all over the world, I'm guessing that you read this somewhere and never fact checked it. Provide some primary sources.

2. Humans produce 100 times as much CO2 per year as volcanic eruptions do. Volcanic eruptions have been shown over and over to usually result in net cooling of the climate from sulfer dioxide emissions.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

It's ironic because I consider ignorance to include reading shit off a blog and not looking for primary sources or fact checking, which coincidentally seems to be exactly what you did.

CO2 released by human activity far outpaces volcanic CO2 release. Looking for a citation for a claim helps people avoid saying things that are easily proven to be incorrect.

From the USGS article:
"....not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. "

I am working off of what was being said on the news. I don't exactly have the record books in front of me. But according to the USGS, the historical record was 2.5

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/historical_state.php#maryland

But then the Maryland Geological Survey says 3.5 was the previous earthquake (not record)

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/earthquake.html

and shows a 4.5 in the same general area as this recent quake.

No, but it does give you a picture of the spectrum within the key area. Shakemap!

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/

Actually a 5.8 in California would probably get some news coverage. They only happen in populated areas of California a few times a decade.

Although it was funny last year when the East Coast made a big deal out of a 3.6 earthquake. A 5.8 is 2000 times stronger and 150 times shakier than a 3.6 according to this calculator.

We don't even need an inch of snow to get excited in California though. If there's so much as flakes of snow falling for five minutes, even if it melts when it hits the ground, that's already a pretty unusual event (outside of the mountains).

Um, No.

The place to go is: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/

They had it the epicenter mapped within a few seconds of me feeling the shaking. It's kinda what they do.

You can contribute info by filling out their online survey:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/

And you can sign up for notifications at:

https://sslearthquake.usgs.gov/ens/

Um, No.

The place to go is: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/

They had it the epicenter mapped within a few seconds of me feeling the shaking. It's kinda what they do.

You can contribute info by filling out their online survey:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/

And you can sign up for notifications at:

https://sslearthquake.usgs.gov/ens/

Um, No.

The place to go is: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/

They had it the epicenter mapped within a few seconds of me feeling the shaking. It's kinda what they do.

You can contribute info by filling out their online survey:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/

And you can sign up for notifications at:

https://sslearthquake.usgs.gov/ens/

I noticed this first on the USGS website, and was alarmed to see that the quake was near Farmville

This vs. this.

This vs. this.

not true.. 5.8 = 5.8

even though geology is different - for the area's the 5.8 is the measured amplitude of the strongest seismic wave.

USGS is pointing this one as a 5.9 at a depth of 1km.. luckily it i was in the middle of nowhere - had it been centered on a city on the eastern seaboard it this could have been a very bad earthquake.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/37.39.-79.-77_eqs.php

For what it's worth, the event page seems to have been revised but sits at a different URL, here.

Oh please... I live in Indonesia. A 5.9 earthquake barely even makes the news. A 5.9 is like, "Uhhh, hrmm, something feels strange, am I feeling a bit dizzy? Oh no, it's just a small earthquake."

Seriously though, the depth of the earthquake makes a big difference and this one seemed to be shallow, so I can imagine most people clearly felt it. However, the shake map looks pretty tame. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/c0005ild/

This was the biggest one to hit virginia since records.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1897_05_31.php

we aren't worried, but this was the largest earthquake to hit this area which makes it interesting and newsworthy.

0 damage would be highly improbable

83% likelihood of $1 million to $1 billion in damage
22% likelihood it killed someone

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/events/us/c0005ild/index.html

Interesting that Colorado got a M5.3 (which is rare). OMG. The End Is Near!

USGS link

The event webpage: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/usc0005ild.php

An estimated 5.8 magnitude in Virginia about 10 minutes ago, yeah...

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/at00lqe6x3.php

http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/
http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ironsteel.pdf

Feel free to conflate and construe, but it is pretty clear that raw steel production and imports are treated differently.

My statement that production is maybe higher is incorrect, blame my memory, but U.S. steel production has only dropped off by about 20% from the peak (and prior to the recession, it was at higher levels than most of the 20th century), while global production has continued to grow and grow.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/
http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ironsteel.pdf

Feel free to conflate and construe, but it is pretty clear that raw steel production and imports are treated differently.

My statement that production is maybe higher is incorrect, blame my memory, but U.S. steel production has only dropped off by about 20% from the peak (and prior to the recession, it was at higher levels than most of the 20th century), while global production has continued to grow and grow.

It's all over the place for a while, especially on /.. A ten second search would turn up enough stuff to study for some time. We still have our old REE mines as well as newly discovered ones. it's not that China has them all, but more that they can extract them cheaply due to labor and environmental costs as doing so usually involves lots of harsh solvents and left overs.

Take a look at the facts, and develop a theory from the facts.

Earth's climate swings hotter-colder-hotter-colder. Humans put out less CO2 than one volcano.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice? From this website:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. [snip] [W]hile 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

Fair enough. Depleted uranium, having been processed to extract most of the good stuff, has less U-235 than a given quantity of natural radiation. I suppose it would be preferable that coal plants emit depleted uranium, since it's about 60% less radioactive than a given quantity of raw uranium. Alas. You caught me.

Anyway, put some math to this, so we can put it to bed. Wikipedia says some 6.7x10^9 tons of coal are produced world wide, every year. USGS says the usual concentration of uranium in coal is 1-4ppm, but can be as high as 20ppm, although this is rare.

Let's say that worldwide coal contains on average, only 1ppm--arguably very generously conservative. That means 6700 tons of uranium which was previously embedded in the coal matrix has now gone somewhere else. Let's assume most of it went into the fly ash and or scrubbing media, which is destined to become the foundation for a new golf course, or just put into a huge pile, so it can wash away during a flood. What percentage, who can guess? The USGS also says in that article that fly-ash concentrates these numbers ten to thirty times. Lovely.

Since our friend U-235 exists in natural uranium at a rate of 0.7%, that also means about 47 tons of it are now out in the wild. Now, multiply these figures by a realistic ppm concentration--care to guess how much of that goes right up the exhaust pipe? Who knows, probably nobody, and if they did know the truth, they sure as hell wouldn't be proud to tell you. 20-30 years ago this wasn't even a consideration.

They say chernobyl vaporized, at the very highest estimation, 200 tons of fuel, but most scientists and engineers agree that "only" 50 tons of fuel were vaporized. Now consider these numbers quoted above are yearly numbers and and that coal consumption is going up, up up!

And friend, this is only for the uranium, not the cesium, not the thorium, and likewise not any of the other heavy metals which have bio-accumulated into coal--and even if 99% of it was successfully captured and disposed of in a sane way, that's still a chernobyl's worth of uranium being diffusely distributed into the atmosphere, every single year. Feel free to source your own information and do your own math.

Still, you have the balls to think nuclear plants, which emit basically zero radioactive materials during their normal course of operation--which they overwhelmingly do--and also that the engineers and scientists behind creating and maintaining them, and I quote you "have been supporting a deadly industry which will inevitable harm people"? You're royally fucked up!

More people would die from having to turn off the a/c every year without the benefit of nuclear power, than the sum total of nuclear accident related deaths. Period.

Actually, nuclear power increases over all emissions owing to its high opportunity cost which displaces more effective technology. http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library%2FE09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly

Here is a calculation for maximum possible sea level rise: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/