Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nevada Earthquake Swarm Increases Chance of Larger Quake

Posted by samzenpus on from the whole-lot-of-shaking-going-on dept.

An anonymous reader writes Hundreds of small earthquakes have been gaining in strength in northwestern Nevada. The Nevada region bordering California and Oregon was hit by 18 quakes in less than 24 hours, with magnitudes measuring from 2.7 to 4.5. According to CNN: "This does not necessarily mean a big one will come, state seismologists said, but they added that it's good to be prepared, just in case. Seismologists refer to such quake groupings as swarms, and the U.S. Geological Survey has detected them regularly. They can produce thousands of small tremors."

47 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. hm... by notequinoxe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds like fracking to me....

    1. Re:hm... by RevGregory · · Score: 4, Informative

      One would think that the quakes would be on the faults where the fracking sites in Nevada are rather than a completely unrelated set of faults 400 miles away where they aren't.

    2. Re:hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't discount the possibility that the completely unrelated sites have really big freakin' frack cracks.

    3. Re:hm... by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like fracking to me....

      Given that fracking was illegal in Nevada until about a month ago, I'd say you're wrong.

    4. Re:hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nevada is a tectonically active area undergoing substantial amounts of stretching (purple dots = historical quakes). It's the whole reason for the "basin-and-range" topography that typifies the region. But, no, it sounds like hydraulic fracturing?

    5. Re:hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Highly unlikely. According to this map of oil and gas potential in Nevada [PDF], there aren't any oil and gas wells in that part of the state (western edge of Sheldon National Antelope Refuge), and even the oil and gas potential in that area is essentially nil due to the geology, such as the presence of an old volcanic caldera there (the northwesternmost red blob is practically on top of the area of the earthquake swarm). The conodont samples referred to on that map are a way to assess how much the local rocks have been heated. To the east of the earthquake area the square dots are red, indicating the rocks are thoroughly roasted. Other geology maps indicate the area is mostly volcanic and intrusive igneous rocks. There's no oil and gas drilling there. Zip.

      Nevada being a rather tectonically active area, suspecting it is from hydraulic fracturing is pretty unlikely in the first place. I know hydraulic fracturing is the favorite punching bag of people these days for anything related to any geological hazard, but there are plenty of natural causes before leaping to that conclusion.

    6. Re:hm... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      I blame plumbers everywhere.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    7. Re:hm... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      How about ... it is a fucking Volcano zone? (near Lassen, Shasta). No, it must be Fracking!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:hm... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      There is not much in that area except sagebrush and antelopes. The geologic survey found nothing of economic interest: a lot of old basalt flows. There are some wildlife study areas. It is an 8 hour drive from San Francisco, the same from Portland OR, and hundreds of miles from any fracking activity.

      I've been watching this swarm on the USGS World Earthquake Map. If it were not so inaccessible, I'd drive out there, but to do that safely would require carrying jerry cans of gas, and water and food for several days. This place is way back of beyond.

      --
      Will
    9. Re:hm... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Volcanoes are just God's way of fracking for magma!

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:hm... by execthis · · Score: 1

      FYI here's a link to the same map but with a much better view of the swarm in question.

    11. Re:hm... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      ....

      "Nature's fracking?"
      Come on, there has to be a way to pin earthquakes on fracking somehow.

      California didn't have any quakes until the oil companies moved in and started fracking up and down the coast.

  2. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 4, Informative

    L'Aquila, Italy, 2009.
    Mistakes must not be repeated.

    1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually he's right: what they got wrong in L'Aquila is that, after the hundreds of small quakes, (some) scientists and local authorities, in an ill-guided effort to prevent panic, told the general population, that there was nothing to fear, and no quake was coming. Here, judging from the summary, is the complete opposite: they don't say that an earthquake will necessarily come (no one can) but being prepared, just in case, doesn't certainly hurt.

    2. Re: SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

      Actually, with each small quake it is less likely that that particular area will see a major quake, because the tectonic stresses are being gradually released. What then becomes important is, with those plates sliding, where is the stress now building up? If the areas now building up stress snap under this new pressure we could see something major, but in a different location along the same fault. Some day I would hope we could predict where these stresses are likely to build up and deliberately frack those faultlines to weaken the rock structure so that the stresses never have a chance to build up to any significant magnitude. As long as the stresses dont have a chance to build we could keep the quakes down to a safer level. One day, with enough data collected, we might just be managing quakes by fracking.

    3. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only mistake in L'Aquila was mentioning that a swarm of small earthquakes doesn't necessarily mean a larger one is on the way, and isn't cause for heightened concern, both of which are true. There's no reason for an elevated risk. Earthquake swarms come and go without major quakes all the time. People then mistakenly interpreted this to mean that there was no risk at all, which is NEVER true in a well-known earthquake prone area such as L'Aquila and pretty much anywhere in Nevada.

      Putting it another way, a swarm of earthquakes neither increases nor decreases the risk of a big one, which is still there regardless. If anything, a swarm of earthquakes is a useful reminder of the risk that's always been there but which people have a tendency to forget about, like the centuries-old substandard buildings in L'Aquila that the local municipality allowed to remain occupied for many years before a large quake finally hit, as it inevitably would someday.

    4. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Timely:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  3. Anybody notice? by reboot246 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The headline and summary say the exact opposite.

    " . . .Increases Chance of Larger Quake" - Everybody panic!

    "This does not necessarily mean a big one will come, state seismologists said . . ." - Calm down.

    1. Re:Anybody notice? by MRe_nl · · Score: 2

      "Increases chance" is not the opposite of "does not necessarily mean".
      "There is a slightly elevated risk of a larger earthquake while the swarm is active" said seismologist Ian Madin from neighboring Oregon.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:Anybody notice? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, a swarm doesn't increase the chance of a larger quake. It just makes us more aware of the possibility that has existed all along.

    3. Re:Anybody notice? by SourceFrog · · Score: 1

      The science seems to still be out on whether earthquakes may trigger other earthquakes, but many consider it plausible: http://news.nationalgeographic... "Earthquakes Can Trigger More Earthquakes, Experts Say" "Can one earthquake cause another? A developing theory holds that quakes can pressure highly stressed fault lines and trigger subsequent seismic events" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
  4. Preferable to Rarer, Larger Quakes by Egg+Sniper · · Score: 2

    I was in Reno for the small swarm mentioned in the article; only a couple were even perceptible. I've also lived through a couple large earthquakes. I'd prefer little tremors all year round over the more damaging one-offs.

    Of course, I'm also the type of person who would rather be in (another) earthquake than a tornado or hurricane (neither of which I've experienced). The devil you know, I suppose.

    1. Re:Preferable to Rarer, Larger Quakes by dtmos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having been in all three (well, I wasn't exactly inside the tornado, but it was much too close for comfort), I agree that the earthquake is the choice of the lot -- if one has to be in one of the three.

      However, if the question is, "Which would you rather live in -- an earthquake-, tornado-, or hurricane-prone area?", my answer would be the hurricane-prone area, because these days they're by far the most predictable and, therefore, escapable. I'm comforted by the fact that should one appear, I will have enough warning to be elsewhere when it hits. It's a lot harder to say that about tornadoes and earthquakes.

    2. Re:Preferable to Rarer, Larger Quakes by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      I'd disagree on that. I've been through Hurricanes and tornadoes myself. They are relatively easy to prepare for. Don't live in a flood plane (New Orleans!?!?!) You can get hurricane straps at Home Depot for 50 cents each and do your whole house for under $50 on a Sunday. Buy a house with a basement so you have somewhere to shelter and you're good. Most importantly, hurricanes and tornadoes have an upper limit to their strength. You could get hit with the strongest of either (or both in some cases) and at worst, your house is gone but you're safe in the basement on high ground because you were smart. Earthquakes have no upper limit and you have no time to get to shelter. Your entire house could literally end up sitting in molten lava when it's over, but more likely some heavy thing falls on you... no thank you.

    3. Re:Preferable to Rarer, Larger Quakes by Egg+Sniper · · Score: 1

      This is usually the response I get from folks who have been through big storms (and sometimes zero earthquakes). At least with earthquakes, it's been my experience that people who've been through one are much less anxious about them than those who haven't. I suspect the same can be said for big storms. The main difference that comes up between earthquakes and storms is the predictability or prior warning. While it is certainly true that you can see a storm coming, I would guess that earthquake prone areas have a much smaller damage cost average over time compared to storm prone areas (both in lives and dollars).

      Given that lots of people live in earthquake and storm prone areas, I suspect the differences in impact between these types of disasters are largely psychological. Perhaps people from parts of the world where fatalities to such things are more common would have a different sense of which was 'worse'. In the developed world, preparation and building codes have relegated potential disaster choice to a largely financial decision.

    4. Re:Preferable to Rarer, Larger Quakes by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I've lived in both earthquake country and in the tornado belt (southern California and southern Minnesota respectively). Neither one really has all that much predictability, although tornadoes generally (from my experience) do much more localized damage than earthquakes.

      Floods are by far more destructive than either one, where I've seen flood waters come up gradually over the course of a day or two and gradually wipe out entire neighborhoods. You can take things out of such homes (even get a U-haul to move stuff while the flood is still rising), but destruction is all but certain for anything remaining. While I've been in earthquakes that have knocked me off my feet, the homes and businesses around me still stood up and everybody went back to work, school, or doing whatever it was that they did before. That was definitely not the case with floods where I've seen half the city cut off from the other half disrupting commerce and even daily commutes for people needing to work on either side of the flood or for those businesses or homes drowned out in that flood.

      Tornadoes just make for some excitement or panic for a little bit when the sirens go off. My grandmother said it reminded her of bombing air raids during World War II.

    5. Re:Preferable to Rarer, Larger Quakes by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      But I wasn't talking about destruction. Gods wrath can have my house, leave me out of it. Which is more likely to kill me? Earthquake. You can see Hurricanes and tornadoes coming from a long long way off. Tornadoes sound like a freight train approaching. There's no mistaking that. The people that get killed are usually living in trailers or don't have basements. Hurricane? You usually have DAYS of warning. Eathquake? You're just sitting there, reading the paper and BAM! Buildings falling on you. Not cool.

      Oh and floods? You have to be an idiot to get hurt in a flood. Trust me, I know a lot of idiots to. I've had plenty of people tell me about the awesome house they are looking at... River front! On a hill side! I just roll my eyes. If you have water on one side of your house and a hill on the other... you're going to get flooded. It's just a matter of time.

    6. Re:Preferable to Rarer, Larger Quakes by Teancum · · Score: 1

      If you are really paranoid about such things, one of the best places in the USA to avoid all of that is the city of Blanding, Utah It is geologically stable (very few earthquakes), enough older mountains to keep tornadoes from spawning, and far enough away from any ocean that any hurricanes that might form are at worst a mild tropical storm dropping some extra rain. There aren't even major rivers nearby that can cause significant flooding and it is far enough from major metro areas that you likely could survive even a major nuclear war. It is dry enough that even major forest fires are seldom things to cause problems. There isn't much else to do in the town either, but I suppose that is the price you pay for such a mundane location in the world.

  5. Re:Say Yer Prayers by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    God is preparing to smite New Gomorrah.

    The antelope refuge?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Re:Say Yer Prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You think God will spare the rest of the state? A full day's drive is nothing to God, idiot.

  7. Que the stories... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    California slides into the ocean. Lex Corp opens new beach front developments in Nevada. Superman is dead.

  8. OBVIOUSLY by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Yucca deposit has "attracted" Something that is slowly burrowing it's way through the Earth towards it.

    1. Re:OBVIOUSLY by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      "Graboids are to the desert what sharks are to the ocean" -- ugo.com

  9. Contradiction by dkman · · Score: 1

    The title says increases chance of larger quake yet the summary says does not necessarily mean a big one will come. So which is it? Don't you dare think I'll read the article to see what it says.

    --
    I refuse to sign
    1. Re:Contradiction by zethreal · · Score: 1

      It's not really a contradiction. Increasing the chance from .0000001% to .000002% is not just increasing, but DOUBLING the chance of something, but still means that there is very little chance of it occurring. (Numbers not related & for illustrative purposes only) They don't go into numbers, but it's basically along those lines. TLDR from the article: Quake swarms *can* mean that a larger quake is coming, but they do not believe that it is the case based that they have had several swarms in the area recently.

    2. Re:Contradiction by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      They are not conflicting statements, so there's no "which is it" - it can just be both.

      It's slashdot, so how about a car anology:

      By driving my car today I have increased my chance of being involved in a car crash (compared to if I just stayed home all day). That does not necessarily mean I will be involved in a car crash.

    3. Re:Contradiction by dkman · · Score: 1

      I absolutely get what you're saying. I'm not sure why I didn't read it that way to begin with. I think it was early and I wasn't really awake yet.

      After your post I had to go back and look at the original because I was convinced that it conflicted, but you are right that it does not.

      --
      I refuse to sign
  10. Re:Say Yer Prayers by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Earthquakes don't drive, hence Vegas is safe.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  11. Re:Say Yer Prayers by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    God is dog spelled backwards, genius.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  12. Yellowstone hotspot/McDonalds/Impact Crater by __aapopf3474 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The area is near where the Yellowstone hotspot was over 16 million years ago.

    Also, this area was the furthest from a McDonalds in 2010.

    South of the swarm area, in the Black Rock Desert, was a suspected impact crater.

    Sounds like the start of a bad horror movie.

    1. Re:Yellowstone hotspot/McDonalds/Impact Crater by eyepeepackets · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Glad to see someone else made the connection between this location and the Yellowstone hotspot. In terms of geologic time, this entire area is really "hot" and prone to large events of various types. Having a concentrated earthquake swarm in this area is worrying, especially since I live in Boise....

      I was living in Portland during the whole Mt. St. Helens cycle in the late '70s/early '80s and the only adult nightmares I've ever had involve geologic events: It's hard to fully appreciate such things until you've experienced them.

      --
      Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
    2. Re:Yellowstone hotspot/McDonalds/Impact Crater by __aapopf3474 · · Score: 1
      There are possible calderas in the area, see a map on p. 4 of Mineral Resources of the Charles Sheldon Wilderness Study Area, Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada, and Lake and Harney Counties, Oregon," USGS, 1984.:

      Three prominent closed gravity minima along the south edge of the study area may reveal underlying calderas, which are masked by younger Tertiary rocks. The largest possible caldera is about 10.52 by 15.5 mi (17 by 25 km) in size, and, if the assumed underlying tuffaceous sedimentary rocks are, on the average, 0.2 g/cm3 less dense than the surrounding volcanic rocks, the caldera extends to a depth of about 1.7 mi (2.7 km). The areas along the edges of the postulated calderas are considered sites for possible future mineral exploration.

      and

      In the southwestern part of the Range, gravity and magnetic anomalies of substantial size suggest the possible existence of a caldera or buried pluton. The widespread geochemical anomalies in this area are similar in size and magnitude to the mineralized McDermitt Caldera approximately 82 mi (132 km) to the northwest in the Opalite mining district. Whether a caldera or buried pluton is present in the area, the geochemical data suggest that area C shown on figure 2 has a possible potential for concealed mercury and complex precious metal sulfide deposits.

      Also, the link to the McDonalds reference is: http://www.datapointed.net/201...

  13. The govt dept full of evil villains. by CODiNE · · Score: 3, Funny

    the U.S. Geological Survey has detected them regularly. They can produce thousands of small tremors."

    The USGS is not one to be messed with.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  14. Acorrding to CNN by tquasar · · Score: 1

    The leader in fake news. Make up something, Make it loud. "Just the facts, Ma'am" - Joe Friday, AKA Jack Webb. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear...{%22feed%22%3A%227day_m25%22%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Atrue%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3Atrue%2C%22timeZone%22%3A%22local%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A[[30.221101852485987%2C-131.30859375]%2C[43.229195113965005%2C-106.69921875]]%2C%22overlays%22%3A{%22plates%22%3Atrue}%2C%22viewModes%22%3A{%22map%22%3Atrue%2C%22list%22%3Afalse%2C%22settings%22%3Atrue%2C%22help%22%3Afalse}}

  15. uh by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    I thought a swarm decreased the chances of a big one by virtue of the smaller releases of tension between plates? I'd be worried if an area prone to tremors suddenly went quiet.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  16. Re:Say Yer Prayers by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    All hail the Great Dalmation!

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  17. No? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    There is contradicting evidence of series of small earth quakes are an indication for a bigger one to follow. Whether the actual earth quakes have an effect on the likelyhood of a bigger one happening is even a step further in the kind of science we are only starting to figure out. Causation, correlation and chance when it comes to earth quakes so far has been historical statistics and no significant trustworthy method has yet been discovered. Sure, we've made progress and statistics are favorable, but right now there's nothing you can trust on in terms of magnitude or time of earth quakes in the (near) future.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?