The damage to Vancouver, Seattle and Portland will be significantly higher from the earthquake itself due to the lack of bombardment (and subsequent rebuilding) in WW2, so that the building codes for many older buildings aren't up to snuff. Plus those three cities will be closer to the epicenter than Tokyo was.
As far as the Tsunami goes, the damage won't be as great simply because the coast isn't as populated. I think the largest town is 9,000 people. Though on the other hand, there will be less time between the quake and the tsunami.
The article asserts that major earthquakes cluster around the edges of plates, but doesn't give references.
Yes, major earthquakes cluster in time, but this isn't suprising. Any set of rare events will see clustering in time. It'd be a surprise if it weren't. It doesn't need a cause.
Second, the Christchurch earthquake wasn't anything exception as far as strength, and it wasn't even located on the subduction zone, but another unknown fault 100km inland. What made that earthquake exceptional was that it was very shallow and was directly under the city.
It wasn't even that strong of an earthquake.
The Nisqually quake in Washington state 10 years ago was 0.5 magintudes stronger, but was very deep, which is why it didn't do nearly the damage that it could have, considering it was of the same magnitude of the Loma Prieta quake.
And to predict that the San Andreas is next isn't anything special either. The southern part of the San Andreas is well overdue for a large quake. It could happen tomorrow, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the Chille or Japan quakes.
Third, what geologists are claiming that these quakes are connected anyway? The Newsweek doesn't quote any, and the journalist is not a seismologist.
A bit way north is quietly rumbling "Cascadia Subduction Zone" (similar to that one of Japan) that might produce massive quake of magnitude 9 or higher with tsunami of approximately 30 meters (100 ft), but that is more of a Canucks' problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone
If by 'Canucks' you're starting to include people in Washington, Oregon and northern California, then yes.
One thing I've discovered regarding the media and explaining/describing something scientific, is that they often royally screw it up. So often I read interviews that I've done for a local paper and say to myself "That's completely wrong! Argh!"
Well, here's one problem. Hail takes about 30 minutes to grow from a hail embryo to golf ball size. Thunderstorms usually are travelling around 20 mph and during the spring, often faster. So this would need to have a radius of effect of 10 miles. And most thunderstorms won't dump their load on that site anyways, considering how small it is. So if it's really effective, it should be over a wide area.
Which it isn't.
Because it doesn't work.
The AgI wouldn't be inhaled, it would be ingested in the water. But even then the concentration of Ag is extemely low and you likely have more silver in your saliva. That said, I don't know what the exact concentration in Colorado is, because obviously there is more application over a longer period of time in one location. In winter time cloud seeding programs, monitoring is necessary, but you really need a lot of it before it becomes hazardous (for example in the Alberta project, the approximate concentration of AgI in the water is around 1% of the safe limits as defined by the EPA).
I'm glad you posted that, so I wouldn't have to. I've been a meteorologist working on the Alberta Hail Suppression Project for four of the past 6 years and really get annoyed by this stuff....
Slashdot Mirror
The damage to Vancouver, Seattle and Portland will be significantly higher from the earthquake itself due to the lack of bombardment (and subsequent rebuilding) in WW2, so that the building codes for many older buildings aren't up to snuff. Plus those three cities will be closer to the epicenter than Tokyo was. As far as the Tsunami goes, the damage won't be as great simply because the coast isn't as populated. I think the largest town is 9,000 people. Though on the other hand, there will be less time between the quake and the tsunami.
The article asserts that major earthquakes cluster around the edges of plates, but doesn't give references. Yes, major earthquakes cluster in time, but this isn't suprising. Any set of rare events will see clustering in time. It'd be a surprise if it weren't. It doesn't need a cause. Second, the Christchurch earthquake wasn't anything exception as far as strength, and it wasn't even located on the subduction zone, but another unknown fault 100km inland. What made that earthquake exceptional was that it was very shallow and was directly under the city. It wasn't even that strong of an earthquake. The Nisqually quake in Washington state 10 years ago was 0.5 magintudes stronger, but was very deep, which is why it didn't do nearly the damage that it could have, considering it was of the same magnitude of the Loma Prieta quake. And to predict that the San Andreas is next isn't anything special either. The southern part of the San Andreas is well overdue for a large quake. It could happen tomorrow, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the Chille or Japan quakes. Third, what geologists are claiming that these quakes are connected anyway? The Newsweek doesn't quote any, and the journalist is not a seismologist.
A bit way north is quietly rumbling "Cascadia Subduction Zone" (similar to that one of Japan) that might produce massive quake of magnitude 9 or higher with tsunami of approximately 30 meters (100 ft), but that is more of a Canucks' problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone
If by 'Canucks' you're starting to include people in Washington, Oregon and northern California, then yes.
You might end up with this: http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Wind-Kevin-J-Anderson/dp/0312857608
Cycle 23 bottomed out in 2008. We're now into cycle 24. That said, Cycle 24 is following fairly closely the Dalton minimum of the early 1800s.
Here's one based on the 'satellite model' of comets. http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/Dee pImpact.asp
One thing I've discovered regarding the media and explaining/describing something scientific, is that they often royally screw it up. So often I read interviews that I've done for a local paper and say to myself "That's completely wrong! Argh!"
Coalescent, by Stephen Baxter.
Well, here's one problem. Hail takes about 30 minutes to grow from a hail embryo to golf ball size. Thunderstorms usually are travelling around 20 mph and during the spring, often faster. So this would need to have a radius of effect of 10 miles. And most thunderstorms won't dump their load on that site anyways, considering how small it is. So if it's really effective, it should be over a wide area. Which it isn't. Because it doesn't work.
Uhh, Belgium isn't exactly Hail Alley. Lets see these guys stick some of these along the Rocky Mountain foothills and see how well they work.
The AgI wouldn't be inhaled, it would be ingested in the water. But even then the concentration of Ag is extemely low and you likely have more silver in your saliva. That said, I don't know what the exact concentration in Colorado is, because obviously there is more application over a longer period of time in one location. In winter time cloud seeding programs, monitoring is necessary, but you really need a lot of it before it becomes hazardous (for example in the Alberta project, the approximate concentration of AgI in the water is around 1% of the safe limits as defined by the EPA).
I'm glad you posted that, so I wouldn't have to. I've been a meteorologist working on the Alberta Hail Suppression Project for four of the past 6 years and really get annoyed by this stuff....
Actually, the insurance companies pay the entire cost of the program. I'm one of the meteorologists who works on it each year.