On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:39:07 -0700, azzure@olypen.com wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>
>>
>> 1994 wasn't a huge earthquake.
>>
>
>I guess "huge" is a relative term. The Northridge ('94) quake was a
>6.7, and was really scary to live through.
Loma Prieta was similarly large and scarey, but it was not a huge
earthquake.
>We were 25 miles or so from
>the epicenter and so were relatively unscathed, but there was massive
>property damage (I had friends who lost their homes) and some loss of
>life as well.
Believe me, everyone will understand the difference when a huge
earthquake hits LA or SF.
Now I live near Seattle. We had a 6.8 quake here in
>2001, but it wasn't nearly as frightening, or damaging, as the
>Northridge quake (mostly because it was centered far underground.)
But Seattle will, in future (today or maybe a hundred years from
now), suffer an earthquake even larger than LA or SF.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |