3 ms·

Curious if you have a reference for that?

• freetard 17y ago
  Here it goes: http://wpparty.com/tag/lucky-this-time/ http://wpparty.com/tag/lucky-this-time/ Not only the soil was different but the depth and location of the epicenter were not comparable: "Saturday’s quake was centered offshore an estimated 21 miles (34 kilometers) underground in a relatively unpopulated area while Haiti’s tectonic mayhem struck closer to the surface — about 8 miles (13 kilometers) — and right on the edge of Port-au-Prince, factors that increased its destructiveness. In terms of energy released at the epicenter, the Chilean quake was 501 times stronger. But energy dissipates rather quickly as distances grow from epicenters — and the ground beneath Port-au-Prince is less stable by comparison and “shakes like jelly,” says University of Miami geologist Tim Dixon. Survivors of Haiti’s quake described abject panic — much of it well-founded as buildings imploded around them. Many Haitians grabbed cement pillars only to watch them crumble in their hands."
• bmm6o 17y ago
  There's a great comment in this[0] Reddit thread that explains that while the quake in Chile registered higher on the Richter scale, that scale is not appropriate for judging the affect a quake has on buildings on the surface. Using the correct metric, the Haiti quake was far more damaging. Which isn't to say that building codes wouldn't have made a difference, just that the obvious conclusions are not necessarily accurate. [0] http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/b794q/the_88_chile_earthquake_killed_around_100200/ http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/b794q/the_88_chile_...