5 ms·

The numbers don't work out because the scale is logarithmic, and no serious seismologists appear to recommend such a thing. To avert a magnitude 8 earthquake ev

by stouset 11y ago

The numbers don't work out because the scale is logarithmic, and no serious seismologists appear to recommend such a thing. To avert a magnitude 8 earthquake every 100 years, you'd roughly need a magnitude 6 every year, or a magnitude 5 every three and a half days.

mjevans 11y ago
I wonder how many would advocate trying to have a /planned/ earthquake each 100 years? Surely one planned in advance which everyone is prepared for is better than the unknown.
- brooklyndavs 11y ago
  If the infrastructure is up to the task and it would actually be doable (say release fault pressure with a magnitude 5 earthquake every 3 years via some sort of method) it might not be such a bad idea. Way easier to build for a planned magnitude 5.x quake every few years vs a 7 or 8 at unknown time intervals. Heck it could even be fun. Make it a holiday, tell people the time its going to happen and let them ride it out. Personally, I'd be at a bar. :)
  - stouset 11y ago
    Reread my comment. A magnitude 5 every 3.5 days, not years. And that's assuming 100% efficiency at converting the energy of a centennial 8.0.
- deftnerd 11y ago
  The general concept of prescribed forest fires has been considered good forestry practice for a long time now. As for the actual method, nuclear bombs every few years for a large magnitude doesn't seem like it's mild enough. We've seen that fracking often has the side effect of causing faults to get lubricated and slip more easily causing earthquakes. Maybe research into the ideal chemical cocktail to most effectively lubricate and hook up injection stations along the length of the fault line, when there aren't aquifers in the nearby vicinity. Bonus for some kind of lubricant that degrades into non carcinogenic materials. You wouldn't want to just start pumping fault lubricant into the system while it's so full of energy, but after the next "big" earthquake you could have a window where the pumping would trigger small size 3 or 4 earthquakes similar to aftershocks in perpetuity.
  - cpr 11y ago
    Fracking itself isn't implicated--it's the wastewater injection wells that seem to be the problem.

by stouset 11y ago

mjevans 11y ago

I wonder how many would advocate trying to have a /planned/ earthquake each 100 years? Surely one planned in advance which everyone is prepared for is better than the unknown.

brooklyndavs 11y ago
If the infrastructure is up to the task and it would actually be doable (say release fault pressure with a magnitude 5 earthquake every 3 years via some sort of method) it might not be such a bad idea. Way easier to build for a planned magnitude 5.x quake every few years vs a 7 or 8 at unknown time intervals. Heck it could even be fun. Make it a holiday, tell people the time its going to happen and let them ride it out. Personally, I'd be at a bar. :)
- stouset 11y ago
  Reread my comment. A magnitude 5 every 3.5 days, not years. And that's assuming 100% efficiency at converting the energy of a centennial 8.0.
deftnerd 11y ago
The general concept of prescribed forest fires has been considered good forestry practice for a long time now. As for the actual method, nuclear bombs every few years for a large magnitude doesn't seem like it's mild enough. We've seen that fracking often has the side effect of causing faults to get lubricated and slip more easily causing earthquakes. Maybe research into the ideal chemical cocktail to most effectively lubricate and hook up injection stations along the length of the fault line, when there aren't aquifers in the nearby vicinity. Bonus for some kind of lubricant that degrades into non carcinogenic materials. You wouldn't want to just start pumping fault lubricant into the system while it's so full of energy, but after the next "big" earthquake you could have a window where the pumping would trigger small size 3 or 4 earthquakes similar to aftershocks in perpetuity.
- cpr 11y ago
  Fracking itself isn't implicated--it's the wastewater injection wells that seem to be the problem.