3 ms·

DISCLAIMER: I'm not an expert in this and I can be very off concerning this area. Having said this, I think the risk of man-made earthquakes is exaggerated. I

DISCLAIMER: I'm not an expert in this and I can be very off concerning this area. Having said this, I think the risk of man-made earthquakes is exaggerated. I mean, I think it might be possible to trigger small seismic events, but they should not be the destructive kind. I doubt we can trigger massive destructive eathquakes like this. Also, from what I understand, smaller seismic evnts should lower the energy that the bigger ones have.

Beltiras 10y ago
Tell that to the people of Selfoss and Hveragerði which have now become accustomed to smaller quakes on a more regular basis than usually in the past.
- RealityVoid 10y ago
  Is it damaging though? That is the question I want answered. I mean, even in my post, I did not question the presence of more frequent small earthquakes, I questioned if these earthquakes are any sort of real issue that produces damages or simply unfounded panic.
  - Beltiras 10y ago
    Not being able to trust that the ground you stand on won't shake violently? Are you being serious?
    - RealityVoid 10y ago
      I am being totally serious. Why are earthquakes bad? Because they destroy goods, buildings and kill people. If eathquakes do not destroy goods, buildings and kill people are they that terrible anymore or simply an inconvenience at most? It might sound alien if you have a certain way of looking at things, but really, is my question not logical?
      - Beltiras 10y ago
        Spoken from the privileged position of not having to worry about it like it is of little concern to those who do. I'm leaving it as an exvercise for you to think of analogies to other aggrieved groups that would not take kindly to being told their concerns are invalid.
  - tajen 9y ago
    Yeah it would seem like frequent small earthquakes are way better than rare devastating ones, so it would even be better to provoke them rather than wait like in SF and Vancouver... If only, it helps rehearsing the response, convincing taxpayers to purchase tge equipment and finding early which buildings are dangerous.

Beltiras 10y ago

Tell that to the people of Selfoss and Hveragerði which have now become accustomed to smaller quakes on a more regular basis than usually in the past.

RealityVoid 10y ago
Is it damaging though? That is the question I want answered. I mean, even in my post, I did not question the presence of more frequent small earthquakes, I questioned if these earthquakes are any sort of real issue that produces damages or simply unfounded panic.
- Beltiras 10y ago
  Not being able to trust that the ground you stand on won't shake violently? Are you being serious?
  - RealityVoid 10y ago
    I am being totally serious. Why are earthquakes bad? Because they destroy goods, buildings and kill people. If eathquakes do not destroy goods, buildings and kill people are they that terrible anymore or simply an inconvenience at most? It might sound alien if you have a certain way of looking at things, but really, is my question not logical?
    - Beltiras 10y ago
      Spoken from the privileged position of not having to worry about it like it is of little concern to those who do. I'm leaving it as an exvercise for you to think of analogies to other aggrieved groups that would not take kindly to being told their concerns are invalid.
- tajen 9y ago
  Yeah it would seem like frequent small earthquakes are way better than rare devastating ones, so it would even be better to provoke them rather than wait like in SF and Vancouver... If only, it helps rehearsing the response, convincing taxpayers to purchase tge equipment and finding early which buildings are dangerous.