5 ms·

Sorry if I'm being insensitive, but is this big news? I didn't think 7.1 was that powerful.

• kovar 16y ago
  Like real estate, it is about location, location, location. Think of it as a lever - if properly applied, it can move a world. There's also the emotional component. The Japanese population has been shaken by the initial quake, the tsunami, aftershocks, and the problems at the nuclear reactor. Adding another significant quake and tsunami (2m, last report), will further rattle already stretched nerves.
• geoffw8 16y ago
  Nah, 7.1 is pretty big. Its especially big news when you consider the events of the last 30 days.
  • antirez 16y ago
    Yep, Messina, Sicily, and the tsunami caused a lot of deaths in that case if I remember correctly. Btw full details here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_Messina_earthquake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_Messina_earthquake
• icco 16y ago
  7.1 is big. One of the deadliest earthquakes of all time was a 7.1 (although it was a 100 years ago...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Deadliest_earthquakes_on_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Deadliest_...
• InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Anything over about a 6.5 or so is a pretty big quake. The '89 bay area (Loma Prieta) quake was just a 7.1 (and struck 10s of miles from downtown San Francisco). The recent Haiti earthquake was just a 7.0.
• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• compay 16y ago
  It depends on many factors. I was in a 6.8 earthquake in Seattle in 2001 that did some fairly significant damage to a few buildings in Pioneer Square, but otherwise was just a scare and an inconvenience. At the time I read that we got off "easy" because of the depth of the epicenter. An earthquake of similar magnitude had hit Turkey a few years before that and did a lot more damage.