5 ms·
> 4.7 is not really a strong earthquake, it s routine in earthquake-prone zones NYC quake was at shallow depth. 4.7 quake at 1 km depth will shake more at the
by chrinic74929 3y ago
> 4.7 is not really a strong earthquake, it s routine in earthquake-prone zones
NYC quake was at shallow depth.
4.7 quake at 1 km depth will shake more at the surface than a 6.0 at 30 km depth
- neogodless 3y agoIn this case, it's a 4.8 mwr at 4.7 km depth.
- renewiltord 3y agoUSGS shows it as 4.8 at 4.7 km https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?currentFeatureId=us7000ma74&extent=40.01079,-76.23688&extent=41.39123,-73.27881 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?currentFeatureI... The Belden quake is 4.4 at 7.8 km, and 4.2 at 5 km. It's a log scale so the Whitehouse quake is much larger, but the significance of the quake seems to be more than just these numbers because Belden quake is irrelevant (didn't make the news really). Sarupathar was a 5.8 (huge comparatively) at 10 km. Hualien was 5.1 at 15.9 km and talked about more than Sarupathar. So the defining aspect appears to be how many people are within range of the epicenter rather than just raw depth and magnitude. Which makes sense, I suppose. We care about how population centers encounter the movement!
- ylyn 2y ago> Hualien was 5.1 at 15.9 km That's just an aftershock. The main quake was three days ago. M 7.4 according to USGS: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000m9g4/executive https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000m9g4... So for an earthquake that's almost 1000x as strong, you'd think it'd be talked about more.
- renewiltord 2y agoThank you! Yeah, a 7.4 is humongous. I did wonder about this because my wife's family reported quite intensive shaking and I've been in a 6-something before and that was quite disruptive. I can't imagine a 5.1 being that much.