I think his point is that earthquakes often cause landslides or tsunamis (as it did yesterday) which can be lethal, buildings or no buildings. One of the striking things about yesterday's quake was that despite the fact it was significantly stronger than the one in Christchurch, there doesn't seem to have been much more damage to buildings caused by the quake itself. Because Japan is so prone to earthquakes as it's near two different plate boundaries, their building regs are very stringent about quake-proofing, particularly since the Kobe quake in the 90s. It's the tsunami that the quake triggered that has caused the serious damage to buildings and most of the fatalities.
[cite]Posted By: aliwibble[/cite]I think his point is that earthquakes often cause landslides or tsunamis (as it did yesterday) which can be lethal, buildings or no buildings. One of the striking things about yesterday's quake was that despite the fact it was significantly stronger than the one in Christchurch, there doesn't seem to have been much more damage to buildings caused by the quake itself. Because Japan is so prone to earthquakes as it's near two different plate boundaries, their building regs are very stringent about quake-proofing, particularly since the Kobe quake in the 90s. It's the tsunami that the quake triggered that has caused the serious damage to buildings and most of the fatalities.
The Japanese quake occured at over twice the depth of the New Zealand one. Structural damage is often far greater when the epicenter is closer to the surface - even if the quake is weaker. It's certainly true to say that the Japanese are better prepared for earthquakes in general than most nations. Unfortunately, as you've touched on, there's very little anyone can do about tsunamis.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]The Japanese quake occured at over twice the depth of the New Zealand one. Structural damage is often far greater when the epicenter is closer to the surface - even if the quake is weaker.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]The Japanese quake occured at over twice the depth of the New Zealand one. Structural damage is often far greater when the epicenter is closer to the surface - even if the quake is weaker.
Really? That's interesting. Why's that then?
A whole host of boring scientific reasons, but largely because the devastation is more focused. When the quake is deeper, the area over which it spreads is greater - so there is more widespread damage, but it's usually less severe than when it's closer to the surface. There are loads of other factors (building construction, sediment type, proximity to other faults, previous quake activity etc) but an earthquake 3 miles below the surface will usually do a great deal more damage than one 10 miles below - even if the deeper one is orders of magnitude stronger.
Comments
I was talking about earthquakes - your point?
B*ll*x !
After yesterday Nothing will put a smile on my face !