Dynamic Planet B/C

[hanajitenshi]

right, the mercalli scale is based in people and infrastructure, while the richter scale is based on the energy released. Haiti had a larger mercalli reading and chile had a larger richter reading.

dead on but the ricther scale measure magitude and power of earthquakes while the mercalli measures destruction ,lives tooking,etc

[IdahoSciGuy]

hatiti's was only 7.0 not even in the same league of destruction as the 9.5 in chile in 1960

I think the only thing wrong with that statement is the word "destruction". Yes, both quakes were devestating, but I can easily find people who would argue that the Haiti quake was much more "destructive" than the Valdivia quake. In those regards, I would change the word "destruction" to the words "energy release"

The Haiti quake released about 132 Petajoules of energy. (Peta is the next step from Tera)

The Valdivia quake of 1960 released about 744 Exajoules of Energy. (Exa is the next step up from Peta)

To put this in a little better persective, The recent Chile earthquake, magnitude 8.8, was about 1000 times the size of the Haiti quake energy wise. now raise that to the level of the 1960 quake. Thats A LOT in energy difference.

... i never said anything about enegy release or that. the destruction of that earthquake broke roads cannels but didnt take many lives the hatiti earthquake did less damage but took more lives
hatiti sent almost no tidal waves the one from chile did killing 21985 people on average and i estimated cost was around 6 million but you forget it was during the great depression so it would be higher -.- so do you get what i meant now IdahoSciGuy =.=

I understand what your trying to get at, but there are a couple things wrong here:
First, there was much more damage in Haiti, but that same damage was localized to a small area, in contrast with the Chile earthquake, which did less damage but over a much wider area. This is where it can be debated which earthquake was in fact more devestating. In terms of Damage and lives lost, its obviously the Haiti earthquake, but if it is area affected, then the Chile quake takes the cake. At that point it becomes a matter of opinion.

Second, Just because an earthquake sends out a Tsunami does not mean that the quake itself was more devestating than an earthquake that doesn't send out a Tsunami. For example, check out The San Fransisco Quake of 1906. For ME, Destructivity in earthquakes is based on Lack of building codes and deaths, as well as external factors(i.e. Tsunami)

Third, The Great Depression was during the 1930s, not the 1960s

Fourth, By mentioning Energy Release, i was only trying to correct your statement. In my opinion, the haiti earthquake was much more devastating, but regardless of my opinion, the statement would be correct if it said "haiti's was only 7.0 not even in the same league of energy release as the 9.5 in chile in 1960"

Hope that cleared things up a bit.

[hanajitenshi]

I think the only thing wrong with that statement is the word "destruction". Yes, both quakes were devestating, but I can easily find people who would argue that the Haiti quake was much more "destructive" than the Valdivia quake. In those regards, I would change the word "destruction" to the words "energy release"

The Haiti quake released about 132 Petajoules of energy. (Peta is the next step from Tera)

The Valdivia quake of 1960 released about 744 Exajoules of Energy. (Exa is the next step up from Peta)

To put this in a little better persective, The recent Chile earthquake, magnitude 8.8, was about 1000 times the size of the Haiti quake energy wise. now raise that to the level of the 1960 quake. Thats A LOT in energy difference.

... i never said anything about enegy release or that. the destruction of that earthquake broke roads cannels but didnt take many lives the hatiti earthquake did less damage but took more lives
hatiti sent almost no tidal waves the one from chile did killing 21985 people on average and i estimated cost was around 6 million but you forget it was during the great depression so it would be higher -.- so do you get what i meant now IdahoSciGuy =.=

I understand what your trying to get at, but there are a couple things wrong here:
First, there was much more damage in Haiti, but that same damage was localized to a small area, in contrast with the Chile earthquake, which did less damage but over a much wider area. This is where it can be debated which earthquake was in fact more devestating. In terms of Damage and lives lost, its obviously the Haiti earthquake, but if it is area affected, then the Chile quake takes the cake. At that point it becomes a matter of opinion.

Second, Just because an earthquake sends out a Tsunami does not mean that the quake itself was more devestating than an earthquake that doesn't send out a Tsunami. For example, check out The San Fransisco Quake of 1906. For ME, Destructivity in earthquakes is based on Lack of building codes and deaths, as well as external factors(i.e. Tsunami)

Third, The Great Depression was during the 1930s, not the 1960s

Fourth, By mentioning Energy Release, i was only trying to correct your statement. In my opinion, the haiti earthquake was much more devastating, but regardless of my opinion, the statement would be correct if it said "haiti's was only 7.0 not even in the same league of energy release as the 9.5 in chile in 1960"

Hope that cleared things up a bit.

ok then have a happy spring break and pray that there is no earthquake bigger inenegry release and no destruction :[)MAN I WISH THEY HAD HISTORY OR GEOGRAPGHY OLYIMPLCS I WOULD DO VERY WELL AND BY GEOGRAPGHY I MEAN COUNTRIES AND CAPITALS NOT RAODS =.= I KNOW ALL 50 STATES AND THEY CAPITALS MEMORIZED LOL I USED TO STAY UP AND LOOK AT MAPS WHILE MY SISITER QUIZED ME ON ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH STATES I WAS 4 YEARS OLD AND I KNOW THEM ALL xd

[smarticle13]

I checked CNN today, and another earthquake struck the Pacific Coast....coincidence...I think not

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/ ... tml?hpt=T1

[zyzzyva980]

Coincidence with what? There have been a number of large earthquakes recently, but nothing too out of the ordinary.

[smarticle13]

Coincidence with what? There have been a number of large earthquakes recently, but nothing too out of the ordinary.

yes, of course it was out of the ordinary, as far as I know, because it is rare to have such large magnitude earthquakes in a short period of time...
so YES, IT WAS OUT OF THE ORDINARY (as far as I know)

[zyzzyva980]

Actually, according to several sources, there are one or two 7.0+ quakes every month. They're just hitting in populated areas. Hey, I go on USGS almost everyday and look to see when the latest big quake happened. They're all over, like normal, but the ones that get the most attention are the ones that are near populated areas. California = populated. Port-au-Prince = Populated. Etc, etc.

[smarticle13]

right, so previous larger earthquakes haven't been felt, but this year, they seem to be striking in populous areas.

[rfscoach]

The earthquakes have been felt, they just haven't captured the attention of the main stream media. Also, keep in mind that you are more likely to be aware of earthquakes lately because you are studying them...

[smarticle13]

Also, keep in mind that you are more likely to be aware of earthquakes lately because you are studying them...

no, not necessarily, I am reading about these earthquakes on the news, I am not studying them...I just think it is kind off strange that such large magnitude earthquakes are occurring