7.0 Quake in Myanmar

[CaptainChewbacca]

Link

An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 7.0 struck Myanmar Thursday, the U.S. Geological Survey said.

The quake hit in eastern Myanmar, about 70 miles (110 km) from Chiang Rai, Thailand, the survey reported.

There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.

Earthquakes of that magnitude are capable of causing major damage, especially when they are relatively shallow. The Geological Survey initially said the quake had a depth of 142 miles (230 kilometers), but it later revised its estimate to say the quake was 6 miles (10 kilometers) deep, putting it fairly close to the surface.

A destructive tsunami is not expected, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said. In advice to government agencies, the center said the quake "is located too far inland and too deep inside the earth to generate a tsunami in the Indian Ocean."

Too far inland for a tsunami, but this was an INCREDIBLY shallow quake so I would expect some serious damage.

[FaxModem1]

Am I just now more aware of all the earthquakes, or do they seem to be coming in a higher frequency recently?

[CaptainChewbacca]

We're not entirely sure. There appears to be an increase in earthquakes over the last 4 decades, but mostly this is a function of better communications. A 7.0 earthquake in Myanmar in 1980 would get 15 seconds on the nightly news.

[Akhlut]

Wouldn't a very strong earthquake nearby also put a lot of stress on nearby fault lines, too?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Wouldn't a very strong earthquake nearby also put a lot of stress on nearby fault lines, too?

Yes, but saying Myanmar is near Japan is like saying Houston is near Bogota.

[open_sketchbook]

Fer fucks sake, Earth, let us clean up after the last one before you spring another on us.

[Iroscato]

It's diquieting when you think, this earthquake was 1% the strength of the Japan and Indonesian quake...

[Pelranius]

7.0, relatively near the surface. Isn't that about the same strength as the Haiti earthquake last year?

[Broomstick]

Correct.

Of course, a lot of the damage in Haiti was due to a seriously lacking building code. As we have seen in recent years, the quality of the construction in the affected areas makes an enormous difference in how much rubble you wind up with.

I have no idea of what the building quality is like in Myanmar. Probably better than Haiti, because most places are, but that's not saying much even if true.

[NoXion]

We're not entirely sure. There appears to be an increase in earthquakes over the last 4 decades, but mostly this is a function of better communications. A 7.0 earthquake in Myanmar in 1980 would get 15 seconds on the nightly news.

Sure, it may have once only gotten 15 seconds on the idiot box, but surely geologists would have known about it? I'd have thought that's the sort of thing they'd be keeping an ear out for, especially considering that news travels faster through rock...

[Sea Skimmer]

Construction in Myanmar is far more likely to be timber frame then in Haiti, in which almost everything was unreinforced masonry. Timber framing even with poor building codes stands up decently to earthquakes, and is less likely to totally collapse. Masonry falls down and smashes into a pile. Also it seems these earthquakes were in a fairly remote part of the country, which doesn't mean thousands may not be dead but it can't be completely awful.

What will make it completely awful is that unless they've had a big change of heart since that cyclone several years ago, Myanmar won't allow in a single person, dollar or batch of supplies from the outside world to help.

[Broomstick]

We're not entirely sure. There appears to be an increase in earthquakes over the last 4 decades, but mostly this is a function of better communications. A 7.0 earthquake in Myanmar in 1980 would get 15 seconds on the nightly news.

Sure, it may have once only gotten 15 seconds on the idiot box, but surely geologists would have known about it? I'd have thought that's the sort of thing they'd be keeping an ear out for, especially considering that news travels faster through rock...

I have heard a theory (keep in mind I have no way to evaluate the truth of it) that the 20th Century was unusually calm weather-wise - perhaps it was also unusually calm tectonically? We do know that massive earthquakes occurred in the distant past, but we don't have good records of them, or their frequency. It may be the current level of events is actually the norm and we're coming out of a calm period. Or they may be increasing. Or it may be an artifact of better records and communications, as noted. Or some combination of the above.

Oddly enough, sometimes science does nothing to increase certainty...

[UnderAGreySky]

What has been worrying me is that Japan has been having between five and fifteen quakes a day above 5.0 since the big one. At last one or two above six. Now granted, that is a thousand times weaker, but it's not showing signs of slowing down. The 22nd had FIVE - 6.6 x 2, 6.4, 6.1 x 2. That is serious.

The Myanmar one has been downgraded slightly to 6.8. But the place where it hit seems to be relatively in a less populated region.

[Broomstick]

Don't big quakes have big aftershocks? (Not that it makes suffering them any better, of course) I've heard from other folks on message boards who have been through large quakes remark on how many aftershocks they feel, and that they can go on for quite some time. So I just assumed that the shakes that Japan has been having, regardless of how intense they are, are still part of what happened back on the 11th.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The Sendai quake has been having an unusual number of high-magnitude aftershocks compared to other 'mega quakes'. This may be due to the fact that a 9.0 is uncharacteristically powerful for the type of fault region its in.