Earthquake in Canada

[Canadave]

We don't get many earthquakes here either, so it was kind of interesting.

You do, actually.

Actually, I don't. I live in Northern Ontario and it just isn't very common here. Like I explained earlier, we usually feel mining blasts, but that's about it. This was pretty major in comparison. But yeah, anyway, I was sitting, so I'm sure it made a difference.

Actually the third, you do. The Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben, which caused today's earthquake, extends from Ottawa up to just east of Sudbury, which is where you live, correct? So while you may not get as many quakes as we do, living directly on the graben, you surely have a fair share of them up there, as well.

 

[TheSeeker]

I was sitting at my desk in the basement when it hit. I went outside after to see if anyone noticed but it looked like I was the only one outside.

Apparently the epicentre was in the town I grew up in, Buckingham QC.

 

[Canadave]

^ Val-des-Bois is what I've heard, actually. Buckingham was originally reported, but I think they revised it.

 

[Owain Taggart]

You do, actually.

Actually, I don't. I live in Northern Ontario and it just isn't very common here. Like I explained earlier, we usually feel mining blasts, but that's about it. This was pretty major in comparison. But yeah, anyway, I was sitting, so I'm sure it made a difference.

Actually the third, you do. The Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben, which caused today's earthquake, extends from Ottawa up to just east of Sudbury, which is where you live, correct? So while you may not get as many quakes as we do, living directly on the graben, you surely have a fair share of them up there, as well.

Sudbury, right. Though like I said, they're pretty rare, at least at this magnitude. Don't think it's been very active lately. Might of been more the case earlier on Earth. It's kind of like volcanoes. They aren't always active, which this one hasn't for at least hundreds of millions of years. This was an example of a rare occurrence for us.

 

[DonIago]

We definitely felt it in Burlington, VT. At first I thought it was someone lightly vibrating the cubicles I'm attached to, then I thought maybe Maintenance was doing something. Still thought I might have imagined it until I overheard co-workers talking about it.

I was actually IM'ing with a friend about a 15-minute car drive away at the time...when she asked me whether I'd felt the ground shake I knew something had definitely happened that was larger than our building.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Wow, that's a pretty far-ranging earthquake in terms of where it was felt.

We're pretty blasé about them here in California, but I imagine it was a fairly unique experience for some of you guys.

 

[Thena]

There are reports that people felt the quake along the Chicago lakefront, especially in high rises. I'm a little bit further west. Didn't feel it, but we had construction work going on right about the same time.

And to top it off, we had a tornado warning just six hours later. No actual tornado, but there were funnel clouds spotted and heavy flooding closed roads and expressways. I'm hoping tomorrow will be a bit quieter.

 

[Canadave]

Actually, I don't. I live in Northern Ontario and it just isn't very common here. Like I explained earlier, we usually feel mining blasts, but that's about it. This was pretty major in comparison. But yeah, anyway, I was sitting, so I'm sure it made a difference.

Actually the third, you do. The Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben, which caused today's earthquake, extends from Ottawa up to just east of Sudbury, which is where you live, correct? So while you may not get as many quakes as we do, living directly on the graben, you surely have a fair share of them up there, as well.

Sudbury, right. Though like I said, they're pretty rare, at least at this magnitude. Don't think it's been very active lately. Might of been more the case earlier on Earth. It's kind of like volcanoes. They aren't always active, which this one hasn't for at least hundreds of millions of years. This was an example of a rare occurrence for us.

Oh they're rare here, too, at this magnitude. In fact, it's rare that they're even slightly perceptible.

And you're right, it's not a terribly active fault, mostly because it's intra-continental. Big earthquakes are caused (usually) by two continents sliding up against one another, where as this quake is simply two masses of rock pressed up against one another that periodically build and release pressure. They're generally less dangerous, too, though some (such as the New Madrid fault line) can occasionally release pretty powerful quakes.

 

[M'Sharak]

We're pretty blasé about them here in California, but I imagine it was a fairly unique experience for some of you guys.

We are, at that, but a 5.0 is plenty big enough to be interesting if you happen to be within 50 miles or so. Those aren't even a daily occurrence in the Ocotillo area any more.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

A 5.0? How quaint.

 

[DonIago]

Hm. I didn't see a good map posted (apologies to the OP, but the map there seemed kind of vague), so I'll throw this in- http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100623/NEWS02/100623021/Vermont-rattled-by-earthquake

 

[M'Sharak]

Hm. I didn't see a good map posted (apologies to the OP, but the map there seemed kind of vague), so I'll throw this in- http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100623/NEWS02/100623021/Vermont-rattled-by-earthquake

This map ought to be reasonably accurate. The epicenter's a bit to the north of Buckingham; Canadave had it right when he said this:

^ Val-des-Bois is what I've heard, actually. Buckingham was originally reported, but I think they revised it.

Val-des-Bois is roughly four miles to the west of where the quake was centered.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

We're pretty blasé about them here in California, but I imagine it was a fairly unique experience for some of you guys.

We are, at that, but a 5.0 is plenty big enough to be interesting if you happen to be within 50 miles or so. Those aren't even a daily occurrence in the Ocotillo area any more.

Yeah, the one on June 14th was pretty cool. It lasted a (relatively) long time.

Then there was that 7.2 in April. That was a good jolt.

We basically just stay where we are and laugh throughout them at this point. We get a pretty good ride here in Huntington Beach since were on compacted sand (plus, I'm in a two-story house). We'd be in trouble with the liquefaction if a big one hit along the Newport-Inglewood Fault though.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, I agree, the map I posted was rather vague. Sorry about that. They tend to be like that for some reason. Guess they don't care so much about detail.

What's interesting though is I've seen it described both as a 5.0 and a 5.5 depending on where you look. So, 5.5 might be a mistake.

 

[M'Sharak]

What's interesting though is I've seen it described both as a 5.0 and a 5.5 depending on where you look. So, 5.5 might be a mistake.

That's not unusual, really, especially with quakes of greater magnitude. Most of the time, they'll get up an early estimate within five minutes, based on triangulation of data from the closest reporting stations, and then, as data is received from more distant stations, the number gets "fine-tuned". In this case, 5.5 was the first number I saw, only a few minutes after the quake occurred, after which it was adjusted downward to 5.0 something like twenty or thirty minutes later, based on more complete data.

 

[SVD]

Call me crazy, but I'm jealous! <little spoiled brat> I want to experience one!</brat>

 

[Owain Taggart]

What's interesting though is I've seen it described both as a 5.0 and a 5.5 depending on where you look. So, 5.5 might be a mistake.

That's not unusual, really, especially with quakes of greater magnitude. Most of the time, they'll get up an early estimate within five minutes, based on triangulation of data from the closest reporting stations, and then, as data is received from more distant stations, the number gets "fine-tuned". In this case, 5.5 was the first number I saw, only a few minutes after the quake occurred, after which it was adjusted downward to 5.0 something like twenty or thirty minutes later, based on more complete data.

Well, that makes sense. Thanks. It only makes sense that they'd get a more accurate reading as they gather more data.

 

[Canadave]

Call me crazy, but I'm jealous! <little spoiled brat> I want to experience one!</brat>

You don't have far to move if you want to go through a few of 'em.

Seriously, I don't know how you Californians do it. It was kinda cool to experience this quake (especially as it was so close), but at the same time I'd be happy to go another 12 years before another "big" one hits us. Y'all are nuts.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Seriously, I don't know how you Californians do it. It was kinda cool to experience this quake (especially as it was so close), but at the same time I'd be happy to go another 12 years before another "big" one hits us. Y'all are nuts.

You get used to it, and it even becomes fun after a while so long as nothing is falling on you. I'd much rather deal with earthquakes (if you live in an area with properly designed or retrofitted buildings, of course) then tornadoes, floods, or, hurricanes.

 

[Goliath]

We're pretty blasé about them here in California, but I imagine it was a fairly unique experience for some of you guys.

Indeed. Dump five feet of snow on us, and we just sigh and reach for our shovels. But put us through a 5.0 magnitude quake, and we're all a-flutter.