Earthquake - Peru had an earthquake on August 16th,would that cause the northern fault lines in California to rupture?
I’m no scientist, but because Peru had an earthquake, would that put more pressure on the fault lines north, up the coast and eventually cause major earthquakes on the coast of California? Didn’t California have a small earthquake just recently and wasn’t there predictions of a major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault line made on CNN just a few days ago? Shouldn’t people be made more aware of this possibility?
Not really, the earthquake is a relieving of the pressure on an area of the fault, it shouldn’t have a major effect on other areas.
Generally a part of the fault line which is subject to Earthquakes, but has not had one for years is most at risk. There are instances where a fault has been dormant for a long time {Indonesia recently} and it is subject to several fairly major shocks.However when the stress is relieved is not predictable, although sometimes pre-shocks are detected.
In summary; go move to the center of a tectonic plate.
Pat | Aug 16, 2007
Actually an earthquake is a good thing from a stress and strain standpoint, energy was released with the earthquake. I would be far more worried if one of the Cascade Mountains began to show signs of life, I know St. Helen’s was rumbling last year, if Rainier begins to show signs of life then I start to worry. Different plates that Peru and California are on, California is on the Juan de Fuca, Peru, I beleive is the sourthern Pacific Plate
Katalex | Aug 16, 2007
the nazca plate’s subduction is connected to the peru earthquake.
california is on a slip/strike fault.
in my opinion there is no connection
paint_mus | Aug 19, 2007
Powered bij FireStats