update3: More than 30,000 dead in Turkey and Syria after major earthquakes

I think you are misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I am saying. I keep stating that it has nothing to do with the magnitude of the earthquake, yet you keep referencing the fact that a 7.8 earthquake can result in damage to modern buildings.

My point is that THIS earthquake that resulted in devastating CITIES in areas where the SHAKING was only STRONG or VERY STRONG - and that should not have collapsed MODERN buildings - in fact it should not have even destroyed many of the non-modern buildings that it did. My point is how grossly bad the construction was. Saying VERY STRONG shaking should not take down a modern building may be absolutist to you, but it's the truth. It's physics as you say. These buildings are using reinforced concrete, and as you say built with extra support at the joints and designed to bend and not be so rigid. They should not collapse from major shaking. Cities like Gaziantep should not have been devastated.

What actually are you taking issue with what I am saying here? This earthquake should not have been nearly as devastating. The buildings built after 2000 should not have collapsed, yet they did. And we are seeing the truth come out now - it wasn't because the earthquake was so bad - it was because the gov't allowed these buildings to skip earthquake code due to exemptions.

Also, why give the reason this quake was so bad because it was shallow - when in fact nearly all continental earthquakes are this shallow or even more shallow. It's just a strange this to say to me given your an expert in this.

 

Estimates being mentioned tonight are north of 80,000.

Edit: That's just for Turkey.

 

I’m taking issue with the argument that NO MODERN BUILDINGS SHOULD COLLAPSE IN A 7.8 QUAKE. As stated repeatedly that is an absolutist statement and even your own material shows that’s not the truth.

Also yes shallowness matters and there are differences in the depth of continental earthquakes. That has already been addressed in previous info provided.

In this quake yes it is likely that many of the deaths and collapses could’ve been avoided with better construction. We don’t know if that is the case though in all buildings kn the affected area. Again as stated soil liquefication and other factors could result in failure of the building and deaths even if the frame is built strong enough to resist the shaking. From what I’ve seen of the pics that likely is a factor in some of them.

 

It’s probably going to pass 100,000 and for Syria we’re likely not to know the actual death toll.

 

A. You've misquoted me by putting a "NO" in front of my statement - turning it into an absolute statement vs a generic one.
B. Modern building are designed to withstand violent shaking. Key word is designed. So they should not collapse in a shallow 7.8 earthquake where even with the worst shaking they should have been designed to not collapse. The building may be damaged beyond repair, but it shouldn't collapse if the design was proper and it was built correctly.
C. Japanese cities had more violent shaking from other quakes and their buildings did not collapse. How is this possible if modern buildings should be collapsing as you argue they can not withstand the shaking?

Depth or magnitude doesn't determine the forces a build experience. The building doesn't care if the earthquake was 100 km deep or 10m deep, it doesn't care if the magnitude was 6.8 or 9.0. What matters is how much the ground accelerates, what the peak velocity of the ground is, and the direction. You're focusing on the wrong factors - it's the shaking, not anything else. You haven't given anything to dispute this. It makes no sense how the depth of an earthquake causes one building to collapse vs another. What matters is how much shaking an earthquake causes which is a complex function of many variables. Yes depth is one of them, but nearly all continental earthquakes are less than 20km which means this is not a major factor. In fact, at 18km, this quake was closer to the deep end of the range than the shallow end running counter to your argument.

We do know this is the case. Many experts have already chimed in on this topic. We know that many buildings have skirted the laws due to corruption. This isn't a turkey problem - it's a global problem that has been an issue for the past 100 years. To say anything else is incredulous and I am surprised you are sticking your head in the sand on this one. Usually you're far more aware of the reality of what happens. Construction is a joke in Turkey and that's what 40k people are dead. They have videos of buildings pancaking build just a few years ago - with the ground floor collapsing, something that shows how weak the ground floor is. The ground floor!!!!!

Liquefaction may have happened in some areas, but can not explain the widespread destruction. This was not Mexico city which sat on recent soil. And again, that doesn't explain why the shaking which was only major took down modern buildings - something they should only take LIGHT damage from?

This was a disaster of corruption pure and simple. It's often the case in most earthquakes that the deaths occur because of poor or old construction. Around the world, and you see this in India a lot too, they make buildings with shops on the ground floor, and this weakens the ground floor tremendously. My father always told me these will be the first to collapse and it wouldn't take much to do it. You wouldn't believe how bad construction is and the shortcut they take. It happens in the US, but it is much much worse in the rest of the world.

What happened in Turkey wasn't just a natural disaster, it was a crime against humanity.

 

Aftershock, or 2nd earthquake?

 

Sorry I missed this earlier but I will restate again what I’ve said. You’re only focussing on one factor and either downplaying other factors or ignoring them. I’ve stated I that poor construction is most likely the cause of much of the damage in this earthquake. That doesn’t mean it’s the sole cause of all of the damage. And certainly in earthquakes in general you cannot only that ground shaking is the only factor that has to be considered in survivability of modern structures.

Also to add why I even argue this is that it’s misleading to only focus on one factor in any large disaster. There was a lot of what we saw following 911 and fueled a lot of conspiracy theories.

 

It’s possible that the last earthquake weakened other faults in the areas.

 

Poor construction was the primary factor here. I don't know what else to say.