he lies in wait for such opportunities. gets him attention. just ignore it. thoughts for those in Christchurch. lot of talk about shifting ice loads changing stresses on fault-lines, but I'm not buying it. would take a lot more ice shift, I would bet. we are so, so due in the SF Bay Area. Just the local version of massive hurricanes.
Reporting from The Christian Science Monitor. The quake was only 3 miles deep. They are evacuating the city, mandatory, if I'm reading that right. No area of the city is considered safe at this point. EDIT: apparently only one area of the city has been evacuated. Either I misread (probable) or the article has been steadily updated (possible.)
Holy f. Thoughts and prayers. Didn't you just get all butt-hurt because someone made a joke in your disaster thread?
only the cbd was heavily affected. there are parts of the city that is damaged, but not uninhabitable. the area where i work is heavily flooded with pipes bursting and damages to buildings. i don't think that area is evacuated, but cut off due to all the water.
I dont understand how people can enter threads that discuss tragedies...and troll in them. I may have worked with classmates on some homework assignments...but damn, at least I have a ****ing heart. Sad story...prayers go out to all those in trouble.
The images they are showing on the news down here are devastating. I feel so bad for the people of Christchurch. They had a larger, though deeper, earthquake last September and hundreds of aftershocks since then. This in a place that had no real history of earthquakes. One man said last night that it was only in the last week, or so, that that people in Christchurch felt like things were getting back to normal. There is speculation that up to 300 may have died from this.
guys please pray for chch.... a lot of my friends houses are heavily affected and some of them have moved into my place to stay for the mean time. many are dead/missing. please send your prayers. i got friend's who are missing family members/friends/loved ones.
I am curious what the building codes are in NZ and if they deal with seismic activity. For a place like NZ I find it surprising that they don't have a history of earthquakes given its location on the Ring of Fire and its terrain. This is a tragedy but if it gets them to reform their codes and redo their infrastructure to address earthquakes they will be better prepared in the future.
Agreed. I don't know much about seismic science but I can see that possibly being true. Glaciers have a profound affect on the landscape and can move vast amounts of material, not just ice. I can easily see a large glacier effecting tectonic stresses in a localized area. Yep the Hayward fault is going to go sooner or later.
There is a history of earthquakes in places like Wellington and Napier at the bottom of the North Island. The worst one until this one was in Napier in 1931 and the city was destroyed with several hundred deaths. Having built a house here, the building codes here are quite stringent, but the shallowness of this earthquake made the effect much greater than a typical 6.3 earthquake. I have been in an earthquake of that size in Alaska and it did not cause damage near this because the event took place so far underground. It's not like Christchurch's infrastructure was like something out of Haiti. I imagine the 7.1 earthquake and hundreds of aftershocks that hit there since last September have weakened things overall, but it is still down to the depth of the earthquake more than anything else.
True even an a 5 if shallow enough will do damage and I wouldn't expect no damage but I am curious to what extent construction practices played a role since I work in architecture.
Fatty, if you're ever tossed out on your arse again, it'll be for crap like this. There is nothing funny about a horrific disaster. Nothing. Go away and post in the boobs thread. It was made for you.
you got it buddy! rocketsjudoka, I think codes are only so influential. I live in a 1912 structure. It has a newer foundation and has survived many quakes, but nothing like 1906, clearly. But my point is that if you haven't done a big project, you don't have to approach modern codes. So many structures in any given city at any given time aren't "up to code." I know you probably know this, but I would bet the newest buildings in Christchurch did fine.
True and one of the OCD things I catch myself doing everywhere I go is finding code violations. Based on the 2007 International Building Code that is. As far as approaching modern codes of course a big project has to approach current codes. Did you mean a historical project? My interest is primarily professional and while disasters like these are tragedies there is always things we can take from them in regard to improving construction. Also one thing I have noticed from many recent disasters is that better construction practices could save a lot of lives. This was particularly true in the Sichuan Earthquake where the combination of poor codes, lax enforcement of codes, and outright corruption directly contributed to the tragedy.
