Jump to content

Major earthquake strikes Haiti


Balta1701

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 05:56 PM)
Oh god. My wife's uncle runs a mission at a church outside Jeremie, which is on that SW penninsula.

 

 

It kind of looks like the shock itself wasn't as bad over there... at least I hope. Keep us up to date if you hear anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 08:24 PM)
It kind of looks like the shock itself wasn't as bad over there... at least I hope. Keep us up to date if you hear anything.

Working on it.

 

I actually spent a couple weeks down there in 2007, when I was between jobs, volunteering. I delayed my start with the new company, and went and did that. It was a great experience. Great people. Hopefully everyone is OK - they probably are, this area is on a mountain top, a bit inland. But if I get any inside tidbits, I'll post them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking a few things about this. For this country, it almost seems better if it was much, much worse. Then you get a couple ex Presidents working a fund raiser for you. Just really bad? A few bags of rice, maybe a small up tick in missionaries trying to help. But nothing close to the scale to really help the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 10:07 AM)
From what's coming out today, it looks pretty damn bad.

Yeah, looks like a true disaster down there.

 

I got some good news about the area where the mission I worked at previously is. The nearest city, Jeremie, reported only minor, sporatic damage, and no casualties. So most likely, the village mission, which is up the mountain a bit from Jeremie, is fine.

 

But Port Au Prince looks catastrophic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balta, if you are reading this thread... I may need to work with the mission down there on a disaster readiness plan. I had previously been concerned mostly with hurricanes, and hadn't even realized that the area was seismically active. Do you know where I might find a seismic risk map for Haiti? Or a faulting map, something like that, that shows me what kind of danger the area might be in for quakes?

 

Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 10:21 AM)
Balta, if you are reading this thread... I may need to work with the mission down there on a disaster readiness plan. I had previously been concerned mostly with hurricanes, and hadn't even realized that the area was seismically active. Do you know where I might find a seismic risk map for Haiti? Or a faulting map, something like that, that shows me what kind of danger the area might be in for quakes?

 

Thanks.

 

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_rja6_w.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 11:21 AM)
Balta, if you are reading this thread... I may need to work with the mission down there on a disaster readiness plan. I had previously been concerned mostly with hurricanes, and hadn't even realized that the area was seismically active. Do you know where I might find a seismic risk map for Haiti? Or a faulting map, something like that, that shows me what kind of danger the area might be in for quakes?

 

Thanks.

I have to head back upstairs for work, but one other thing to keep in mind is that it's not just the location of the faults that matters for earthquake damage, but it's also the kind of land on which things are built. Steep slopes can give way in slides, for example, so topography could be useful. Areas built on recent alluvial fill without a deep foundation can be particularly vulnerable because those areas tend to liquefy during shaking.

 

Just from a basic search, here's an older overview geologic map. The stuff that might be particularly vulnerable is recent alluvium, especially alongside water. Port-au-prince appears to be built entirely on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 12:20 PM)
I have to head back upstairs for work, but one other thing to keep in mind is that it's not just the location of the faults that matters for earthquake damage, but it's also the kind of land on which things are built. Steep slopes can give way in slides, for example, so topography could be useful. Areas built on recent alluvial fill without a deep foundation can be particularly vulnerable because those areas tend to liquefy during shaking.

 

Just from a basic search, here's an older overview geologic map. The stuff that might be particularly vulnerable is recent alluvium, especially alongside water. Port-au-prince appears to be built entirely on that.

The area of this village is on top if a long ridge, above (south of) Jeremie, out on the SW penninsula. Looks like the bedrock is either eocone rock, or oceanic basalts. Nothing that would be at risk for liquification. But, being on a ridge top, a good shake might cause some parts of the ridge (which is quite steep in places) to slough or sheer off. No worries on flooding at least.

 

Thanks for that as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have traveled to Haiti three times and its really a beautiful country with great people.

 

Its really too bad that they cant seem to catch a break. I have worked on water and school projects with two organizations that are planning relief efforts.

 

If anybody is looking for a great way to help ... please visit the following links:

 

http://www.haitioutreach.org/

http://www.cchaiti.org/

 

Community Coalition for Haiti is planning immediate medical relief hopefully sending a group down this weekend with Doctors and supplies

 

Haiti Outreach is planning more long term relief. Their focus has been on drilling wells throughout the entire country. I'm sure we will be working on fixing basic infrastructure including water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 03:17 PM)
They are saying there could be as many people dead as were killed in the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/...uake/index.html

My god. And however many died in the quake, a lot more will die in the coming weeks because they can't get clean water and food. Thankfully the weather down there isn't cold, so shelter isn't as immediate an issue, unless they get flooding rains.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 03:19 PM)
My god. And however many died in the quake, a lot more will die in the coming weeks because they can't get clean water and food. Thankfully the weather down there isn't cold, so shelter isn't as immediate an issue, unless they get flooding rains.

 

 

This time of year, they don't get that much rain, thank goodness but let's hope they can contain and get some places back on their feet before the rainy season hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 04:37 PM)
Take a look at this list of aftershocks.

WOW

That's sort of a normal pattern for a quake this large. Rule of thumb, everything is logarithmic. So, you set off a magnitude 7, you get of the order of 10 magnitude 6 events, 100 magnitude 5 events, 1000 magnitude 4 events, as aftershocks before all is settled. Of course, that also leaves the small probability of another magnitude 7, but that's usually unlikely. Things get really interesting, for example, if you set off a magnitude 8 event in the L.A. area, and you wind up with 5 or so aftershocks that are magnitude 7 events on their own.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 04:04 PM)
That's sort of a normal pattern for a quake this large. Rule of thumb, everything is logarithmic. So, you set off a magnitude 7, you get of the order of 10 magnitude 6 events, 100 magnitude 5 events, 1000 magnitude 4 events, as aftershocks before all is settled. Of course, that also leaves the small probability of another magnitude 7, but that's usually unlikely. Things get really interesting, for example, if you set off a magnitude 8 event in the L.A. area, and you wind up with 5 or so aftershocks that are magnitude 7 events on their own.

 

 

I don't think I have ever heard that before. Did that happen with Northridge, for example? I guess we're so programmed in to the "first one" or the "big one" that we don't realize that the aftershocks are that numerous. I knew there always were some, but not to that extent. That's mind boggling, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...