HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: San Francisco Earthquake 89
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 17:54:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.053042.18803@borland.com> pfussell@borland.com
(PaulFussell) writes:
>The real tragedy on this side of the hill was Santa Cruz--the Pacific 
>Garden mall was gone, several people were dead, and hundreds were homeless.
>The last of the pavilions that housed most
>of the mall businesses came down this week, three years after these
>temporary structures went up with volunteer labor. Who ever thought at
>the time that these glorified tents would be up that long, or that
>some businesses still wouldn't be able to find space on the mall three
>years later? 

Recently, I sought to find an old high school friend who grew up in Ferndale.
The tragedy is that in looking for him I saw the damage of the 7 quake
which hit near there.  The buildings are still damaged, few temporary
structures have been placed, and the area is out of the thoughts of those
who don't live there.  Succeeded by the diaster of the moment.  In an area
hard hit by the economy.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			3 down 1 to go.
From: cs65xaq@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Elvis)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: everyone thinks I'm crazy!
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:50:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

I just want to say that I am enjoying your stories of the '89 quake,
and am touched by the magnitude and severity of it all!
I was in it (and also posted) but had basically nothing but shaken
nerves (PLENTY OF THOSE!)
I hadn't really heard the awful stories of the earthquake except for
the sensationalism of the news---and that was all deaths and fires.
those are awful but these stories are just as nerve rattling..
this really brings home the memories of it all!
anyway, I put Subject: everyone thinks I'm crazy!
That's because I'm sitting here in a big terminal room, reading
email and gasping and getting emotional over these messages and
people are looking at me funny! anyway, on to read more posts!
bye
From: pete@ent-img.com (Pete Carah)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Three Studies on Lander's Effects on San Andreas
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:41:12 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: CST Entertainment Imaging

In article <1992Nov20.165013.24849@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>There are over a hundred papers on Landers at the AGU and the organization
>is pretty good at issuing press releases.

How long does it take for the proceedings to end up in decent univ libraries
(e.g. Caltech and UCLA, which are my most reachable)?

-- Pete
From: jimb@orion.oac.uci.edu (Jim Barrera)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: does anyone know anything about?
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:19:10 GMT

Richard Stead <stead@skadi.CSS.GOV> writes:
>Close enough.  That stretch of fault runs from Cholame to Parkfield and
>is considered to be the best example of a fully-predictable fault known.
>It has had regular quakes at about M6.5 every 21+/-3 years for over a century.
>Trouble is, it was due in 1989+/-3 years.  That period ends with the end of
>1992.  There are a lot of seismologists pulling their hair out over this one.
>They feel let down.  [...]  Nature just doesn't
>want to be very cooperative on quake prediction.  I think it will happen
>while all the seismologists are at the AGU meeting in San Francisco 
>(Dec 7-11).  [...] (Take that prediction with a :-), BTW).

My prediction is that as soon as the people who hold the purse strings
say "Hey, it's 1993 and it hasn't happened.  No more funding!" and
the seismologists have to pack up most of their equipment, then
we should be ready for the shaking...

`jimb
From: nomdenet@isi.edu (A. R. White)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Three Studies on Lander's Effects on San Andreas
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:42:20 GMT
Reply-To: nomdenet@venera.isi.edu (A. R. White)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California
Summary: Most likely The Big One will be sooner rather than later


   This morning NPR's science reporter Richard Harris did a story prompted
by the release of three studies about the effects of this year's Landers
quake on the San Andreas fault.  Appearing in the current issues of Science
and Nature, the reports, from three independent groups of researchers,
conclude that Landers increased stress on the San Andreas fault [system],
and most likely hastened The Big One.  This one event added something like
10-20 years of the stress which would normally accumulated from the 5cm/year
creep along the San Andreas.  Stress seems to have increased particularly
near Indio and San Bernardino in Southern California, and decreased between
these two places as well as north of Los Angeles.
   Harris interviewed Ross Stein of USGS Menlo Park.

   Like most news, this 4-minute story represents the reporter's probably
hasty reading of three papers, his sifting for the sexiest elements,
and his simplification for a lay audience -- though Harris tries hard
and mostly succeeds.  Living in Los Angeles (it sometimes seeming like life
without possibility of parole) I'm highly interested.
   Though I'll drop by my friendly local news stand this evening and buy
Nature & Science this evening, does anybody know anything more about this
research?



Thanks,


A. R. White
Internet:  nomdenet @ ISI.edu
From: cs65xaq@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Elvis2?)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: San Francisco Earthquake 89
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:22:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

I'm ready for the next big bay area earthquake! I'm living in San
Diego! (a north mexican earthquake on the other hand---)
:)
:(
From: greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Hmmm, did anyone else feel that?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 04:39:08 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: andy.berkeley.edu
Summary: Here's the info...

In article <Bxr5CH.KAC@unix.portal.com> dgm@shell.portal.com (David G Metzger) writes:
>In article <69505@cup.portal.com> Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts) writes:
>>About 2 am? I am in Cupertino.
>   Sure did. I'm in San Jose, near Campbell.  I made a note when I felt it:
>about 1:56am, Saturday morning.  A very sharp jolt, followed by shaking
>which decayed very quickly -- in less than 2 seconds(?).  I guess most were
>asleep.  I'll be curious to see if it shows on the weekly earthquake report.
>My bet puts it at 2.5-3.




Here is the information I have on this EQ from the
USGS in Menlo Park.  I haven't had a chance to do
the Berkeley location yet, but assuming their location,
I get the magnitude listed at the bottom.

11/14/92 01:57 am PST 
10 miles E of San Jose,
11 miles ESE of Milpitas.

Latitude 37 degrees, 22.0 minutes N
Longitude 121 degrees, 43.60 minutes W
Depth 5.14 kilometers
Magnitude 3.4

Berkeley magnitude =  3.3

Greg Anderson, skating seismologist
UC Berkeley Seismographic Stations
greg@perry.berkeley.edu
From: hannah@pomponio.ai.sri.com (Marsha Jo Hannah)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: San Francisco Earthquake 89
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:54:27 GMT
	<1992Nov16.072157.11027@deeptht.armory.com>
	<HANNAH.92Nov18112123@pomponio.ai.sri.com> <40678@unix.SRI.COM>
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
In-reply-to: maslak@unix.SRI.COM's message of 20 Nov 92 00:25:17 GMT

In article <40678@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:

   I did go into work the following day, and the evidence of damage to
   the building was extensive. But it took lots of staff complaints and
   nearly three weeks before they evacuated the building.  ...
   They epoxied the walls and added I-beams for support. The building
   now is "as safe as it was before the quake." Pardon me if I don't
   feel reassured. We don't have the money to fix it completely, they
   say. That would require a complete exoskeleton like they put on the
   USGS buildings just next door.

Like Valerie, I don't have a lot of warm fuzzy feelings about the
safety of the building that we work in, during another large
earthquake.  I do suspect that the reinforced wing would be more
likely to survive than the other two "undamaged" ones.  However, if
given a choice in the matter (hah!), I'd much prefer to ride out the
eventual Big One at home.  Having constructed our house ourselves
(with frequent references to Yanev's book, "Peace of Mind in
Earthquake Country"), I am reasonably confident that it will stay
upright, in one piece, and right where we put it.

Marsha Jo Hannah
La Honda, CA
From: jmcd@cea.berkeley.edu (John McDonald)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: 89 Loma Prieta (where was i?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:15:17 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Center for EUV Astrophysics


I had been in Boston working for the Smithsonian for a year
and a half, awaiting one of the few trips back to Santa Cruz
i had while away.  I was talking on the phone with a NYC friend
of mine, when i started hearing distressed conversation coming
from the next room, where my housemates were watching the Bay
Bridge Series.  Hearing "earthquake" in their conversation, i
practically hung up on my friend and rushed to the TV, where 
the first images of the SF destruction were coming in from the
Goodyear blimp.

Like everyone else, i was shocked and totally frightened by 
what i was seeing.  I found myself explaining sights to my
housemates, and seeing the Marina in flames reminded me that
my family, too, resided in a "total liquefaction zone", the
Sunset District.  I spent a great deal of time very worried.

I had to get away, and a friend took me to a cafe to chill out.
I couldn't stop worrying, though.

Later that night, my mom got through to me on the phone from 
SF, and i was describing to her the coverage on the news since
she still had no power.

Six days later, i was in Santa Cruz with my girlfriend.  I was
lucky to have already had my ticket, but the flight was still
cancelled half way home.  SF airport wasn't taking too many 
flights at the time.

During the week long visit, i experienced countless aftershocks.
(my girlfriend lived a quarter mile from that famous long crack
across Summit Road in the mountains)  The sight of my beloved
Santa Cruz (and everyone's nerves :-) in ruins is a shock and 
dismay i still haven't got over (not the least reason for which 
is that SC still hasn't fully recovered).  Now i am back on the 
west coast, awaiting the next one here on the Hayward Fault......

John
From: cs65xaq@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Elvis)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: does anyone know anything about?
Date: 20 Nov 92 01:18:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

There is a stretch of the San Andreas fault where there is actually
a 90% of an earthquake by 1993....near San Luis Obispo.
Can anyone verify this vague fact (that I read in an earthquake book
copyright 1992)???
can anyone give me (us all) more information about it?
From: cs65xaq@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Elvis)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: p.s. to my own post
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:57:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


I just wanted to add something that I didn't say before about my
earthquake experience, which seems so mundance to everyone else's
(first floor, no structural damage, etc.)
I was born in california (1974)
but from 1979-1984 I lived in New York
from 1984-1989 I had felt maybe 4 earthquakes.
certainly none over magnitude 4. THIS is why this earthquake
bothered me so much despite the lack of excitement in my story.
---
one interesting observation: all the stores, when finally open,
had plenty of everything except a few items:
bread was the biggie. It was really wierd that in a semi-panic there
was almost an animal instint to buy out the stores of something like
bread.....I'm not saying it doesn't make sense...just a wierd sight.
I definately think the word of the day was:
SURREAL!
-allan c
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Higher quake probability in Southern California
From: pfussell@borland.com (PaulFussell)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:37:40 GMT
Followup-To: ca.earthquakes
Distribution: ca.earthquakes
Organization: Borland International
Originator: pfussell@genghis.borland.com
From: nojanm@watnxt02.ucr.edu (Nojan Moshiri)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: San Francisco Earthquake 89
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:00:18 GMT

In article <1dsdflINNj1h@male.EBay.Sun.COM> 49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Renie  
Maycon) writes:
> I want to know what you were doing when the earthquake hit 
> 
> tell me what you were doing and where were you?

I was in my house, on top of a big hill, in Corte Madera, sitting down to watch  
the World Series with a couple of friends when the first waves hit.  the house  
felt like it was going to go right down the hill.  We just ran out of the  
house, jumped in the car and drove down the hill as fast as we could.

On reflection, it seems like we put ourselves in more danger by trying to "run  
away."
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: HAYWARD FAULT????
Date: 19 Nov 1992 20:32:29 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <41246@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cs65xaq@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Elvis) writes:
>I have a question for anyone out there...I know there are certain
>tendancies for earthquakes to occur at certain times.
>For instance, when the sun and moon are in sync so they are actually
>re-inforcing each others' pull on the earth.
Actually this has never been proven to happen at useful level.  The
study I trust most suggested that one in 80 earthquakes may be triggered
by tides.

>I also know that as far back as history goes, almost without fail
>there has been a big quke onthe hayward fault 3 years after a san
>andreas (bay area section) quake---any word of that theory being
>shot down? October 17th, 1992 came and went and unless I'm TOTALLY
>out of it, there's been nothing...Since this is just a set of
>observations, it is not guaranteed 2 work every time, of course--
>but can anyone tell me the latest about the theories about
>earthquakes? Is this theory still valid? Is anyone especialy on
>watch for earthquakes because it IS fall of '92? Or is that given
>only very little credit?
Yeah, but history doesn't go back very far and it wasn't always
the Hayward second.  There are two cases of close together large
earthquakes.  The 1865 event on the Santa Cruz Mts segment (or
near there) of the San Andreas fault and the 1868 Hayward event.
And the 1836 Hayward event and the 1838 probably Peninsula segment
of the San Andreas fault event.  And of course now the 1989 Loma
Prieta and nothing on the Hayward.  Plus the 1906 and nothing on
the Hayward.  A while ago Paul Reasenberg did some statistics and
showed that given the history of earthquakes in the Bay Area
since the early 1800's the probability that two of the inter-event
times are less than 3 years is not significant at the 95% confidence
level.  Nor does any physical model I like suggest that one fault
should trigger the other, in fact the oppossite should be true as
they remove stress from each other.  Hence, many seismologists don't
take this pairing to be important although some still do.

Andy
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: barrus@cod.nosc.mil
Subject: Re: HAYWARD FAULT????
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:12:23 GMT


>> So---this is interesting. Anyone who says an earthquake can't move
>> over 400+ miles is very wrong! :)
>
>No one has ever claimed this.  The 1811/1812 New Madrid quakes were felt
>from Quebec to Florida and from the Rockies to Boston.  Quakes in CA don't come
>close to this in terms of distance over which they can be felt.  The reason
>is the difference in the crustal structure.  CA's crust is all chewed up,
>warm and soft due to all the active tectonics.  Such material doesn't
>propagate waves very well.  The eastern US, however has a solid, hard, cold
>crust that propagates waves with very little energy loss.  Nevertheless,
>CA quakes are commonly felt at a distance of 400 km when they are in the
>neighborhood of M7 as these two quakes were.  Wait for the 8.3 - it will be
>felt over an even wider area.

Just an interesing note here.  My wife felt the Alaska earthquake of the 1960's and she lived in Boston.  (I don't remember the exact date as I am not an earthquake officianado; just a lurker here till now just enjoying the conversation.)

JDB
From: cs65xaq@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Elvis)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: San Francisco Earthquake 89
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:51:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Sounds like your neighborhood reacted similarly to mine--watching
TVs
on the lawn were common for us as well. I'm right by Sunnyvale
junior high, not far at all from the Cupertino border
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Three Studies on Lander's Effects on San Andreas
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:50:13 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Unocal Corporation

Comb your newspapers Wed Dec 9 through Sat Dec 12.
There are over a hundred papers on Landers at the AGU and the organization
is pretty good at issuing press releases.
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Three Studies on Lander's Effects on San Andreas
Date: 24 Nov 1992 04:56:59 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <3804@news.cerf.net> pete@ent-img.com (Pete Carah) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.165013.24849@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>>There are over a hundred papers on Landers at the AGU and the organization
>>is pretty good at issuing press releases.
>
>How long does it take for the proceedings to end up in decent univ libraries
>(e.g. Caltech and UCLA, which are my most reachable)?

There are no proceedings, just an abstract volume that is a supplement
to an issue of EOS.  It should already be in the libraries (I've had
mine for over a week or so.).  However, remember that the abstracts
were written in early September at the latest so there was only two
months since the earthquake, but an additional three will have passed
by the time of the meeting.  Hence, some of us will certainly say
things that are not in the abstracts.

Just as a note of interest.  The cover picture this year is the
Research Vessel S.P. Lee, formerly of the USGS.  If you look real
close there are three people on the port side of the bow.  The middle
one is my wife and I am the one furthest from the bow.  Actually we
just look like three blobs but we remember when the pic was taken. :-)

Andy
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Higher quake probability in Southern California
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:22:23 GMT
Distribution: ca.earthquakes

In article <1992Nov20.054846.19181@borland.com>, pfussell@borland.com (PaulFussell) writes:
> I'll try again--seems like I'm losing the first 7 or 8 lines of my
> messages. I read in the paper this morning that the Landers quake
> had increased stress on the San Andreas, and that there's a increased
> likelihood that the 8M quake that was supposed to occur in 30 years
> is now likely to occur in 10 years or less. Is anyone familiar with
> the data? What's your opinion?

Oooo - an invitation to speculate, I like that!

My opinion - The Landers quake is really just a typical Mojave quake of
a type we have no historic record of, but that must have been occurring
for millenia.  There is extensive evidence of previous activity on the
Landers fault and the many faults parallel to it in the Mojave.  Not only,
that, but I know for a fact that the region is one of the more seismically
active in southern CA, just that much of the seismicity is small.  While
I was a grad student at Caltech, I asked several times about the activity
in the region, and could find no one who knew anything about it or was even
the least interested.  Maybe I should have made it a project of my own,
but I was mostly just curious about it.

Anyway, what this implies is that the normal situation between San Andreas
quakes is that these other faults have quakes that add to the stress on
the San Andreas.  Thus the paleoseismic estimates of recurrance times
are unaffected by the Landers quake itself.  It simply means we did not
have a good understanding of all that happens in the intervals between
San Andreas quakes there.  Thus, if the Landers quake had not occurred,
then perhaps we could have expected the next San Andreas quake to occur
10-20 years later than normal paleoseismic evidence indicated since the
normal Landers-type quakes would not have been included in the interval.

So I don't think the San Andreas quake is due any earlier than expected.



--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: does anyone know anything about?
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:42:15 GMT

In article <41303@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cs65xaq@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Elvis) writes:
> There is a stretch of the San Andreas fault where there is actually
> a 90% of an earthquake by 1993....near San Luis Obispo.
> Can anyone verify this vague fact (that I read in an earthquake book

Close enough.  That stretch of fault runs from Cholame to Parkfield and
is considered to be the best example of a fully-predictable fault known.
It has had regular quakes at about M6.5 every 21+/-3 years for over a century.
Trouble is, it was due in 1989+/-3 years.  That period ends with the end of
1992.  There are a lot of seismologists pulling their hair out over this one.
They feel let down.  There is a multi-million dollar instrumentation experiment
along that section where it was hoped that a predictive precursor could be
caught since the quake was virtually assured to occur.  That is the same
section that resulted in the first official short-term quake prediction
just a few weeks ago.  However, it still didn't occur.  Nature just doesn't
want to be very cooperative on quake prediction.  I think it will happen
while all the seismologists are at the AGU meeting in San Francisco (Dec 7-11).
Seismology meetings have been good predictors in the past - even the 1906
quake happened during a seismology meeting.  Especially since there will be
many talks about the "failure" of our only full-predictable fault, I can
just see the quake occurring while some prestiguous speaker is expounding
on why we should have known the quake wouldn't occur.

(Take that prediction with a :-), BTW).



--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: San Francisco Earthquake 89
Date: 19 Nov 1992 17:00:11 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: earth.gps.caltech.edu
Summary: more earthquake humor

In article <1efhhoINNose@morrow.stanford.edu> steve@sep.Stanford.EDU (Steve Cole) writes:
>A couple quick stories from my experience, including one near tragedy 
>and one bit of humor.

Another bit of earthquake humor, this one recounted to me second hand:

A woman was out working in her yard the afternoon of 10/17/89.  Her
young son (2-3?) turned the sprinklers on a couple of times, getting her
wet.  She reprimanded him each time and finally lost patience, collecting
the kid and depositing him in his crib.  She returned to the yard and the
earthquake hit a few minutes later.  There was a shriek from the house;
she rushed inside to find the kid unharmed but clearly (no pun intended)
shaken.  He was very quiet and calm for the next half hour.  When his
father arrived home aroun 5:30, the kid approached him with great
concern and seriousness, "Daddy, don't turn on the sprinkler"

Sue