| Author |
Message
|
| Raziell |
 Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:58 am Post subject: Earthquakes. Most safe and least safest places on earth? |
 |
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 12 Sep 2008
Posts: 316
|
When i tried googling this all i got was posts on where to hide during earthquakes. What im trying to figure out on the other hand is which continents/countries are the most safe and which ones are the least safest regarding earthquakes?
The reason for my curiosity is that a guy from school mentioned this week that i shouldnt fear earthquakes in Norway, europe where i live because its the safest place on earth from earthquakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| JennLonhon |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Under the Sun, Moon and Stars
|
One of the least safest areas of the world is Istanbul and the countries along Adriatic sea. Specially Istanbul because it's located on top of two shifting earth plates(I don't know if that's the right expression)
_________________
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
Mahatma Gandhi
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace"
Jimmy Hendrix |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4561
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
i'd say one of the safest places earthquake-wise is most parts of Africa, which for a large part consists of ancient stable cratons, and apart from the east-african rift valley and its northern border where it pushes into europe only has passive margins
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting, and less interesting than drinking a beer  (although that's still moderately interesting) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
Nowadays "urban environment" applies to regions of the Earth. Urban environments are most dangerous (look up), additionally if fires grow uncontrollable.
EDIT: I should expand by mentioning that earthquake preparedness varies considerably from region to region. For example in Japan PA speakers mounted throughout every neighbourhood tell people what to do, where to go, and "Hitomi-chan, your mommy's waiting for you at the schoolyard." etc. Also Californians and Chileans are relatively prepared.
Possibly the most dangerous place, because of earthquake intensity and non-preparedness, is Vancouver, British Columbia. We have essentially the same plate movement of California or Chile, yet "we don't get earthquakes" because in our case the opposing plates are "sticky" and so relieve their accumulated energy only every 400 years or so. This is a megathrust event. The compressed coast slides about 20m toward the Pacific, and drops about 1m. The last event occurred in 1700, striking Japan with tsunami. Part of Greater Vancouver is built on sea-level river delta, so at least those parts submerged needn't worry about fire. 
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| skeptic |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 1110
|
The 'least safe' places are tectonic plate junctions. The following reference has a map showing where these are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
The safest places would be Australia and southern Africa. Least safe obviously includes Chile! But Norway is well clear of the danger zones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Rickdog |
| Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 22 Jan 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Santiago de Chile
|
Depends on the point of view and how you may analize the issue.
Chile is one of the most probable places, where an earthquake will get produced, but since this fact being right, we are kind of well prepared for these kind of events, since we are always certain that in a 20 year period, we will have to suffer a big one.
Imho, the unsafest place where to be if eventually an earthquake takes place its where it is unexpected by not being probable by any means, as Australia and Southern Africa. I don`t think that their constructions are even anti sysmic, so if building start falling down, the numbers of dead and injured would be huge compared to the places where earthquakes usually hit.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| skeptic |
| Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 1110
|
Rickdog
You are correct. I used the word 'unsafe' to mean where there are most likely to be bad earthquakes, but a minor earthquake can be very dangerous if people are not prepared. The Haiti earthquake is a good example.
Chile is a country, like Japan and New Zealand, where earthquakes are expected, and buildings are designed to withstand them. Since earthquake deaths and injuries are mostly caused by falling buildings and parts of buildings, constructing to high standards makes an enormous difference. The recent Chile quake was an exception, since it was so massive at 8.8 on the Richter scale. At those energies, even well built structures may collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tenderheart bear |
| Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:18 pm Post subject: Re: Earthquakes. Most safe and least safest places on earth? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Posts: 90
|
| Raziell wrote: |
When i tried googling this all i got was posts on where to hide during earthquakes. What im trying to figure out on the other hand is which continents/countries are the most safe and which ones are the least safest regarding earthquakes?
The reason for my curiosity is that a guy from school mentioned this week that i shouldnt fear earthquakes in Norway, europe where i live because its the safest place on earth from earthquakes. |
To essentially restate what's been said: the safest places are those that are located on stable (shield) cratons. My own location, Manitoba, for example, hasn't had active tectonism in 1.8 billion years.
The next safest place would be areas of active tectonism in developed countries. For example, Japan and the west coasts of US and Canada.
Next in line would be developing countries such as Chile.
Lowest on the list would be examples like Haiti, where an earthquake 1000 times less powerful than Chile's caused x1000 the human death toll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Time Lord
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 6193
Location: Scotland
|
| skeptic wrote: |
| But Norway is well clear of the danger zones. |
Only if we choose to ignore the the Storegga Slide which generated massive tsunamis off the Norwegain coast within the last 50,000 years, triggered by earthquakes and facilitated by gas hydrates.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
