8.8-magnitude Chile quake generates tsunami

[vivfox]

Temblor causes blackouts 200 miles away in Santiago; casualties unknown

Breaking news

updated less than 1 minute ago
A massive magnitude-8.8 earthquake struck near the coast of south-central Chile early on Saturday, shaking buildings and causing blackouts in parts of the capital Santiago, 200 miles away.

A tsunami warning was issued for Chile and Peru by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and a tsunami watch was issued for Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica and Antarctica.

Soon after, the U.S. Geological Survey said the quake had generated a tsunami that may have been destructive along the Chilean coast near the epicenter.

The USGS said the earthquake struck 56 miles northeast of the city of Concepcion at a depth of 34 miles at 3:34 a.m. (1:34 ET). Its magnitude was initially reported at 8.3 then 8.5.

An earthquake of magnitude 8 or over is classified as a "great" earthquake that can cause "tremendous damage," according to the USGS Web site. The earthquake that devastated Haiti's capital Port-au-Prince on Jan. 12 was rated at magnitude 7.0.

According to a 2002 census, Concepcion is one of the largest cities in Chile with a population of around 670,000. The quake knocked out power in nearby coastal areas.

Shaking, blackouts in Santiago
People streamed onto the streets of the Chilean capital, more than 200 miles north of the epicenter, hugging each other and crying, a Reuters witness reported. Buildings shook and there were blackouts in parts of the city.

The Reuters witness reported very strong shaking lasting for 10 to 30 seconds.

A national emergency official told local radio the government was evaluating damage in and around Concepcion.

The quake struck far from Chile's copper-producing northern region. Chile is the world's biggest producer of copper, its main export, producing about 34 percent of world supply of the metal, which is used in electronics, cars and refrigerators.

In 1960, Chile was hit by the world's biggest earthquake since records dating back to 1900, USGS data shows. The 9.5 magnitude quake devastated the south-central city of Valdivia, killing 1,655 people and sending a tsunami which battered Easter Island 2,300 miles off Chile's Pacific seaboard and continued as far as Hawaii, Japan and the Philippines.

Editor's note: This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35615455/ns/world_news-americas

[vivfox]

Reuters reported that a tsunami caused by the quake caused "serious damage" to Chile's sparsely populated Juan Fernández Islands. Citing local police, CNN reported that the islands had been hit by a 40-meter (131-foot) wave. :eek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35615455/ns/world_news-americas/?gt1=43001

[Lee]

This seems to be the only thing in the news right now. I feel for the people in Chile. I hope people heed the warning about the tsunami moving in the Pacific & move to higher ground.

Does Mick & John still live in Hawaii? I'm not sure what part of Hawaii they live in or lived in.

Lee :distress:

[Ghost_Tracker]

Still trying to figure out just how bad this is. Not to be a pessimist but it seems to be following the same pattern as Haiti - - - first they were saying around 150 dead, now it's 250 and they're saying that "it's expected to rise in the next hours and days..."
On the more optimistic side, Chile has a lot more money and the buildings are apparently designed to be able to "take" a strong earthquake - but then again, this one was more than 10 times stronger than the one in Haiti.
I think maybe they're all in "wait and see" mode.

[David]

but then again, this one was more than 10 times stronger than the one in Haiti.This one was about 800 times stronger than the one in Haiti.

This quake was one of the 7 or 8 largest quakes in the world since record-keeping started.

[tilthefirefades]

Not to sound strange or anything :o, but I am always imagining and thinking up all these strange conspiracies. I just think it's so odd that these earthquakes hit back to back. And hurricane Katrina a few years ago, and all these global disasters period. I just wonder if this means anything...? I'm one of the few people I guess who kind of believe in the whole 2012 thing. But it could be my imagination.

[David]

Not to sound strange or anything :o, but I am always imagining and thinking up all these strange conspiracies. I just think it's so odd that these earthquakes hit back to back. To pick a stretch of several years at random: Earthquakes all exceeding magnitude 8 hit in 1946 (Aleutian Islands), 1952 (Kuril Islands), 1957 (Aleutian Islands), 1960 (Chile), & 1964 (Alaska).

Three of those quakes were three of the four largest quakes ever recorded.

You could find endless such random patterns going back in history.

[Ghost_Tracker]

This one was about 800 times stronger than the one in Haiti.

This quake was one of the 7 or 8 largest quakes in the world since record-keeping started.


I could be wrong, but despite the huge difference in strength, I think maybe it's beginning to look like this one wasn't anywhere near as bad as in Haiti. Chile has a lot more money and therefore (I hear) has been able to design their buildings in a way that they are more-or-less able to minimize the damage from an earthquake.
Their information-gathering ability and communications are also (I believe) much better than in Haiti, so if it was this big huge thing, relatively speaking, I think we would probably know by now. And since they have a lot more money than Haiti they therefore are better--equipped to deal with the aftermath.
So far I think maybe it looks like it's going to be somewhere between a thousand and three thousand - which is bad, of course, it's *terrible*; but I personally don't think it's going to be this big huge unfathomable thing the way Haiti was. (and is...)

P.S. - I THINK maybe the reason I was wrong about the strength is that it's 7.8 on the Richter scale - not 7 - - - I just looked at the 7. I believe it's a "base 10" kind of thing - - - - I'm probably phrasing that very badly but what I mean is that you multiply by ten for each increase of 1 on the Richter scale. An increase of two would mean multipy by 100. Anyway things are getting muddled with all these numbers but long story short, 'ya can't disregard the .8 the way I did; there's a HUGE difference between 7 and 7.8. Something along those general lines, anyway.

[David]

I could be wrong, but despite the huge difference in strength, I think maybe it's beginning to look like this one wasn't anywhere near as bad as in Haiti. Chile has a lot more money and therefore (I hear) has been able to design their buildings in a way that they are more-or-less able to minimize the damage from an earthquake.Chile has building codes. These codes help save lives. You are right.

P.S. - I THINK maybe the reason I was wrong about the strength is that it's 7.8 on the Richter scale - not 7 - - - I just looked at the 7. I believe it's a "base 10" kind of thing - - - - I'm probably phrasing that very badly but what I mean is that you multiply by ten for each increase of 1 on the Richter scale. An increase of two would mean multipy by 100. Anyway things are getting muddled with all these numbers but long story short, 'ya can't disregard the .8 the way I did; there's a HUGE difference between 7 and 7.8. Something along those general lines, anyway.Throw out the Richter computation, Tracker. Richter isn't used to compute magnitude of such big quakes. The seismic moment is computed instead, & a moment magnitude value is derived.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Throw out the Richter computation, Tracker. Richter isn't used to compute magnitude of such big quakes. The seismic moment is computed instead, & a moment magnitude value is derived.

Oh okay. I saw something about Mw on Wikipedia, which I assume stands for Megawatts. I believe it said that this was "7.8 Mw" - I wasn't sure if that was the same as "7.8 on the Richter scale" or not.

Anyway I just glanced at the cnn site and they seem to be focusing on the fact that there's a curfew, etc., and other "incidentals."
So I think maybe it still looks so far like it's not a mass-casualty event. That's speaking relative to Haiti, of course.

[jaycee]

Not to sound strange or anything :o, but I am always imagining and thinking up all these strange conspiracies. I just think it's so odd that these earthquakes hit back to back. And hurricane Katrina a few years ago, and all these global disasters period. I just wonder if this means anything...? I'm one of the few people I guess who kind of believe in the whole 2012 thing. But it could be my imagination.

:) I don't think we have to worry about 20/12/2012. I mean, what exactly was the great insight the Mayans had that allowed them to calculate the date of destruction?
By way of example, I could probably inspire fear in at least a few people just by positing here that the date of destruction will arrive sooner - 20/11/2011, in the form of a volcanic eruption (apparently there's one volcano well overdue for an eruption, but I'll have to ask everyone's forgiveness for not being able to source it yet). Sure, I didn't use any particularly useful reasoning at all, but I could still be right... I'm waiting in earnest now! :laugh:

[David]

Oh okay. I saw something about Mw on Wikipedia, which I assume stands for Megawatts. I believe it said that this was "7.8 Mw" - I wasn't sure if that was the same as "7.8 on the Richter scale" or not.I'm lost. We talking about Haiti or Chile or something else? Chile was a mag 8.8. A mag 7.8 wouldn't be able to create a basin-wide tsunami (or "teletsunami"), unless it triggered a submarine landslide.

So I think maybe it still looks so far like it's not a mass-casualty event. That's speaking relative to Haiti, of course.No, not thousands dead in Chile -- although the 1960 megathrust quake off the coast killed about 3,000. But the modernization in Chile since 1960 really has made a difference.

Now, what will happen in the American Northwest & Vancouver when our own megathrust occurs (Cascadia)? Even modern building codes aren't designed to withstand the length of shaking that would occur in a mag 9.0.

Remember, a mag 9.0 doesn't necessarily shake harder than a smaller quake, but it shakes longer.

See my blog for my views on the wide quality of reporting of Friday's quake.