[Rockhounds] New Madrid fault

[Alan Goldstein]

While I'm not a structural geologist, I'm have a healthy dose of skepticism 
when a geologist says that a fault zone that has been active for nearly 700 
million years, with three 7.0+ earthquakes 200 years ago and numerous small 
(<2.0) quakes every year says that the New Madrid zone is dead or dying. Not 
quite as bad as Ibn Browning, but not entirely believable. I am thinking 
statistics here - what are the odds of this happening in this millennium 
(much less this century)?

Alan G.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J Bryan Kramer" <codeburner at gmail.com>
To: "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors" 
<rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: [Rockhounds] New Madrid fault


I thought some may be interested in this:

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090313145956.htm>

Do deep subsurface faults always produce measurable surface movement?

BK

-- 
“It often seems to me that the night is much more alive and richly colored
than the day."

                      Vincent van Gogh

J Bryan Krämer       North Florida, USA
photos at: http://pbase.com/photoburner
blog at: http://www.photoburner.net


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---
-- 
_______________________________________________
Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
Subscription Services:
http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html