Earthquake reports from SF
#16
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 115
Re: Earthquake reports from SF
#18
Re: Earthquake reports from SF
we are in Tri Valley - about 60 miles away from Napa - hubby woke at 3.30am and felt it - said it felt like a 3.0 here
Me - i slept thro it all!! I also tho slept thro the 87 Hurricane in the UK!! No damage here at all
We had a lot when i lived in Eureka including a 6.something recently - the epicenter of them was always out to sea hence not much damage thank goodness
I guess its part of CA life but scary non the same
I wish all who are affected well
Me - i slept thro it all!! I also tho slept thro the 87 Hurricane in the UK!! No damage here at all
We had a lot when i lived in Eureka including a 6.something recently - the epicenter of them was always out to sea hence not much damage thank goodness
I guess its part of CA life but scary non the same
I wish all who are affected well
#19
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 288
Re: Earthquake reports from SF
I live about 30 miles away from Napa - woke both myself and my wife up - kids slept through it - I honestly thought someone was grabbing our bed to wake us up - lots of stuff moving about but nothing more than that.
#20
Re: Earthquake reports from SF
Me too (in London, SW20), I only discovered when I woke up and my clock radio went off then went silent when the power failed (it had a loose power cord, which could usually be fixed by wiggling the cord where it plugged in to the radio, but not that day). I got up and looked out of my window into the street where I could see three trees down and branches were blowing down the road like tumbleweed in a western.
Last edited by Pulaski; Aug 25th 2014 at 4:29 pm.
#22
Re: Earthquake reports from SF
I remember once I was playing some FPS video game on the internet at some ungodly hour and I was just getting to a juicy bit where mayhem was taking place and the house started shaking. For a second I was like, "wow this game is awesome!" And then it dawned on me that it was an earthquake.
I've slept through hurricanes too.
I've slept through hurricanes too.
#23
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: Earthquake reports from SF
Didn't feel it in San Jose. As far as distances, the Loma Preita earthquake epic center was about 15 miles from downtown San Jose and about the same from Santa Cruz and very little damage was in the south bay but downtown Santa Cruz was pretty much destroyed and major damage occurred in San Francisco and Oakland at about 60 miles away.
This quake woke me up. I knew it was quite large due to the time it lasted. But compared to Loma Prieta - which was absolutely terrifying - I quickly realized this wasn't anywhere near as strong. About 10 times less strong in fact...
#24
Re: Earthquake reports from SF
The major damage from Loma Prieta in SF and Oakland was in areas where significant liquefaction occurred, which is often as big a factor as actual proximity to the epicenter.
This quake woke me up. I knew it was quite large due to the time it lasted. But compared to Loma Prieta - which was absolutely terrifying - I quickly realized this wasn't anywhere near as strong. About 10 times less strong in fact...
This quake woke me up. I knew it was quite large due to the time it lasted. But compared to Loma Prieta - which was absolutely terrifying - I quickly realized this wasn't anywhere near as strong. About 10 times less strong in fact...
I suspect a lot has to do with the way the waves are propagated.
#25
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: Earthquake reports from SF
Downtown Santa Cruz fell down because the brick buildings weren't reinforced but downtown San Jose's brick buildings also weren't reinforced and there was little damage. The Marina had a lot of problems because liquefaction occurred but Forster City didn't even though it is built on landfill.
I suspect a lot has to do with the way the waves are propagated.
I suspect a lot has to do with the way the waves are propagated.
#26
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 4,913
Re: Earthquake reports from SF
Downtown Santa Cruz fell down because the brick buildings weren't reinforced but downtown San Jose's brick buildings also weren't reinforced and there was little damage. The Marina had a lot of problems because liquefaction occurred but Forster City didn't even though it is built on landfill.
I suspect a lot has to do with the way the waves are propagated.
I suspect a lot has to do with the way the waves are propagated.
The San Lorenzo river used to flood that entire area every year until levees were built in the late 19th / early 20th century.
Certainly the buildings which suffered the worst damage were ones built prior to about 1940 which had little in the way of reinforcement. The more modern buildings suffered damage that was, in many cases, not practical to repair but they did not collapse.