Monday, January 18, 2010

Science of Disaster, Haiti Quake

The disaster that struck in Port-au-Prince has shocked the American population. However, there are those amongst the masses who are viewing the situation with a critical eye. Geologists are analyzing the factors of this quake and are unsurprised that such an event managed to happen.

The effects of this magnitude 7.0 earthquake included toppling houses and bringing down long-standing buildings, devastating the entire city. It would normally take an earthquake of much greater magnitude, in the range of 8.0 or higher, to do such damage. However, the foundation of the city must be taken into account.

When you step onto a dirt pathway, your steps will remain steady. If the dirt has been compromised, due to loosening or wetting from rainfall, your foot might just sink into the pathway. In the case of Port-au-Prince, the foundation of the city was already weak. Another facet in the equation is the fault line that runs through the Caribbean islands.

The Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault had been storing potential energy at 20 millimeters per year since a huge quake in 1760, said Paul Mann, a research scientist at the University of Texas. To put this into perspective, the Nevada Seismological Lab reported a comparison chart to regard the power of magnitudes on a more recognizable scale. At 1.5 and under, the power is equal to six ounces of TNT. The power of a 7.0 magnitude is equal to 32 million tons of TNT. On that fated Tuesday, the people of Port-au-Prince were sitting on a massive payload of energy that went off all at once.

This event may seem detached from us in the contingent America, but we in the Northwest have reason to shudder. We too rest upon a fault line. One that has likewise been storing up great energy. Hopefully, this disaster will be learned from and scientists will keep a keen eye on the activity of our home for any warning signs.

1 comment:

  1. Chris: You cite one source above, but each post needs three per my instructions. This will give you more substantiation for your opinions and establish greater credibility with readers. I want to see that you're reading media reports on science topics. Be careful with using words you may not understand. At left, you say you want to build a "refutable portfolio." I think you meant to write "reputable." Score: 7

    ReplyDelete