"dxAce" wrote in message
...
WLS 890 Chicago is reporting a preliminary 5.8 magnitude earthquake that
hit the
greater Los Angeles area at 1842Z.


It was a 5.4 and really is what is called a small quake. It was only about
2% of the strength of the 1994 Northridge quake.

Shake it baby, don't break it, wrap it up and I will take it.
cuhulin

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
WLS 890 Chicago is reporting a preliminary 5.8 magnitude earthquake that
hit the
greater Los Angeles area at 1842Z.


It was a 5.4 and really is what is called a small quake.

Yep, since you have a GED I guess I'll just have to take your word on that one.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:49:06 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
WLS 890 Chicago is reporting a preliminary 5.8 magnitude earthquake that
hit the
greater Los Angeles area at 1842Z.


It was a 5.4 and really is what is called a small quake.

Yep, since you have a GED I guess I'll just have to take your word on that one.


I kept checking USGS today and it was downrated: it is quite common
for the initially reported reading to change as more data is crunched.
As to Eduardo..........even a blind squirrell finds an acorn now &
again.

From the USGS:
A magnitude-5.4 earthquake rattled Los Angeles today, causing strong
shaking, minor damage and was felt from Arizona to Nevada.

Nearly 50 aftershocks have been recorded so far, most of them small,
many of them felt, the largest being a magnitude-3.8.

The last notable earthquakes causing significant damage in the area
were the Jan. 17, 1994, magnitude-6.7 Northridge earthquake and the
Oct. 1, 1987, magnitude-5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake. In 1999, the
magnitude-7.1 Hector Mine earthquake in a remote part of the Mojave
Desert was widely felt through the greater Los Angeles region, but
caused no damage.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
WLS 890 Chicago is reporting a preliminary 5.8 magnitude earthquake
that
hit the
greater Los Angeles area at 1842Z.


It was a 5.4 and really is what is called a small quake.

Yep, since you have a GED I guess I'll just have to take your word on that
one.

No, take the word of the director of the USGS. She spent the afternoon
explaining that this was a minor quake, with about 2% of the energy of the
1/14/94 Northridge event.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
WLS 890 Chicago is reporting a preliminary 5.8 magnitude earthquake
that
hit the
greater Los Angeles area at 1842Z.


It was a 5.4 and really is what is called a small quake.

Yep, since you have a GED I guess I'll just have to take your word on that
one.

No, take the word of the director of the USGS. She spent the afternoon
explaining that this was a minor quake, with about 2% of the energy of the
1/14/94 Northridge event.

'Eduardo', I can imagine that it takes a whole afternoon trying to explain to
you the simplest of concepts.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:28:31 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
WLS 890 Chicago is reporting a preliminary 5.8 magnitude earthquake
that
hit the
greater Los Angeles area at 1842Z.


It was a 5.4 and really is what is called a small quake.

Yep, since you have a GED I guess I'll just have to take your word on that
one.

No, take the word of the director of the USGS. She spent the afternoon
explaining that this was a minor quake, with about 2% of the energy of the
1/14/94 Northridge event.

Last I checked, USGS classed it as a 'moderate' quake. Not unusual
to see differences between what's put on the news and what's on the
USGS website - especially within the first 24 hours.