• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Utah - the Angel Moroni lost it's horn

Glitch said:
As someone who has experienced hundreds quakes ranging up to a magnitude 8.0. Including a magnitude 7.1 quake whose epicenter was only 2.5 miles away from my home. A 5.7 magnitude quake is a serious quake. When they are below magnitude 5.0 they can be fun, but at 5.0 and above they become a concern and can potentially cause serious damage. Particularly in States that do not regularly get moderate to large quakes. I'm glad to see the damage in Utah was minor and that there were no injuries, it could have been worse.
Click to expand...

Where you're at it's totally serious business, Fairbanks 1964...houses winding up a hundred feet higher than the ones on the other side of the road, entire streets torn to shreds, total collapse of entire sections of the town center.

Yes, Alaska is definitely serious business where quakes are concerned, no question about it.
But again, in the end, seismic construction standards make a difference.
In 1994 my apartment building in Santa Monica PANCAKED.

But seismic standards here in Cali are almost as stringent as Japan's.
Stuff still gets serious and yes, you can still get seriously injured but buildings are safer now, and if they can't be made safer, they get torn down, simple as that.

That's how we roll down here.
I would imagine that trying to enforce those kinds of construction standards on old buildings in small Alaskan towns would not be feasible. So I cannot dispute your perspective.

And, you guys have had quakes 8.0 and even ABOVE an eight if my memory serves me right.
And yes, as you mentioned, it also has a lot to do with the epicenter AND the DEPTH, too.

A 4.4 with a depth of only a mile or so can be horrifically bad compared to a 6.4 at several miles deep.
And the epicenter is a huge factor.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Where you're at it's totally serious business, Fairbanks 1964...houses winding up a hundred feet higher than the ones on the other side of the road, entire streets torn to shreds, total collapse of entire sections of the town center.

Yes, Alaska is definitely serious business where quakes are concerned, no question about it.
But again, in the end, seismic construction standards make a difference.
In 1994 my apartment building in Santa Monica PANCAKED.

But seismic standards here in Cali are almost as stringent as Japan's.
Stuff still gets serious and yes, you can still get seriously injured but buildings are safer now, and if they can't be made safer, they get torn down, simple as that.

That's how we roll down here.
I would imagine that trying to enforce those kinds of construction standards on old buildings in small Alaskan towns would not be feasible. So I cannot dispute your perspective.

And, you guys have had quakes 8.0 and even ABOVE an eight if my memory serves me right.
And yes, as you mentioned, it also has a lot to do with the epicenter AND the DEPTH, too.

A 4.4 with a depth of only a mile or so can be horrifically bad compared to a 6.4 at several miles deep.
And the epicenter is a huge factor.
Click to expand...

Yes, southern California in particular has some very strict building codes with regards to earthquakes, understandably so. Utah, not so much. Which is why I'm pleased the damage was minor and there were no injuries. I recall a 4.5 magnitude quake in Whittier in the late 1980s that killed a man because a brick wall suddenly collapsed on him. So even minor quakes can kill. Utah does not have anywhere near the same building requirements as California does, so the damage could have been significantly worse. I'm glad that is wasn't.

In Alaska if you live within the limits of the town or city then you must abide by those building codes. However, if you do not live within the limits of any village, town, or city, then you are pretty much free to build whatever you like. The State does have strict guidelines concerning septic systems and wells outside the limits of villages, towns, and cities, but otherwise there are no building codes or building inspections (other than the State). I've seen some really nice homes, and some real crap homes. They vary significantly.

I had my home built in 2003, just after the Denali quake. I had to perform my own inspections to ensure construction was being completed as stipulated. The State sent their own inspectors concerning my septic and well. My home is not a standard construction, I used 2x6 studs instead of 2x4 so I could increase the amount of insulation in my walls. When the home was completed it was given a 5-Star Energy rating, and has withstood a distant (150 miles away) 7.9 magnitude quake, and a nearby (2.5 miles away) 7.1 magnitude quake (Nov. 2018) with no damage. Other than a minor crack in the dry-wall which was easily taped over. Single-story wooden structures are best suited for surviving earthquakes. Wood is much more flexible than concrete and metal structures.

The ground you are on is also a factor in an earthquake. If you are on sandy, loamy soil then you are likely going to experience liquefaction in a big quake, where the ground literally becomes liquid. If you are on bed-rock then instead of a smooth rolling effect, it will feel like a sharp jerking effect. The size of the quake also determines the duration. The 9.2 magnitude quake in 1964 had continuous shaking for 4 minutes. The 8.0 magnitude quake in 2002 shook the ground continuously for over 2 minutes.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Uh ohhh, you're an old guy??
Wow so you experienced quakes in Cali back before any serious seismic construction standards?
Boy howdy, that must have been Hell.
A friend of mine lived through Sylmar 1971 and he described the damage, way scary!

Here's KTLA TV5's Chris Schauble during a recent shaker...his FIRST!!
It was a 4.4 :lamo



To this day people are still teasing him about his "Earthquake Face".
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I remember that guy. I didn't even need to see the video to know who you were talking about. :lamo

No, I'm just an old lady of 66...damn it. And si...I experienced quakes before and after construction standards...and when earthquake insurance only cost $160 a year. We lived three blocks from the Northridge quake epicenter...and it was our first home that we had just bought six months prior. Our house was on slab and the damage was minimal compared to the condo up the street that pancaked and killed a lot of people in their sleep. The whole experience was surreal and something you never forget. That's why I say if we could survive the Northridge earthquake then we can survive this puny little earthquake we had this morning. Bring it on, MN. whoa, jk...knock on wood.


Here's a meme for you, CS....(wish I knew how to change it's size)...


90378499_10158695251364893_7079318396982001664_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
The ground you are on is also a factor in an earthquake. If you are on sandy, loamy soil then you are likely going to experience liquefaction in a big quake, where the ground literally becomes liquid. If you are on bed-rock then instead of a smooth rolling effect, it will feel like a sharp jerking effect. The size of the quake also determines the duration. The 9.2 magnitude quake in 1964 had continuous shaking for 4 minutes. The 8.0 magnitude quake in 2002 shook the ground continuously for over 2 minutes.
Click to expand...


Yup, yup and yup, you're more knowledgeable about quakes and seismic standards than most folks down here in La La Land.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Yup, yup and yup, you're more knowledgeable about quakes and seismic standards than most folks down here in La La Land.
Click to expand...

It is just experience. We average 45 earthquakes in the magnitude 6 to 7 range, and ~10,000 quakes overall, annually. That is more than 27 quakes every day in Alaska. Of course most of those are magnitude 3.0 or less so nobody feels them. Most of those quakes are also centered around our 57 active volcanoes.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
He lost his horn, he didn't blow it. Since he can't find his lost horn, I guess Jesus is never coming :(
Click to expand...

When my husband heard the news, he drove downtown to take pictures of Moroni without his horn. He said there were people standing around saying 'it's the end of the world.' Then a guy spoke up and said that since Moroni can't blow his horn now it must mean the world is saved. So I guess it just depends on how you look at it. But I don't think he'll be without a horn for long.
 
Moot said:
When my husband heard the news, he drove downtown to take pictures of Moroni without his horn. He said there were people standing around saying 'it's the end of the world.' Then a guy spoke up and said that since Moroni can't blow his horn now it must mean the world is saved. So I guess it just depends on how you look at it. But I don't think he'll be without a horn for long.
Click to expand...

I'm still laughing over hearing that "someone took it home and converted it into a bong."
 
After careful consideration, experts agree, the first syllable in trumpet is "trump", hence why the horn fell off.
 
90049736_10158200484441944_7864844885805760512_n.jpg
 
The Wasatch and Uinta ranges did not get there through erosion.
 
Vadinho said:
The Wasatch and Uinta ranges did not get there through erosion.
Click to expand...

Mountain ranges are created through up-lifting, not erosion. The erosion comes after the mountains are formed. In the case of the Wasatch and Unita ranges, they sprang into existence sometime between 50 and 70 million years ago. Which makes both ranges slightly younger than the Rocky Mountain range that formed between 55 and 80 million years ago.
 
Glitch said:
Mountain ranges are created through up-lifting, not erosion. The erosion comes after the mountains are formed. In the case of the Wasatch and Unita ranges, they sprang into existence sometime between 50 and 70 million years ago. Which makes both ranges slightly younger than the Rocky Mountain range that formed between 55 and 80 million years ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. If you like geology, try reading Annals of a Former World. Won a Pulitzer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom