AP: (South Asian) Earthquake affects Missouri wells

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2004/Dec/20041231News033.asp

Earthquake affects Missouri wells

Published Friday, December 31, 2004

JEFFERSON CITY (AP) - The earthquake that triggered deadly tsunamis in south Asia and eastern Africa caused ripples in underground water as far away as Missouri.

Shock waves from the 9.0 magnitude earthquake in the Indian Ocean caused fluctuations in Missouri groundwater levels tracked by a network of monitoring wells, the state Department of Natural Resources said yesterday.

(snip)

At 7:30 p.m., the water level at the Aurora well still was relatively stable at 98 feet below the land’s surface. By 8 p.m. it had risen to 97.57 feet, and by 8:30 p.m., it had fallen to 98.28 feet below the land’s surface.

(snip)

One theory for the fluctuation, the department said, is that seismic waves alternately compressed and relaxed the bedrock. The rock near Aurora - a type of limestone called dolomite - has more tiny spaces that can hold water than many other forms of rock. The earthquake essentially squeezed the water out of the rocks for a brief time, Palmer said.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2004/Dec/20041231News033.asp

What effects Asia effects Missouri!!! thats amazing!!!

Yes indeedy, one planet, all connected. :D

stories like this make me wonder how much damage we have done to the internal/unknown mechanics of the earth with all our underground testing of nuclear arms.

http://india.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/209980.shtml

In the aftermath of a cataclysm like the Asian tsunami, speculation can run wild. Reserving judgment until we really know what happened, here is a list of salient questions and answers that I,ve compiled from news reports, government and other reliable sources

Q: What made the plates shift?
A: It may have been set off by another quake of about 8.1 on the Richter scale on the other side of the plate about 900 km SE of the coast of Tasmania on Thursday, December 24, which caused no serious damage however. The causal relationship is not proved but the time sequence is striking and some seismologists have considered it quite possible.

Q: Is it possible for a nuclear explosion to have triggered the Macquarie quake in some way and indirectly caused the changes that led to the Sumatra quake and the Asian tsunami?
A: It is possible that a very large explosion might have triggered the first quake directly in some way or that repeated prior testing could have induced changes that led to the quake indirectly, but research on the fall-out of nuclear testing is so highly classified that little is known of the possible impact. The U.S. has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, leaving the door open to future U.S. testing despite an extended moratorium. There has already been a strong move toward resumption of testing since 2002. Now earth-penetrating nukes (bunker busters) and mini-nukes might provide the pretext.

Q: Was anyone warned in time at all?
A: Yes. The NOAA immediately warned the U.S. Naval Station at Diego Garcia, which suffered very little damage from the tsunami. NOAA was able to get the warning to the US Navy base in the area, but says it was unable to contact the civil authorities in the region to warn them.

http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=1701&PHPSESSID=555bd374f1029001ceb49440adf1b64f


The ocean in San Diego, 1/2 a world away, rose 10 inches. It IS a
small world, after all. The "sea wall" at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ("SONGS") in Southern California is 35 feet tall, and about 35 years old. It could not have withstood Sunday's worst.

San Onofre's twin reactors were theoretically designed to withstand
an earthquake up to 7.0, which is 100 times smaller than a 9.0
earthquake. Although a 9.0 earthquake is considered "unlikely" near
San Onofre, it is hardly impossible. In addition, the size of the
earthquake doesn't necessarily relate to the size of the ensuing
tsunami. Landslides triggered by earthquakes, asteroid impacts, and
volcanic eruptions can generate waves hundreds of feet tall.


Don't worry, we were told, because the chances are very low. It's
always about "chance" to the nuclear promoters, and never about
"worst case scenarios." We're all playing the odds. Why? Clean
energy, which has zero catastrophic risk, abounds -- we just need to
harness it.

Even a 7.2 or a 7.3 earthquake -- perfectly reasonable to expect in
the area around San Onofre, and possible anywhere -- would be more
powerful than San Onofre is officially designed to withstand.
Experience from the Northridge quake (17 January 1994) and others
shows that structures sometimes fail to withstand earthquakes of
magnitudes far less than their designed tolerances. The domes at San
Onofre might not be able to withstand an earthquake or tsunami (or
even a large jet crashing into them). The spent fuel pools, control
room, emergency diesel generators, and dry storage casks are all
outside the domes.

Oops.

Aurora is only about 50 miles from me. I wonder if my well did any jumpin.

but you just have to believe that, as a result, various entities in MO are going to be requesting federal disaster funding for this and that, connected with the tsunami. Undoubtedly the legislators will be republican, and this will be part of the 350 million.

:freak: Sounds like our group of "leaders".

Most of us around here like to take the "cynic view". Because next week or 30 years from now, we get proven correct.