Talk:New Madrid seismic zone

Untitled

Merged New Madrid Fault Zone info - probably needs more cleanup. Structure needs a lot more data. To do sometime:) -Vsmith 12:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

cf New Madrid Earthquake

The information in the "In New Madrid" and "In the fault zone" sections of this article disagrees on several points with the information found at New Madrid Earthquake. Can someone knowledgeable sort out which facts are correct? —Triskaideka 18:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reverted conflicting edit referring to Wabash River etc.. Added map from USGS. Hope this clarifies, more to do here re- the regional picture as there is evidence that the underlying structure does extend under and have imlications for southern Indiana. -Vsmith 02:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Somewhere on the net I saw a collection of first-hand accounts of the 1811-12 quakes, including some from southern Indiana that were very striking. Kbh3rd 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Propagation because of ??

Because of the unconsolidated sediments which are a major part of the underlying geology of the Mississippi embayment, large quakes here can affect as much as 20 times the land area of major quakes on the west coast.

I thought the greater extent of the effects of a quake were because of the solidity of the bedrock, not having been shattered from grinding tectonic plates as on the west coast; the shaking can carry farther through solid rock. I'll have to look for documentation of that unless someone else has it. Certainly(?) the characteristics of the Mississippi embayment soil have nothing to with an earthquake here being able to ring bells in Charleston. -- Kbh3rd 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought so too Nat2 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The unconsolidated sediments of the river valley and the embayment would likely result in more significant earthquake damage, but, would not result in the widespread propigation to ring the bells in Charleston. There's a lot of solid rock between the bootheel and Charleston (think Appalachian Mtns.) to propigate the seismic waves. I don't have a ref handy to quote on that. The USGS site (where the map came from) just says Differences in geology east and west of the Rocky Mountains cause this strong contrast.[1] But, there is a lot of differing geology between New Madrid & Charleston or Boston. Needs to be changed though. Vsmith 23:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boldly changed it :-) Let me know if I goofed. Vsmith 23:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't paying attention to the article references to Charleston, MO – I was referring to Charleston, South Carolina. It was there or Boston or somewheres far to the east that the 1811-12 quake reportedly rang bells. Anyway, your edits stand until someone gets bolder. -- Kbh3rd 00:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not positive but, I thought this was a matter of the depth at which the fault exists and the fault in the midwest is much deeper than it is on the west coast. It makes sense, then, to assume that because of the nature of seismic waves that depth would play a major role in area of effect. The most recent quake on April 18th was at a depth of approx. 5K beneath the surface. Thestepper2001 (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mislabeled picture?

The picture (great, BTW) illustrating section "More quakes predicted" says Charleston, New Madrid & San Francisco but I don't see Charleston's quake marked. Jolomo 19:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Largely Inactive?

There is a small quake every week... This week alone there were 8 quakes. Heck there was one today. The quakes are only measuring in the 2's though... every 6 months are so there is a 3-4 quake.

That is not inactive... in fact that is very active... the most active fault east of the Rockies.

I haven't noticed any significant quakes in that data. Still, I suppose it is the most acive fault in North America east of the Rockies. Then again, its almost the only thought east of the Rockies...Nat2 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Tectonic Plate motions, the satelite based velocity vectors of the East Coast and East of the Rockies are different, so the Midcontinent Rift System is active, I guess. It could be that the ground does not move, or does not lose altitude, but in the depth it is probably active. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the weight in the article of the section "2009 research indicating the fault may be shutting down". You can never tell that after reviewing the last hundert years. This thing is big: Rome Trough, Rough Creek Graben, Reelfoot Rift, Ouachita Aulacogen (Appalachian-Ouachita rifted margin), SW Iapetan transform margin. (McMillan, N.J., and McLemore, V.T., 2004, Cambrian-Ordovician magmatism and extension in New Mexico and Colorado: New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Bulletin 160, p. 1-11.) http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/tour/state/caballo_lake/home.html --Chris.urs-o (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Note, prophecy: an earthquake on Olive Branch, Mississippi could separate (Lake Superior, Mississippi) East Coast from the Western States; similar to Ireland and England (Irish sea). NMSZ, Hayward fault, San Andreas fault, Pacific ring of fire, embryonic subduction zone at East Coast and Gibraltar should be considered active now that the Mayan Calender is in a new cycle. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I added the material about the 2009 research. It is what it is. There aren't many people doing work on the NMSZ. (I estimate there are about 15-20 geologists and geophysicists heavily involved in the NMSZ, based on my searches of the research journals. I see about 7 or so names consistently.) so it's hard to determine relative weight of viewpoints. The GPS bunch published in prestigious journals (Science and Nature), and used extremely expensive equipment over a long period of time. For me, that gives them weight to give them a paragraph or two. Their work was covered by better sources than most of the rest of the article.

Since then there have been interesting abstracts coming out of Geological Society of America regional conferences, and the national GSA conference this fall will have an entire session devoted to intraplate earthquakes. I expect we'll be able to add more, brand new perspectives and sources to the article in the near future. Geogene (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The richter scale ratings

Why are the sizes of the quakes on the page listed as smaller than what the USGS says? I can understand that it was a long time ago and hard to pinpoint the exact rating on the richter scale, but I would assume that the USGS would be the best authority on the subject. According to USGS Historic US Earthquakes the ratings are 8.1, 7.5, 7.8, 8.0 respectively, not 7.7, 7.0, 7.6, 7.9. I'm leaving it alone for the moment, in case someone has some better reference, but if no one has any objections, I'm going to change them to agree with the USGS information. -GamblinMonkey 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

the usgs page i looked at (the first reference on this page) said the second quake was similar or identical in intensity to the first, making it 8.1, 8.1, 7.8, 8 in any case, the page here contradicts itself by saying later that many scientists believe that the three major quakes exceeded 8, yet none of the listed ratings are over 8.

What state??

--12.153.8.43 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)--12.153.8.43 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)If located in northwest tennessee,what state would be located to the rite in relation to the new madrid fault? DS>South Fulton,Tn.

Nonsensical sentence

"The natural valley formed by collapsed portion of the Mississippi embayment." What? --Golbez 11:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems that was due to a bit of vandal blanking back in March. I restored the old paragraph, should read better now. Vsmith 01:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Future Earthquakes.

On Friday, April 18th, 2008, at 4:37 AM, a 5.2 magnitude earthquake occurred in this area. [7]

This is not a future earthquake. It should be moved.

As an aside: Could this recent seismic activity be a result in the uptick of activity in the yellowstone caldera? Thestepper2001 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

High school

Would it be okay to add something in this article saying that a part of the New Madrid Fault runs behind "Union County High School" in Union County, KY?209.42.180.48 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would make much sense to do that. If we do that, we would have to allow every resident, whose property borders this (or another) seismic zone a mention in the article. doxTxob \ ^talk 21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

New map

I added a new map that shows the approximate extents and geographic relationship of the New Madrid and Wabash Valley seismic zones, replacing a wide-area map that did not identify the zones and only had data from 1974 onwards. Maybe this map will make the distinction between the zones a little more clear and remove some confusion. Additionally, it has quakes going back farther than 1974. From my informal research (googling), it appears that Memphis U. started comprehensive monitoring in 1974, which is the beginning date for most of the maps shown. This map has older quakes (denoted in green) that go back farther. I'd like to find that USGS Professional Paper 1527 that has the older quakes in it; could be interesting. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC) can you really type what ever you want in Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.60.34 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Challenges to risk estimates

There's an article referenced in the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone article that has some Wash U. researches talking about how the New Madrid zone may be quieting. I also saw an article recently, I know not where, that has quotes from geologists talking about how the NMSZ may not be such a big threat after all and others saying there's no reason to be less prepared for "the big one". Is anyone qualified reading these words? Even if I had the references handy, any such discussion in the article I think should come from someone more qualified than I, IMHO. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

New Madrid Seismic Zone, Midcontinent Rift System with Lake Superior; "...A major earthquake on the New Madrid fault could drain even your Great Lakes into the Mississippi River basin, ..."; Dec 12th, 2009; johnleary (dot) com; can this claim (the Great Lakes as one part of the Mississippi River basin) be substantiated? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

8.4

This is a work of fiction in which a quake of that magnitude, actually, one , a magnitude 7, two magnitude 8.4 quakes are taking place. The characters deal with the earthquakes and a civil war launched by the Kentucky Governor in a attempt to stop US forces from detonating a nuke to end the quakes. 8.4 is a soft cover book. I have a copy of it. Powerzilla (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Commemorating the Earthquakes??

Commemorating the Earthquakes: The following statement has some factual errors, and has no source nor footnote attached to it.

"From the early years of the 19th century until well after the American Civil War, the citizens of Union City, Tennessee, would gather every February 7 for an all-night "vigil and fish fry" on the site currently occupied by the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, praying, singing, and beseeching the Almighty to "spare the land over" for another year."

Union City, Tennessee was not organized until 1854. At the time of the New Madrid earthquakes in 1811-12, West Tennessee was Chickasaw Indian Territory, and Obion County was not created until 1823. I have spoken with the Obion County historian, and he has never heard this story. The above statement should be revised or deleted unless it can be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfwhistory (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibilities

The possibility of the great lakes, st. lawrence river, Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, the arctic islands may have a common initiator. I believe all the rivers and straits I have mentioned are formed roughly the same time as the NMSZ. I believe the E.T. impact created the Hudson Bay, with the center of impact at just north of Belcher Islands. This impact also created the sudden appearance of granite in the rockies. Also the formation of the interior plateau/plains.

Another E.T. impact at Iles De La Madeleine. These two impacts are what shaped north america and all the faults related features. This impact most likely created the James Bay rift, deep portion of Hudson Bay, and the Hudson Strait. That would explain the accelerated isostatic rebound around Hudson Bay and the receding waters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.32.102 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR --Kbh3^rdtalk 17:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Crowley's Ridge

The entry about Crowley's Ridge did a mention then the uplift might be linked with the New Madrid Fault. Should we mention the Crowley's Ridge as well? --Sd-100 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Updated information

It would seem that activity has picked up dramatically. According to the article, the survey started in 1968 and there have been more than 4,000 detected incidents. Doing some math; 2011 - 1968 = 43 years; Rounding the 4,000+ to 5K; 5,000 / 43 = 116.28 per year average is what I come up with.

So far this year, according to the USGS notification service, to date there have been 407 incidents. Taking out the 5 deleted incidents still leaves the count at 402, which, 3 months into the year, seems to be an increase in activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.28.185 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that if you were tempted to add this analysis to the article, you must find it (or an equivalent) in a reliable source. Putting in your own interpretation of the data would be original research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Update on Strain Rates and "Shutting Down"

There's been another paper that claimed high seismic strain rates in the NMSZ via GPS. I'm not sure where the researchers' consensus is on the matter yet, but in the opening it summarizes the different viewpoints on NMSZ "shutting down" as of 2012. I'll try to work it into the article in the near future. http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/people/smalley/electronic%20pubs/479.full.pdf and also: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20131004 Geogene (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My Edits

I did some editing today which resulted in deletions and some aggressive re-arrangement of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone&diff=613585412&oldid=613584664

Fascinating, but no sources, seems out of place where it was. I hope that can be restored with RS, so that it doesn't look like OR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone&diff=613584664&oldid=613583964

• Midcontinent rift might actually be associated with modern earthquakes, need sources that would explicitly say it isn't, this would be a difficult thing for sources to demonstrate. The point is that there are quite a few rifts in the subsurface of the stable interior, but most of them aren't seismic zones. How to say in a way that is known to be true and not OR.

• De-icing issues are one proposal, but may have WP:WEIGHT issues with just one paper.

• Also WP:WEIGHT with the Farallon plate and mantle flow models.

• A literature search will find lots of different suggestions on why there might be earthquakes there, many unique to individual researchers or "camps".

I took an easy and less technical way out and just re-worded to say that there are plenty of suggestions out there as to why that particular aulacogen gets regular earthquakes (probably its orientation to the stress field is convenient, but I don't have a source for that one handy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone&diff=613583964&oldid=613578413

• Tried to make the wording more active, shorter, and less technical
• The second rifting event from 200 million years ago is not sourced, and I think only complicates the discussion without much insight. It's not unusual for a geologic feature to have multiple "origins" across time, some so many only specialists can appreciate them.
• "Focusing effects" this would require a bit a of an aside to really cover. But they're like what would happen if you put a brick the middle of a block of paraffin, and then squeezed the whole thing in a vice. All the cracking ("faulting") happens around the edges because the brick is too strong to break, and "focuses" the stress on the mechanically weak paraffin. That explanation would need a source to go into the article, and using it here would probably be SYNTH.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone&diff=613313919&oldid=608801700

• I thought this was too much about the Wabash Zone to get into here. Just my opinion. Geogene (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible distortion of loaded data

The area of the New Madrid Seismic Zone, for about a 100 mile radius of the normal 'epicenter' - about 31 thousand square miles - has a noticeably much greater concentration of seismic detection devices than the surrounding area of more 750 thousand square miles. You can see this on Memphis University web pages as well as the USGS earthquake pages. Wouldn't the much higher density of detectors mean that there are always going to be more reports of quakes in the area than there are in area outside of it, regardless of the number of seismic events that actually occur?

There doesn't seem to be a guaranteed non-loaded weekly report that mentions the reason for the increased frequency of reports, which stand at several thousand in the last ten years and around 20 in the last 7 days or so.

I don't know about including this in the article because it's just a suspicion at present and probably original research, but it seems common sense to me unless somebody can cast some light on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF2A:1B09:6DC1:4346:4BC4:B5FA (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not "probably" original research, it's definitely original research. Find a citation from a reliable source and you can mention it in the article. Without one, it's just your unsupported theory -- and a crackpot one as well. BMK (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Dramatic increase in earthquakes between 2009 and 2016

I don't have the data, but I'm being told the number of earthquakes here in the last 7 years has gone up significantly. USGS says it's because of water injection at traditional oil drilling sites, but other (non specific) sources are saying it's due to fracking. I would love it if an expert could weigh in on this with real data, not just my un-sourced ramblings. If I had real data handy I would have just edited the page rather than Talk :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:74F:3501:8152:7BD0:DF42:218A (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bad citation

> The earthquakes were felt as far away as New York City and Boston, where ground motion caused church bells to ring.[12]

This source does not include the terms "York", "NYC", "Boston", or "bell". 71.239.73.106 (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting about this and please continue to speak up about this if you see it again! This type of corruption is prevalent in WP articles. Dawnseeker2000 14:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Could someone explain the Geology section a little better, please?

Thanks to all who have made this page… it’s insightful.

The Geology section is written in proper English, and somewhat understandable… I’m seeking a bit of a simpler explanation… something like…

Long ago rift underground happened… and it is now still weak

So <when something happens> the weakness… <does something…> leading to big earthquakes.

The other content could remain; a more straightforward explanation can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VVFamEdits (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)