I have always been fascinated by earthquakes but this has always confused me. Los Angeles lies atop an entire network of smaller (yet powerful) faults while San Francisco has fewer (yet much larger) faults. Which of the two cities experiences quakes more frequently (for those of you who live and or work in either one of the cities)?
2006-08-18 22:09:57 · 5 answers · asked by chinoszone 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Los Angeles is more earth-quake prone, I was there for the:
Sylmar earthquake that registered 6.7
Northridge earthquake that registered 6.7
Hector Mine earthquake that registered 7.1
and the Parkfield earthquake that registered 6.0
These suburbs of Los Angeles have been hit with devastating quakes, especially crushed was Northridge where i was staying with friends at the time.
Whole blocks were damaged-- houses, apartment buildings and businesses. The power went out in the city. LA experiences many more quakes than SF and they're indeed frightening and powerful.
2006-08-18 22:12:40 · answer #1 · answered by sunshine25 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
California is going to have earthquakes by virtue of its position right on top of a major fault. However, California has strict building codes that minimize the massive building failures that plague the Third World.
2016-03-26 21:41:18 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Los Angeles area i believe
2006-08-18 22:12:18 · answer #3 · answered by Foxy_chicka_04 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know for a fact, but I'm guessing that LA does, however, you feel them more in SF because of the way the land lies.
2006-08-18 22:13:22 · answer #4 · answered by Chloe 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Southern Cal more than Northern Cal
2006-08-18 22:13:01 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋