Does the Japan Quake Make a US Quake More Likely?

Chen Jianli/Xinhua/Zuma

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.


Seismically speaking, it’s been a rough few months on the Pacific rim. On February 27, 2010, an 8.8-magnitude earthquake struck Chile. In September, two major quakes rocked New Zealand’s South Island, and a 6.3 followed in February in Christchurch. Just a few weeks after that, the devastating 9.0 quake struck Japan, causing a tsunami and a nuclear crisis. These quakes occurred on three of the four “corners” of the notoriously jumpy Ring of Fire. The other corner? The West Coast of the United States. So does this series of earthquakes up the US’s chances of the dreaded “Big One”?

This Newsweek story from last week suggests that the answer is yes, since the earth is “like a great brass bell, which when struck by an enormous hammer blow on one side sets to vibrating and ringing from all over.” Rogue seismologist Jim Berkland, who claims to be able to predict earthquakes based in part on tides and the moon, has also warned that a major US quake is imminent.

The seismologists I talked to all agreed that major quakes do have local ripple effects. In addition to aftershocks, which can contine for a few weeks after a quake the size of Japan’s, earthquakes can also beget more earthquakes on other parts of the same plate, or even on nearby faults. John Mutter, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, explains that when a quake occurs, stress is relieved in one area of a plate and transferred to other parts of that plate. “So, unhappily, we know that Port-au-Prince is at even greater risk than it was before the quake last year,” says Mutter. “And the recent earthquake in Christchurch was probably ‘triggered’ by the one that occurred in September the year before.”

The question, then: How far can the transferred stress travel? This diagram (PDF) made by by Ross Stein, a geophysicist United States Geological Survey, shows increased levels of stress as far as 186 miles from the epicenter of the March 11 quake in Japan. The New Zealand earthquakes all occurred within a few hundred miles; they were probably connected. Similarly, says Morgan Moschetti, another USGS geophysicist, the quake that struck the Indian Ocean and triggered a tsunami in 2004 likely triggered another series of quakes in Sumatra in 2007.

Some scientists believe the stress transfer zones can extend even further. UC-Santa Cruz seismologist Emily Brodsky recently told New Scientist that “The recent spurt of magnitude-8-plus earthquakes may be an extended aftershock sequence of the 2004 Sumatra earthquake.” But seismologists aren’t in agreement about this point, and the bottom line is that there’s not enough data to say conclusively whether they’re all related.

And there’s certainly no evidence that a quake can transfer stress across as great of a distance as that between Japan and the US. “That’s too far for stress to act,” says Mutter. Which is not to say that the Big One isn’t imminent, or that we shouldn’t take precautions. The West Coast straddles several fault lines, and as Julia Whitty points out here, earthquakes are nothing if not surprising. Speaking of which, the Sunlight Foundation has a really interesting map of US nuclear reactors, fault lines, and seismic activity. Worth a gander.

Got a burning eco-quandary? Submit it to econundrums@motherjones.com. Get all your green questions answered by visiting Econundrums on Facebook here.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.