The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

NEW YORK IS 40 YEARS OVERDUE A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE AND AMERICA ISN’T PROPERLY PREPARED, ‘QUAKELAND’ AUTHOR KATHRYN MILES TELLS TREVOR NOAH
BY TUFAYEL AHMED ON 9/27/17 AT 9:28 AM
Updated | An earthquake is long overdue to hit New York and America isn’t prepared, author and environmental theorist Kathryn Miles told Trevor Noah on Tuesday’s Daily Show.
Miles is the author of a new book, Quakeland, which investigates how imminently an earthquake is expected in the U.S. and how well-prepared the country is to handle it. The answer to those questions: Very soon and not very well.
“We know it will, that’s inevitable, but we don’t know when,” said Miles when asked when to expect another earthquake in the U.S.
She warned that New York is in serious danger of being the site of the next one, surprising considering that the West Coast sits along the San Andreas fault line.
“New York is 40 years overdue for a significant earthquake…Memphis, Seattle, Washington D.C.—it’s a national problem,” said Miles.
Miles told Noah that though the U.S. is “really good at responding to natural disasters,” like the rapid response to the hurricanes in Texas and Florida, the country and its government is, in fact, lagging behind in its ability to safeguard citizens before an earthquake hits.
“We’re really bad at the preparedness side,” Miles responded when Noah asked how the infrastructure in the U.S. compares to Mexico’s national warning system, for example.
“Whether it’s the literal infrastructure, like our roads and bridges, or the metaphoric infrastructure, like forecasting, prediction, early warning systems. Historically, we’ve underfunded those and as a result we’re way behind even developing nations on those fronts.”
Part of the problem, Miles says, is that President Donald Trump and his White House are not concerned with warning systems that could prevent the devastation of natural disasters.
“We can invest in an early warning system. That’s one thing we can definitely do. We can invest in better infrastructures, so that when the quake happens, the damage is less,” said the author.
“The scientists, the emergency managers, they have great plans in place. We have the technology for an early warning system, we have the technology for tsunami monitoring. But we don’t have a president that is currently interested in funding that, and that’s a problem.”
This article has been updated to reflect that Miles said New York is the possible site of an upcoming earthquake, and not the likeliest place to be next hit by one.

Preparing for the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Scenario Earthquakes for Urban Areas Along the Atlantic Seaboard of the United States
NYCEM

The Sixth Seal: NY City DestroyedIf today a magnitude 6 earthquake were to occur centered on New York City, what would its effects be? Will the loss be 10 or 100 billion dollars? Will there be 10 or 10,000 fatalities? Will there be 1,000 or 100,000 homeless needing shelter? Can government function, provide assistance, and maintain order?

At this time, no satisfactory answers to these questions are available. A few years ago, rudimentary scenario studies were made for Boston and New York with limited scope and uncertain results. For most eastern cities, including Washington D.C., we know even less about the economic, societal and political impacts from significant earthquakes, whatever their rate of occurrence.

Why do we know so little about such vital public issues? Because the public has been lulled into believing that seriously damaging quakes are so unlikely in the east that in essence we do not need to consider them. We shall examine the validity of this widely held opinion.

Is the public’s earthquake awareness (or lack thereof) controlled by perceived low SeismicitySeismicHazard, or SeismicRisk? How do these three seismic features differ from, and relate to each other? In many portions of California, earthquake awareness is refreshed in a major way about once every decade (and in some places even more often) by virtually every person experiencing a damaging event. The occurrence of earthquakes of given magnitudes in time and space, not withstanding their effects, are the manifestations of seismicity. Ground shaking, faulting, landslides or soil liquefaction are the manifestations of seismic hazard. Damage to structures, and loss of life, limb, material assets, business and services are the manifestations of seismic risk. By sheer experience, California’s public understands fairly well these three interconnected manifestations of the earthquake phenomenon. This awareness is reflected in public policy, enforcement of seismic regulations, and preparedness in both the public and private sector. In the eastern U.S., the public and its decision makers generally do not understand them because of inexperience. Judging seismic risk by rates of seismicity alone (which are low in the east but high in the west) has undoubtedly contributed to the public’s tendency to belittle the seismic loss potential for eastern urban regions.

Let us compare two hypothetical locations, one in California and one in New York City. Assume the location in California does experience, on average, one M = 6 every 10 years, compared to New York once every 1,000 years. This implies a ratio of rates of seismicity of 100:1. Does that mean the ratio of expected losses (when annualized per year) is also 100:1? Most likely not. That ratio may be closer to 10:1, which seems to imply that taking our clues from seismicity alone may lead to an underestimation of the potential seismic risks in the east. Why should this be so?

To check the assertion, let us make a back-of-the-envelope estimate. The expected seismic risk for a given area is defined as the area-integrated product of: seismic hazard (expected shaking level), assets ($ and people), and the assets’ vulnerabilities (that is, their expected fractional loss given a certain hazard – say, shaking level). Thus, if we have a 100 times lower seismicity rate in New York compared to California, which at any given point from a given quake may yield a 2 times higher shaking level in New York compared to California because ground motions in the east are known to differ from those in the west; and if we have a 2 times higher asset density (a modest assumption for Manhattan!), and a 2 times higher vulnerability (again a modest assumption when considering the large stock of unreinforced masonry buildings and aged infrastructure in New York), then our California/New York ratio for annualized loss potential may be on the order of (100/(2x2x2)):1. That implies about a 12:1 risk ratio between the California and New York location, compared to a 100:1 ratio in seismicity rates.

From this example it appears that seismic awareness in the east may be more controlled by the rate of seismicity than by the less well understood risk potential. This misunderstanding is one of the reasons why earthquake awareness and preparedness in the densely populated east is so disproportionally low relative to its seismic loss potential. Rare but potentially catastrophic losses in the east compete in attention with more frequent moderate losses in the west. New York City is the paramount example of a low-probability, high-impact seismic risk, the sort of risk that is hard to insure against, or mobilize public action to reduce the risks.

There are basically two ways to respond. One is to do little and wait until one or more disastrous events occur. Then react to these – albeit disastrous – “windows of opportunity.” That is, pay after the unmitigated facts, rather than attempt to control their outcome. This is a high-stakes approach, considering the evolved state of the economy. The other approach is to invest in mitigation ahead of time, and use scientific knowledge and inference, education, technology transfer, and combine it with a mixture of regulatory and/or economic incentives to implement earthquake preparedness. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) has attempted the latter while much of the public tends to cling to the former of the two options. Realistic and reliable quantitative loss estimation techniques are essential to evaluate the relative merits of the two approaches.

The current efforts in the eastern U.S., including New York City, to start the enforcement of seismic building codes for new constructions are important first steps in the right direction. Similarly, the emerging efforts to include seismic rehabilitation strategies in the generally needed overhaul of the cities’ aged infrastructures such as bridges, water, sewer, power and transportation is commendable and needs to be pursued with diligence and persistence. But at the current pace of new construction replacing older buildings and lifelines, it will take many decades or a century before a major fraction of the stock of built assets will become seismically more resilient than the current inventory is. For some time, this leaves society exposed to very high seismic risks. The only consolation is that seismicity on average is low, and, hence with some luck, the earthquakes will not outpace any ongoing efforts to make eastern cities more earthquake resilient gradually. Nevertheless, M = 5 to M = 6 earthquakes at distances of tens of km must be considered a credible risk at almost any time for cities like Boston, New York or Philadelphia. M = 7 events, while possible, are much less likely; and in many respects, even if building codes will have affected the resilience of a future improved building stock, M = 7 events would cause virtually unmanageable situations. Given these bleak prospects, it will be necessary to focus on crucial elements such as maintaining access to cities by strengthening critical bridges, improving the structural and nonstructural performance of hospitals, and having a nationally supported plan how to assist a devastated region in case of a truly severe earthquake. No realistic and coordinated planning of this sort exists at this time for most eastern cities.

The current efforts by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) via the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) to provide a standard methodology (RMS, 1994) and planning tools for making systematic, computerized loss estimates for annualized probabilistic calculations as well as for individual scenario events, is commendable. But these new tools provide only a shell with little regional data content. What is needed are the detailed data bases on inventory of buildings and lifelines with their locally specific seismic fragility properties.Similar data are needed for hospitals, shelters, firehouses, police stations and other emergency service providers. Moreover, the soil and rock conditions which control the shaking and soil liquefaction properties for any given event, need to be systematically compiled into Geographical Information System (GIS) data bases so they can be combined with the inventory of built assets for quantitative loss and impact estimates. Even under the best of conceivable funding conditions, it will take years before such data bases can be established so they will be sufficiently reliable and detailed to perform realistic and credible loss scenarios. Without such planning tools, society will remain in the dark as to what it may encounter from a future major eastern earthquake. Given these uncertainties, and despite them, both the public and private sector must develop at least some basic concepts for contingency plans. For instance, the New York City financial service industry, from banks to the stock and bond markets and beyond, ought to consider operational contingency planning, first in terms of strengthening their operational facilities, but also for temporary backup operations until operations in the designated facilities can return to some measure of normalcy. The Federal Reserve in its oversight function for this industry needs to take a hard look at this situation.

A society, whose economy depends increasingly so crucially on rapid exchange of vast quantities of information must become concerned with strengthening its communication facilities together with the facilities into which the information is channeled. In principle, the availability of satellite communication (especially if self-powered) with direct up and down links, provides here an opportunity that is potentially a great advantage over distributed buried networks. Distributed networks for transportation, power, gas, water, sewer and cabled communication will be expensive to harden (or restore after an event).

In all future instances of major capital spending on buildings and urban infrastructures, the incorporation of seismically resilient design principles at all stages of realization will be the most effective way to reduce society’s exposure to high seismic risks. To achieve this, all levels of government need to utilize legislative and regulatory options; insurance industries need to build economic incentives for seismic safety features into their insurance policy offerings; and the private sector, through trade and professional organizations’ planning efforts, needs to develop a healthy self-protective stand. Also, the insurance industry needs to invest more aggressively into broadly based research activities with the objective to quantify the seismic hazards, the exposed assets and their seismic fragilities much more accurately than currently possible. Only together these combined measures may first help to quantify and then reduce our currently untenably large seismic risk exposures in the virtually unprepared eastern cities. Given the low-probability/high-impact situation in this part of the country, seismic safety planning needs to be woven into both the regular capital spending and daily operational procedures. Without it we must be prepared to see little progress. Unless we succeed to build seismic safety considerations into everyday decision making as a normal procedure of doing business, society will lose the race against the unstoppable forces of nature. While we never can entirely win this race, we can succeed in converting unmitigated catastrophes into manageable disasters, or better, tolerable natural events.

The Sixth Seal by Nostradamus (Revelation 6:12)

The Sixth Seal by Nostradamus

To Andrew the Prophet
Completed February 5, 2008

Nostradamus and the New City

Les Propheties
(Century 1 Quatrain 27)

Michel de Nostredame Earth-shaking fire from the center of the earth.Will cause the towers around the New City to shake,Two great rocks for a long time will make war, And then Arethusa will color a new river red.(And then areth USA will color a new river red.) Earth-shaking fire from the center of the earth.Will cause the towers around the New City to shake,Two great rocks for a long time will make war

There is recent scientific evidence from drill core sampling in Manhattan, that the southern peninsula is overlapped by several tectonic plates. Drill core sampling has been taken from regions south of Canal Street including the Trade Towers’ site. Of particular concern is that similar core samples have been found across the East River in Brooklyn. There are also multiple fault lines along Manhattan correlating with north-northwest and northwest trending neo-tectonic activity. And as recently as January and October of 2001, New York City has sustained earthquakes along these plates. For there are “two great rocks” or tectonic plates that shear across Manhattan in a northwestern pattern. And these plates “for a longtime will make war”, for they have been shearing against one other for millions of years. And on January 3 of 2010, when they makewar with each other one last time, the sixth seal shall be opened, and all will know that the end is near.

And then Arethusa will color a new river red.

Arethusa is a Greek mythological figure, a beautiful huntress and afollower of the goddess Artemis. And like Artemis, Arethusa would have nothing to do with me; rather she loved to run and hunt in the forest. But one day after an exhausting hunt, she came to a clear crystal stream and went in it to take a swim. She felt something from beneath her, and frightened she scampered out of the water. A voice came from the water, “Why are you leaving fair maiden?” She ran into the forest to escape, for the voice was from Alpheus, the god of the river. For he had fallen in love with her and became a human to give chase after her. Arethusa in exhaustion called out to Artemis for help, and the goddess hid her by changing her into a spring.But not into an ordinary spring, but an underground channel that traveled under the ocean from Greece to Sicily. But Alpheus being the god of the river, converted back into water and plunged downthe same channel after Arethusa. And thus Arethusa was captured by Artemis, and their waters would mingle together forever. And of great concern is that core samples found in train tunnels beneath the Hudson River are identical to those taken from southern Manhattan. Furthermore, several fault lines from the 2001 earthquakes were discovered in the Queen’s Tunnel Complex, NYC Water Tunnel #3. And a few years ago, a map of Manhattan drawn up in 1874 was discovered, showing a maze of underground waterways and lakes. For Manhattan was once a marshland and labyrinth of underground streams. Thus when the sixth seal is broken, the subways of the New City shall be flooded be Arethusa:the waters from the underground streams and the waters from the sea. And Arethusa shall be broken into two. And then Arethusa will color a new river red.

And then areth USA will color a new river red.

For Arethusa broken into two is areth USA. For areth (αρετη) is the Greek word for values. But the values of the USA are not based on morality, but on materialism and on wealth. Thus when the sixth seal is opened, Wall Street and our economy shall crash and “arethUSA”, the values of our economy shall fall “into the red.” “Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?’” (Revelation 6:15-17)

The History of Earth­quakes In New York Before the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

        The History of Earth­quakes In New York

By Meteorologist Michael Gouldrick New York State PUBLISHED 6:30 AM ET Sep. 09, 2020 PUBLISHED 6:30 AM EDT Sep. 09, 2020

New York State has a long history of earthquakes. Since the early to mid 1700s there have been over 550 recorded earthquakes that have been centered within the state’s boundary. New York has also been shaken by strong earthquakes that occurred in southeast Canada and the Mid-Atlantic states.

Courtesy of Northeast States Emergency Consortium

The largest earthquake that occurred within New York’s borders happened on September 5th, 1944. It was a magnitude 5.9 and did major damage in the town of Massena.

A school gymnasium suffered major damage, some 90% of chimneys toppled over and house foundations were cracked. Windows broke and plumbing was damaged. This earthquake was felt from Maine to Michigan to Maryland.

Another strong quake occurred near Attica on August 12th, 1929. Chimneys took the biggest hit, foundations were also cracked and store shelves toppled their goods.

In more recent memory some of the strongest quakes occurred On April 20th, 2002 when a 5.0 rattled the state and was centered on Au Sable Forks area near Plattsburg, NY.

Strong earthquakes outside of New York’s boundary have also shaken the state. On February 5th, 1663 near Charlevoix, Quebec, an estimated magnitude of 7.5 occurred. A 6.2 tremor was reported in Western Quebec on November 1st in 1935. A 6.2 earthquake occurred in the same area on March 1st 1925. Many in the state also reported shaking on August 23rd, 2011 from a 5.9 earthquake near Mineral, Virginia.

Earthquakes in the northeast U.S. and southeast Canada are not as intense as those found in other parts of the world but can be felt over a much larger area. The reason for this is the makeup of the ground. In our part of the world, the ground is like a jigsaw puzzle that has been put together. If one piece shakes, the whole puzzle shakes.

In the Western U.S., the ground is more like a puzzle that hasn’t been fully put together yet. One piece can shake violently, but only the the pieces next to it are affected while the rest of the puzzle doesn’t move.

In Rochester, New York, the most recent earthquake was reported on March 29th, 2020. It was a 2.6 magnitude shake centered under Lake Ontario. While most did not feel it, there were 54 reports of the ground shaking.

So next time you are wondering why the dishes rattled, or you thought you felt the ground move, it certainly could have been an earthquake in New York.

Here is a website from the USGS (United Sates Geologic Society) of current earthquakes greater than 2.5 during the past day around the world. As you can see, the Earth is a geologically active planet!

Another great website of earthquakes that have occurred locally can be found here.

To learn more about the science behind earthquakes, check out this website from the USGS.

More shakes before the sixth seal: Revelation 6

The sun starts to set behind the hills in Dedham in this September 2020 file photo. Credit: Linda Coan O’Kresik / BDN

Early-morning earthquake shakes Dedham residents awake

by Leela Stockley 7 hours ago Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

7 hours ago

A 3.3 magnitude earthquake shook some Dedham residents out of their beds this morning. 

The quake struck at around 1:27 a.m., with the epicenter located southeast of Phillips Lake at a depth of about 5.3 miles, according to the United States Geological Survey. 

Some people reported feeling disturbances from the quake, but no major infrastructure damage has been reported so far. 

The Saturday morning quake is the first one recorded by the geological survey this year. A 2.0 magnitude earthquake occurred nearly a year ago to the day, about half a mile south of Springvale in York County, on Jan. 17, 2022. It was the second of two seismic events reported in the area on the same day, according to the Maine Geological Survey.

Since 1997, there have been more than 130 recorded earthquakes in the state, according to the agency.

The strongest quake in recent memory occurred on July 14, 2006, when a 3.8 magnitude earthquake shook the ground northwest of Portage, according to the Maine Geological Survey. But Maine has felt the impact of much larger earthquakes that hit as far away as Plattsburg, New York, and Quebec City.

About 900,000 earthquakes below magnitude 2.5 are   felt each year across the globe, according to Michigan Technological University.

Dedham is located about 13 miles southeast of Bangor.

Earthquake Before the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6

OVERVIEW | QUAKE DATA | INTERACTIVE MAP | NEW: SEISMOGRAMS | USER REPORTS | EARLIER QUAKES HERE | QUAKES IN THE US | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON DCUnconfirmed earthquake or seismic-like event: 6 mi southeast of Middletown, Orange County, New York, USA, Thursday, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:18 pm (GMT -5)

Unconfirmed earthquake or seismic-like event: 6 mi southeast of Middletown, Orange County, New York, USA, Thursday, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:18 pm (GMT -5) – 21 hours ago

Updated: Jan 13, 2023 19:53 GMT – 20 minutes ago refresh

I felt this quake

12 Jan 23:32 UTC: First to report: VolcanoDiscovery after 14 minutes.

I felt this quake

I didn’t feel it

Earthquake details

Date & timeJan 12, 2023 23:18:38 UTC – 21 hours ago
Local time at epicenterThursday, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:18 pm (GMT -5)
Statusunconfirmed
Magnitudeunknown (3.8?)
Depth20.0 km
Epicenter latitude / longitude41.39032°N / 74.33297°W  (Orange, New York, United States)
Antipode41.39°S / 105.667°E
Shaking intensityWeak shaking
Felt11 reports
Primary data sourceVolcanoDiscovery (User-reported shaking)
Nearby towns and cities6 km (4 mi) WNW of Chester (pop: 3,920) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
10 km (6 mi) SE of Middletown (pop: 27,800) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
15 km (9 mi) WNW of Kiryas Joel (pop: 22,900) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
30 km (18 mi) WSW of Newburgh (pop: 28,300) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
39 km (24 mi) NW of Spring Valley (pop: 32,600) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
39 km (24 mi) NW of New City (pop: 33,600) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
57 km (35 mi) NW of Greenburgh (pop: 86,800) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
360 km (224 mi) NE of Washington (District of Columbia) (pop: 601,700) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
Weather at epicenter at time of quake

Seismic Activity Before the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6

OVERVIEW | QUAKE DATA | INTERACTIVE MAP | NEW: SEISMOGRAMS | USER REPORTS | EARLIER QUAKES HERE | QUAKES IN THE US | NEW JERSEY | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON DCUnconfirmed earthquake or seismic-like event: 11 mi northwest of Parsippany, Morris County, New Jersey, USA, Wednesday, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:30 pm (GMT -5)

Unconfirmed earthquake or seismic-like event: 11 mi northwest of Parsippany, Morris County, New Jersey, USA, Wednesday, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:30 pm (GMT -5) – 1 day 3 hours ago

Updated: Jan 12, 2023 20:32 GMT – 

I felt this quake

11 Jan 17:57 UTC: First to report: VolcanoDiscovery after 27 minutes.

I felt this quake

I didn’t feel it

Earthquake details

Date & timeJan 11, 2023 17:30:39 UTC – 1 day 3 hours ago
Local time at epicenterWednesday, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:30 pm (GMT -5)
Statusunconfirmed
Magnitudeunknown (3.8?)
Depth20.0 km
Epicenter latitude / longitude40.99428°N / 74.54047°W  (MorrisNew JerseyUnited States)
Antipode40.994°S / 105.46°E
Shaking intensityWeak shaking
Felt565 reports
Primary data sourceVolcanoDiscovery (User-reported shaking)
Nearby towns and cities9 km (6 mi) ESE of Sparta (pop: 19,700) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
18 km (11 mi) NNW of Parsippany (pop: 51,100) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
23 km (15 mi) WNW of Wayne (pop: 57,900) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
32 km (20 mi) WNW of Manchester (pop: 147,800) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
35 km (22 mi) WNW of Clifton (pop: 86,300) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
54 km (33 mi) WNW of Manhattan (New York) (pop: 1,487,500) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
55 km (34 mi) NW of New York (pop: 8,175,100) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
316 km (196 mi) NE of Washington (District of Columbia) (pop: 601,700) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
Weather at epicenter at time of quakeBroken Clouds  0.6°C (33 F), humidity: 61%, wind: 1 m/s (2 kts) from NW

Seismograms

Seismic station: Palisades, New York (PAL/LD network) | Distance from quake: 53 km / 33 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station Palisades, New York: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Show less

Seismic station Palisades, New York: horizontal (E-W) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)
Seismic station Palisades, New York: horizontal (N-S) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismograms around time of quake, showing horizontal E-W and N-S ground movements. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station: Greenville, DE, USA (GEDE/LD network) | Distance from quake: 161 km / 100 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station Greenville, DE, USA: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station Greenville, DE, USA: horizontal (E-W) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)
Seismic station Greenville, DE, USA: horizontal (N-S) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismograms around time of quake.
Top: vertical movement, bottom: horizontal (E-W and N-S) movements. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station: University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT (UCCT/LD network) | Distance from quake: 213 km / 132 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT: horizontal (E-W) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)
Seismic station University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT: horizontal (N-S) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismograms around time of quake.
Top: vertical movement, bottom: horizontal (E-W and N-S) movements. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station: Adam Dziewonski Observatory (Oak Ridge), Massachusetts, USA (HRV/IU network) | Distance from quake: 299 km / 186 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station Adam Dziewonski Observatory (Oak Ridge), Massachusetts, USA: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station Adam Dziewonski Observatory (Oak Ridge), Massachusetts, USA: horizontal (E-W) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)
Seismic station Adam Dziewonski Observatory (Oak Ridge), Massachusetts, USA: horizontal (N-S) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismograms around time of quake.
Top: vertical movement, bottom: horizontal (E-W and N-S) movements. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station: Erie, Pennsylvania, USA (ERPA/US network) | Distance from quake: 470 km / 292 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station Erie, Pennsylvania, USA: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station Erie, Pennsylvania, USA: horizontal (E-W) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)
Seismic station Erie, Pennsylvania, USA: horizontal (N-S) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismograms around time of quake.
Top: vertical movement, bottom: horizontal (E-W and N-S) movements. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

USA’s Fukushima At The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6)


Recent series of Indian Point shutdowns worst in years
Ernie Garcia, elgarcia@lohud.com
BUCHANAN — Four unplanned reactor shutdowns over a two-month period at Indian Point are the most setbacks the nuclear power plant has experienced in years.
A review of unplanned shutdowns from January 2012 to the present showed this year’s events happened within a short time frame, between May 7 and July 8, in contrast with events from other years that were more spread out, according to data released by Indian Point.
So many mishaps at the Entergy-owned plant haven’t occurred since 2009, when one of two units at the Buchanan site experienced a similar series, said plant spokesman Jerry Nappi.
Besides a May 9 transformer failure that spilled some 3,000 gallons of oil into the Hudson River, this year’s shutdowns were prompted by a May 7 steam leak, a July 8 pump motor failure and a June 15 switch yard breaker failure offsite in a Consolidated Edison substation.
If a nuclear plant has more than three unplanned shutdowns in a nine-month period, its performance indicator could be changed by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which results in additional oversight. That’s what happened with Entergy’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., after four unplanned shutdowns in 2013.
So far, Entergy said there doesn’t appear to be a pattern to the Indian Point shutdowns.
“You do want to look at these events holistically to see if there is something in common, but you also look individually to see what the causes were,” Nappi said. “A plant shutdown in and of itself is not a safety issue.”
One of the four recent Buchanan shutdowns triggered a special inspection by the NRC and calls to close the nuclear plant by environmental groups and elected officials. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said in the past Indian Point should close, but his office did not respond to a request for comment about whether the recent shutdowns have prompted any state scrutiny.
The NRC is expected to release a quarterly report on Indian Point this month that will address the transformer failure and, by year’s end, is planning an inspection of the transformer and an analysis of transformer issues since 2007.
Besides its transformer-related inquiries, the other three shutdowns have not raised “any immediate safety concerns or crossed any thresholds that would result in additional NRC oversight,” agency spokesman Neil Sheehan wrote in an email.
The unplanned shutdowns at Indian Point and Pilgrim in Massachusetts were mostly preventable, said Paul Blanch, a former Indian Point employee with 45 years of nuclear power experience.
“For this to happen this frequently indicates a deeper problem,” he said. “I believe it’s management oversight in the maintenance of these plants.”
Nappi said the transformer that failed May 9 and caused a fire and oil spill into the Hudson was regularly monitored. Investigators determined the failure was due to faulty insulation.
“The transformer inspection and reviews were in accordance with our standards and industry expectations, yet there was no indication the transformer was going to fail,” Nappi said.
The NRC conducted a separate, but related special inspection into the May 9 incident that focused on a half-inch of water that collected in an electrical switchgear room floor. Inspectors determined a fire suppression system’s valve failed to close properly.
Inspectors noted in their report that Entergy knew about that problem since April 2011 and replaced the valve but didn’t discover the actual cause — a dysfunctional switch — until after the fire.
Indian Point’s Unit 3 was down 19 days May through July, with the transformer failure accounting for 16 days. The shutdowns didn’t cause the public any supply problems because New York’s grid can import electricity from other states and New York has an energy plan to maintain reliability, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The nuclear energy industry judges a power plant on how continuously it produces energy, which is called a capacity factor.
There were 100 nuclear plants in the United States in 2014, a record year in terms of efficiency. In January, the Nuclear Energy Institute announced the U.S. average capacity factor was 91.9 percent.
Indian Point has an above-average efficiency rate. The plant’s Unit 2 and 3 reactors were each online more than 99 percent of the time during their most recent two-year operating cycles. They are currently in the middle of other cycles

Conclusion to Economic Consequences of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:15)


Scenario Earthquakes for Urban Areas Along the Atlantic Seaboard of the United States: Conclusions

NYCEM.org


The current efforts in the eastern U.S., including New York City, to start the enforcement of seismic building codes for new constructions are important first steps in the right direction. Similarly, the emerging efforts to include seismic rehabilitation strategies in the generally needed overhaul of the cities’ aged infrastructures such as bridges, water, sewer, power and transportation is commendable and needs to be pursued with diligence and persistence. But at the current pace of new construction replacing older buildings and lifelines, it will take many decades or a century before a major fraction of the stock of built assets will become seismically more resilient than the current inventory is. For some time, this leaves society exposed to very high seismic risks. The only consolation is that seismicity on average is low, and, hence with some luck, the earthquakes will not outpace any ongoing efforts to make eastern cities more earthquake resilient gradually. Nevertheless, M = 5 to M = 6 earthquakes at distances of tens of km must be considered a credible risk at almost any time for cities like Boston, New York or Philadelphia. M = 7 events, while possible, are much less likely; and in many respects, even if building codes will have affected the resilience of a future improved building stock, M = 7 events would cause virtually unmanageable situations. Given these bleak prospects, it will be necessary to focus on crucial elements such as maintaining access to cities by strengthening critical bridges, improving the structural and nonstructural performance of hospitals, and having a nationally supported plan how to assist a devastated region in case of a truly severe earthquake. No realistic and coordinated planning of this sort exists at this time for most eastern cities.

The current efforts by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) via the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) to provide a standard methodology (RMS, 1994) and planning tools for making systematic, computerized loss estimates for annualized probabilistic calculations as well as for individual scenario events, is commendable. But these new tools provide only a shell with little regional data content. What is needed are the detailed data bases on inventory of buildings and lifelines with their locally specific seismic fragility properties. Similar data are needed for hospitals, shelters, firehouses, police stations and other emergency service providers. Moreover, the soil and rock conditions which control the shaking and soil liquefaction properties for any given event, need to be systematically compiled into Geographical Information System (GIS) data bases so they can be combined with the inventory of built assets for quantitative loss and impact estimates. Even under the best of conceivable funding conditions, it will take years before such data bases can be established so they will be sufficiently reliable and detailed to perform realistic and credible loss scenarios. Without such planning tools, society will remain in the dark as to what it may encounter from a future major eastern earthquake. Given these uncertainties, and despite them, both the public and private sector must develop at least some basic concepts for contingency plans. For instance, the New York City financial service industry, from banks to the stock and bond markets and beyond, ought to consider operational contingency planning, first in terms of strengthening their operational facilities, but also for temporary backup operations until operations in the designated facilities can return to some measure of normalcy. The Federal Reserve in its oversight function for this industry needs to take a hard look at this situation.

A society, whose economy depends increasingly so crucially on rapid exchange of vast quantities of information must become concerned with strengthening its communication facilities together with the facilities into which the information is channeled. In principle, the availability of satellite communication (especially if self-powered) with direct up and down links, provides here an opportunity that is potentially a great advantage over distributed buried networks. Distributed networks for transportation, power, gas, water, sewer and cabled communication will be expensive to harden (or restore after an event).

In all future instances of major capital spending on buildings and urban infrastructures, the incorporation of seismically resilient design principles at all stages of realization will be the most effective way to reduce society’s exposure to high seismic risks. To achieve this, all levels of government need to utilize legislative and regulatory options; insurance industries need to build economic incentives for seismic safety features into their insurance policy offerings; and the private sector, through trade and professional organizations’ planning efforts, needs to develop a healthy self-protective stand. Also, the insurance industry needs to invest more aggressively into broadly based research activities with the objective to quantify the seismic hazards, the exposed assets and their seismic fragilities much more accurately than currently possible. Only together these combined measures may first help to quantify and then reduce our currently untenably large seismic risk exposures in the virtually unprepared eastern cities. Given the low-probability/high-impact situation in this part of the country, seismic safety planning needs to be woven into both the regular capital spending and daily operational procedures. Without it we must be prepared to see little progress. Unless we succeed to build seismic safety considerations into everyday decision making as a normal procedure of doing business, society will lose the race against the unstoppable forces of nature. While we never can entirely win this race, we can succeed in converting unmitigated catastrophes into manageable disasters, or better, tolerable natural events.

Seismic Activity Before the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6:12

QUAKE DATA | INTERACTIVE MAP | NEW: SEISMOGRAMS | USER REPORTS | EARLIER QUAKES HERE | QUAKES IN THE US | NEW YORK | NEW JERSEY | WASHINGTON DCReported seismic-like event (likely no quake): 17 mi northwest of New York, USA, Monday, Dec 26, 2022 at 12:57 am (GMT -5)

Reported seismic-like event (likely no quake): 17 mi northwest of New York, USA, Monday, Dec 26, 2022 at 12:57 am (GMT -5) – 1 day 17 hours ago

Updated: Dec 27, 2022 16:25 GMT – 7 hours ago refresh

26 Dec 06:03 UTC: First to report: VolcanoDiscovery after 6 minutes.

Earthquake details

Date & timeDec 26, 2022 05:57:17 UTC – 1 day 17 hours ago
Local time at epicenterMonday, Dec 26, 2022 at 12:57 am (GMT -5)
Statusdisregarded
Magnitudeunknown (3?)
Depth10.0 km
Epicenter latitude / longitude40.84122°N / 74.27857°W  (New YorkUnited States)
Antipode40.841°S / 105.721°E
Shaking intensityWeak shaking
Felt1 report
Primary data sourceVolcanoDiscovery (User-reported shaking)
Nearby towns and cities21 km (13 mi) NW of Jersey City (New Jersey) (pop: 264,300) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
24 km (15 mi) NW of Bayonne (New Jersey) (pop: 66,300) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
27 km (17 mi) WNW of New York (pop: 8,175,100) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
28 km (18 mi) NW of Tompkinsville (New York) (pop: 8,340) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
33 km (21 mi) NW of Borough Park (New York) (pop: 149,200) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
34 km (21 mi) NW of Flatbush (New York) (pop: 93,400) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
35 km (22 mi) NW of Brooklyn (New York) (pop: 2,300,700) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
320 km (199 mi) NE of Washington (District of Columbia) (pop: 601,700) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
Weather at epicenter at time of quakeClear Sky  -7°C (19 F), humidity: 57%, wind: 8 m/s (15 kts) from W

500 km

300 mi

+

Leaflet | © Esri— Sources: GEBCO, NOAA, CHS, OSU, UNH, CSUMB, National Geographic, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, and Esri

[smaller] [bigger]

Most recent quakes Top 20 past 24 hrs Quakes in the US

Seismograms

Seismic station: Fordham University, The Bronx, NYC (FOR/LD network) | Distance from quake: 33 km / 21 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station Fordham University, The Bronx, NYC: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Show less

Seismic station Fordham University, The Bronx, NYC: horizontal (E-W) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)
Seismic station Fordham University, The Bronx, NYC: horizontal (N-S) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismograms around time of quake, showing horizontal E-W and N-S ground movements. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station: Black Rock Forest, Cornwall, NY (BRNY/LD network) | Distance from quake: 67 km / 42 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station Black Rock Forest, Cornwall, NY: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station Black Rock Forest, Cornwall, NY: horizontal (E-W) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)
Seismic station Black Rock Forest, Cornwall, NY: horizontal (N-S) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismograms around time of quake.
Top: vertical movement, bottom: horizontal (E-W and N-S) movements. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station: Greenville, DE, USA (GEDE/LD network) | Distance from quake: 162 km / 101 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station Greenville, DE, USA: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station Greenville, DE, USA: horizontal (E-W) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)
Seismic station Greenville, DE, USA: horizontal (N-S) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismograms around time of quake.
Top: vertical movement, bottom: horizontal (E-W and N-S) movements. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station: Warrington Farm, Harbeson, DE (WADE/LD network) | Distance from quake: 254 km / 158 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station Warrington Farm, Harbeson, DE: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station: Lake Ozonia, New York, USA (LONY/US network) | Distance from quake: 421 km / 262 mi | Show on map | Station Info

Seismic station Lake Ozonia, New York, USA: vertical movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismogram (vertical component) around time of quake. Thin dotted red line indicates time of quake. Seismic waves arrive some time later, depending on distance. Bandpass filter applied: 0.5-10.0 Hz. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool

Seismic station Lake Ozonia, New York, USA: horizontal (E-W) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)
Seismic station Lake Ozonia, New York, USA: horizontal (N-S) movement plot around time of quake (source: IRIS/BUD)

Seismograms around time of quake.
Top: vertical movement, bottom: horizontal (E-W and N-S) movements. Source: IRIS Buffer of Uniform Data (BUD) webtool