Peru earthquake: Huge 8.0 magnitude earthquake hits central Peru
Source: Express UK
The temor hit at 8.41am UK time in the Pacaua Samiria National Reserve Park. The quake struck around 180 km east of the town on of Moyobamba, the capital of the San Martín region in northern Peru, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS). It is also understood to have reached a depth of around 105 km.
The quake has caused severe damage across Peru, which has seen the collapse of a road and buildings caving in.
Pictures show debris falling from highrise buliding as the tremours cause structures to shake.
The earthquake was originally registered as a 7.5 magnitude tremor, but has since been upgraded to a 8.0 quake on the Richter Scale.
Read more: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1132208/earthquake-peru-today-latest-update-USGS-magnitude-8-tsunami-warning-centre-lacunas
It's affected Peru, Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia. This was a monster quake.
Lochloosa
(16,063 posts)Richard D
(8,752 posts)People live in simple huts. Waiting to hear reports from the bigger cities where concrete block structures are common.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)It was simply pointing out that due to the nature of the structures in different areas there is less likely to be unrepairable structure damage in the jungle than in urban areas. Almost all structures built by the people in the jungle who matter will be repairable if damaged.
When there is unrepairable structure damage there are likely to be severe injuries and maybe deaths.
Maxheader
(4,371 posts)Just saying...
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)Richard D
(8,752 posts)Population density in the jungle is very small.
Structures are single story open wood huts. Wood moves with the earth, so structural damage is unlikely.
I doubt trees will fall from a quake like that, and if they did, most villages are cleared from trees. I'd be more worried about a stron wind.
Towns in Peru usually have 2 or three story concrete block construction and a greater population density. So more likely to be a problem there.
Fortunately, so far, it looks like damage in the area is minimal. Still waiting to hear from friends who live in that area, but no fatalities or injuries reported yet.
Richard D
(8,752 posts)Current reports are 5 injuries, no fatalities.
Pretty astounding for an 8.0
milestogo
(16,829 posts)So people who survive the quake may not survive the aftermath.
Richard D
(8,752 posts)And mostly self0suficient. They will be fine.
meadowlander
(4,394 posts)but if you have to have an 8.0 quake better the epicentre be where hundreds of people live in low level buildings and not tens of millions in skyscrapers.
We're hopefully not going to see scenes like we did with the 8.0 2008 Sichuan quake which killed 70,000 people and injured 350,000+ and where whole school buildings pancaked killing all the kids inside.
I've been in a 7.1 quake where the epicentre was shallow and under a major urban area and that shit is *bad* news.
Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)applegrove
(118,600 posts)IcyPeas
(21,857 posts)this matters. Quakes closer to the surface cause more damage. e.g. the 1994 Northridge earthquake was about 6 miles in depth and caused massive surface damage.
So far there is 1 fatality.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-ap-explains-difference-between-shallow-deep-earthquakes-2016-8
locks
(2,012 posts)in U.S. history have been in Alaska.
Brother Buzz
(36,412 posts)The 1906 San Francisco earthquake happened before the Richter magnitude scale was devised, but for decades, the eggheads believed it was an 8.6 quake.