|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Radius
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:00 am Post subject: Did Anyone feel the 8.9 Earthquake in Japan Today? |
 |
|
| Reports are saying residents in Beijing, China felt it. It happened around 3pm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nope. Sokcho might be the nearest Korean city to the epicenter, didnt feel a thing here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We ain't in the ring of fire, I dunno how beijing claim to have felt it, if Korea didn't... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:16 am Post subject: Quake |
|
|
| Nope. I didn't feel a thing. But the big earthquake near Chengdu China, in 2008, I heard something roll off the table & fall onto the floor, upstairs, at the exact time of the quake. Maybe office workers in highrise buildings in Seoul or Busan felt it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm in Seoul. Never felt a shake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Radius
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I didn't either guys. Thats why I was confused how people in China felt it. Earthquakes are definitely increasing and getting more severe. Makes you wonder if the Biblical Prophecy is in fact true, and we are living in the End Times? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tanklor1
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Radius wrote: |
| I didn't either guys. Thats why I was confused how people in China felt it. Earthquakes are definitely increasing and getting more severe. Makes you wonder if the Biblical Prophecy is in fact true, and we are living in the End Times? |
My money's on "NO". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blm
Joined: 11 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tanklor1 wrote: |
| Radius wrote: |
| I didn't either guys. Thats why I was confused how people in China felt it. Earthquakes are definitely increasing and getting more severe. Makes you wonder if the Biblical Prophecy is in fact true, and we are living in the End Times? |
My money's on "NO". |
My moneys on no too....as that seems a pretty safe bet as good luck collecting from me if i'm wrong  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's more likely - Just a bit more likely - That the media coverage covers much more of the globe, much more quickly and thoroughly than ever.
Combine that with humans migrating to more and more areas due to overpopulation, infertile soils and so forth. Just look at the Sahara and how it's slowly gulping up Africa. Unstoppable, inevitable. People have to move.
Not to mention the man made factors, heating up the atmosphere and so forth. lots of meteorological blame going down there.
Don't underestimate the effect humans have! Check out yellow dust.
Fire a gun, its bullet hits the wall. Put a human in between the gun and the wall, the human gets killed. Of course this is inevitable. With the population increase, there isn't much room in New York for people to move around the firing line, and the crowd will eventually be pushed into it. Soon there is about 20 people all getting shot simultaneously by this one crazed drunk, with a bottle of hooch stuck between his belt and trousers, and a dog biting another man's leg (who just happened to have gotten shot by someone else a few yards away) for the utter need for food.
And uh... yeah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Radius
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
It's more likely - Just a bit more likely - That the media coverage covers much more of the globe, much more quickly and thoroughly than ever.
Combine that with humans migrating to more and more areas due to overpopulation, infertile soils and so forth. Just look at the Sahara and how it's slowly gulping up Africa. Unstoppable, inevitable. People have to move.
Not to mention the man made factors, heating up the atmosphere and so forth. lots of meteorological blame going down there.
Don't underestimate the effect humans have! Check out yellow dust.
Fire a gun, its bullet hits the wall. Put a human in between the gun and the wall, the human gets killed. Of course this is inevitable. With the population increase, there isn't much room in New York for people to move around the firing line, and the crowd will eventually be pushed into it. Soon there is about 20 people all getting shot simultaneously by this one crazed drunk, with a bottle of hooch stuck between his belt and trousers, and a dog biting another man's leg (who just happened to have gotten shot by someone else a few yards away) for the utter need for food.
And uh... yeah. |
Something I read:
"The World Almanac tells us that there were only 21 earthquakes of major strength between the years 1000 and 1800. But between 1800 and 1900 there were 18 major earthquakes. In the next 50 years, between 1900 and 1950, there were 33 major quakes, and between 1950 and 1991 there were 93 major earthquakes, almost tripling the number of the previous half century, and claiming the lives of 1.3 million people around the world." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Which entirely goes with my argument, doesn't it?
Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing there, sorry. But yeah, as it says. More coverage, more earthquakes.
I think this graph coincides with your quote somewhat wonderfully:
http://www.agrilandsales.com/images/opportunity/world_pop_1.jpg
Note the change from 1950 to 2000. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Radius wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
It's more likely - Just a bit more likely - That the media coverage covers much more of the globe, much more quickly and thoroughly than ever.
Combine that with humans migrating to more and more areas due to overpopulation, infertile soils and so forth. Just look at the Sahara and how it's slowly gulping up Africa. Unstoppable, inevitable. People have to move.
Not to mention the man made factors, heating up the atmosphere and so forth. lots of meteorological blame going down there.
Don't underestimate the effect humans have! Check out yellow dust.
Fire a gun, its bullet hits the wall. Put a human in between the gun and the wall, the human gets killed. Of course this is inevitable. With the population increase, there isn't much room in New York for people to move around the firing line, and the crowd will eventually be pushed into it. Soon there is about 20 people all getting shot simultaneously by this one crazed drunk, with a bottle of hooch stuck between his belt and trousers, and a dog biting another man's leg (who just happened to have gotten shot by someone else a few yards away) for the utter need for food.
And uh... yeah. |
Something I read:
"The World Almanac tells us that there were only 21 earthquakes of major strength between the years 1000 and 1800. But between 1800 and 1900 there were 18 major earthquakes. In the next 50 years, between 1900 and 1950, there were 33 major quakes, and between 1950 and 1991 there were 93 major earthquakes, almost tripling the number of the previous half century, and claiming the lives of 1.3 million people around the world." |
Probably a lot to do with having sensing equipment that can detect earthquakes in almost every region on earth now. 1000 years ago you would never hear about a major earthquake in an unpopulated area or in the middle of the ocean that didn't cause a tsunami that hit populated areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Radius
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
Which entirely goes with my argument, doesn't it?
Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing there, sorry. But yeah, as it says. More coverage, more earthquakes.
I think this graph coincides with your quote somewhat wonderfully:
http://www.agrilandsales.com/images/opportunity/world_pop_1.jpg
Note the change from 1950 to 2000. |
You may have a point there, but I still believe the Bible, so I'm expecting more on the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Radius
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Radius wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
It's more likely - Just a bit more likely - That the media coverage covers much more of the globe, much more quickly and thoroughly than ever.
Combine that with humans migrating to more and more areas due to overpopulation, infertile soils and so forth. Just look at the Sahara and how it's slowly gulping up Africa. Unstoppable, inevitable. People have to move.
Not to mention the man made factors, heating up the atmosphere and so forth. lots of meteorological blame going down there.
Don't underestimate the effect humans have! Check out yellow dust.
Fire a gun, its bullet hits the wall. Put a human in between the gun and the wall, the human gets killed. Of course this is inevitable. With the population increase, there isn't much room in New York for people to move around the firing line, and the crowd will eventually be pushed into it. Soon there is about 20 people all getting shot simultaneously by this one crazed drunk, with a bottle of hooch stuck between his belt and trousers, and a dog biting another man's leg (who just happened to have gotten shot by someone else a few yards away) for the utter need for food.
And uh... yeah. |
Something I read:
"The World Almanac tells us that there were only 21 earthquakes of major strength between the years 1000 and 1800. But between 1800 and 1900 there were 18 major earthquakes. In the next 50 years, between 1900 and 1950, there were 33 major quakes, and between 1950 and 1991 there were 93 major earthquakes, almost tripling the number of the previous half century, and claiming the lives of 1.3 million people around the world." |
Probably a lot to do with having sensing equipment that can detect earthquakes in almost every region on earth now. 1000 years ago you would never hear about a major earthquake in an unpopulated area or in the middle of the ocean that didn't cause a tsunami that hit populated areas. |
lol thats true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davemon
Joined: 16 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Radius wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
Which entirely goes with my argument, doesn't it?
Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing there, sorry. But yeah, as it says. More coverage, more earthquakes.
I think this graph coincides with your quote somewhat wonderfully:
http://www.agrilandsales.com/images/opportunity/world_pop_1.jpg
Note the change from 1950 to 2000. |
You may have a point there, but I still believe the Bible, so I'm expecting more on the way. |
What happens after earthquakes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
