The 95 Feces of the CEUS SSC Report

[DeathDart]

This report was done in collaboration with the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is meant to minimize and discount any impact of earthquakes on new or existing Nuclear Plant Licensing.

http://www.ceus-ssc.com/project_report.html

The writers don't attempt to enlighten us. While saying nothing, they just create a stage on which to prance around and posture scientifically. This is the Do-It-Yourself Manual on how to have a Fukashima event in your community.

The biggest hole in there argument is the data, or the intentional lack of it. Some of this data is expensive to generate, but it is far less than building a nuclear reactor. The cost related to an event like Fukashima becomes irrelevant. Searching for oil they will be much more geologically thorough, than they would be in seismic reflection studies for a Nuclear Plant. One is an example is finding something (oil), the other is an exercise in hiding something.

Using Appendix C C-5.4 C-XX XX = Page Number

Seismic reflection profiles are the best form of geologic evidence, with a brief introduction, most people can read, and with a little assistance, understand what it means. There are not any deep seismic scans that are recent enough, or detailed enough to show the New Madrid area, the curious Charleston fault zone, or many of the other seismic hazards.

They (Oil and Nuclear Industry) have known for some time (many decades) what geological structures they need to hide. Both the Oil and Nuclear Industry have a stake in hiding impact structures. The oil companies hide them, so their competitors will make expensive and sometimes ruinous mistakes. The Nuclear Industry hides impact structures, since they can be geologically unstable.

While I am biased toward an geological explanation that includes impact structures, why would thorough seismic reflection profiles be against the public's best interest?

This is intentional, if they used thorough seismic reflection profiles their arguments would not hold up to any scrutiny, because the truth would be there for anyone to see. Seismic reflection profiles are only used when they are incomplete or have been cleaned up. They did do some new seismic scans 50km from Charleston because they needed to pin the blame for the sharply defined Charleston earthquakes on a fault line. Why not show the Charleston epicenter area with deep and thorough seismic reflection profiles? The data from USGS shows the Charleston earthquakes as being localized within a 20 mile circle. How hard would it be to do a seismic reflection profile of this small area?

This explains why seismic reflection profiles are not used, they need to obscure the scientific truth, so they will use information that is not visual and can easily defeat their interpretation. They need to make up a "why it happened story" rather than show you, with unambiguous data how it happened.

Other techniques used are regional waveforms to explain something rather than detailed and specific data.

Constructing arguments from reinterpreted data, some of the old scans still had too much information in them so they are "reinterpreted". If the data was scientifically suspect, why not do a new seismic reflection profiles to remove the ambiguity? New scans are too easy too understand, they are hiding the truth, not revealing it.

Relocating hypocenters by change the velocity model. A simple parameter for determining how dangerous a fault line is: how wide is the fault line? If the earthquake data shows a 3 mile wide fault line, use the velocity model to herd those data points into a 1 mile wide fault line. A velocity model to move data around, to make it seem less dangerous.

Focal Mechanisms ,is that to focus our attention from the real problem? I believe that the New Madrid area might be an enormous impact crater. They spend a lot of time trying to break up the fault complex surrounding New Madrid into separate and distinct fault zones. When they need a supporting argument they go to their friends in the oil companies to get proprietary data.

Very localized means what, it doesn't give away the show?
Regional versus local detailed data. Intentionally use regional data rather then local detailed data.

To the details:

I will use Appendix C, Appendix C is a curious document I don't think that the authors would believe anyone would read it. Their goal is to get the "science" "Out of the Cluster". This could be a reference to the ongoing seismic activity of the studied areas or could be a reference to Cluster ****. If they were referring to the latter, they have succeeded brilliantly. Appendix C shows the top down organizational structure. It is also an inside view of how the desired conclusion, is the core function to the organization of scientific viewpoints of the complete document.

I am breaking this into sections to make it more readable.

 

[DeathDart]

The Charleston Blues

My Comments Bolded
The first number is there estimate of the data quality 1=Low 5 =High
The second number Used in SSC Reliance Level (0=No, 5=High)
USGS Data Earthquakes 13 within a 2 Miles of 32.940, -80.150
USGS Data Earthquakes 43 within a 10 Miles of 32.940, -80.150
Very localized, unlikely to be a fault line.

Table C-5.4 C-6
Talwani (CEUS SSC WS2 5-5 )
Tanaka (2004) 5 All sources 5 Provides strong technical basis for the correlation between the maximum crustal thickness and D90, which is the depth above which 90% of the seismicity lies.
They are concerned about the crustal thickness in South Carolina.

Table C-5.4 C-14
Madabhushi and Talwani
(1993)3-1 Total of 58 instrumentally recorded earthquakes between 1980 and 1991 with MD 0.8–3.3 in Charleston area. L 4 Mapped location of Middleton Place– Summerville seismic zone.
Why the limitation on the earthquake strength MD 0.8–3.3 ?

Smith and Talwani (1985) 2-1 Abstract describing location of Bowman seismic zone and gravity surveys conducted in vicinity of Bowman seismic zone. Abstract provides brief description of location of Bowman seismic zone. Raise the Noise (irrelevant data) level and divide the centralized earthquakes among the different faults ?

Table C-5.4 C-15
Bakun and Hopper (2004b) 5-5 Preferred 1886 magnitude estimate based on assumed location at Middleton Place–Summerville seismic zone. L, R, N 5 Magnitude of 1886 Charleston earthquake is estimated between Mw 6.4 and 7.2 (at 95% confidence level), with preferred estimate of Mw 6.9.
Preferred 1886 magnitude estimate, it speaks for itself. Does reinterpretation mean lower?

Table C-5.4 C-16

Bollinger (1977) 5 Isoseismal determinations for 1886 earthquake, based on reinterpretation of Dutton’s (1889) basic intensity data.Maximum epicentral intensity MMI X, with MMI IX in city of Charleston. Isoseismals define roughly coastparallel elongation. Magnitude of 1886 earthquake estimated at mb 6.8 to 7.1. Roman Numerals some sort of code? They are trying to blame the earthquakes on faults off the coast.

Bollinger (1983) 3 Poorly constrained estimate of seismogenic crustal thickness at Charleston. L, R, N 3 Estimates 1886 earthquake at mb 6.7, with rupture length approximately 25 km, width approximately 12 km, average slip 1 m, based on empirical relations. Notes ongoing microseismicity concentrated in 1886 meizoseismal area. Fancy words, but they have a concentrated cluster of earthquakes and they don't want to acknowledge the real cause.

Bollinger (1992) 4 Estimate of seismogenic crustal thickness at Charleston. L, R, N 4 Seismic source characterization for the Savannah River Site describes input parameters for PSHA, including seismogenic crustal thickness estimates of 14 and 25 km, respectively, for “Local Charleston” and “SC Piedmont and Coastal Plain” seismic sources.
What are they hiding something at the Savannah River Nuclear plant!!!
http://maps.google.com/
33.246, -81.668 It appears circular in a satellite view because the plant is also a toxic waste site. Nothing is planted or would want to live within a radius. The development around it makes it appear round and different. Need a seismic scan to be sure.

Table C-5.4 C-17
Chapman and Talwani (2002) 4 Estimate of seismogenic crustal thickness at Charleston. L, R, N 4 Seismic source characterization for South Carolina Department of Transportation describes input parameters for PSHA, including seismogenic crustal thickness estimate of 25 km.
They are hiding something about the crustal thickness and are using the South Carolinas DOT's estimate for an argument? How many balls can these idiots keep in the air?

Johnston (1996b) 4 Johnston (1996b) magnitude estimate for 1886 earthquake is significantly lower than Johnston et al. (1994) estimate of 7.56 ± 0.35. L, R, N 5 Magnitude estimate for 1886 Charleston earthquake of Mw 7.3 ± 0.26 based on isoseismal area regression accounting for astern North America anelastic attenuation
Johnston finally learning to play ball?

Table C-5.4 C-18
Talwani (1982) -2 Early depiction of Woodstock fault, refined and superseded by subsequent publications. Relocated seismicity in the 1886 meizoseismal area suggests (1) rightlateral strike-slip events on the NEstriking Woodstock fault; and (2) SWside- up thrust events on the NWstriking Ashley River fault.
Relocated seismicity, hide the teeth and claws?

able C-5.4 C-19
Behrendt et al. (1981) 4-4 Data suggest onshore faulting but do not provide unambiguous constraints on fault geometry and upward terminations within Coastal Plain sediments. L, R 4 Subsurface fault mapping in 1886 epicentral area, including the proposed Cooke fault.
They want the little faults to take the blame. Too big of a fault and it becomes another headache.

Behrendt et al. (1983) 4-4High-resolution, multichannel seismicreflection data clearly image the Helena Banks fault. Surveys limited to ~50 km SW and NE offshore of Charleston. R 4 Mapping and age estimate of offshore Helena Banks fault.
Wow multichannel seismicreflection data why didn't they use this at 32.940, -80.150?

Behrendt and Yuan (1987) 4-4 High-resolution, multichannel seismicreflection data clearly image the Helena Banks fault. Surveys limited to ~50 km SW and NE offshore of Charleston. R 4 Mapping and age estimate of offshore Helena Banks fault. This is getting deep, finally the seismic reflection data shows up just in time to frame an innocent fault line. They didn't use multichannel seismicreflection in Charleston (at 32.940, -80.150), this is comical until somebody gets killed.

Table C-5.4 C-20
Chapman and Beale (2008) 5 “Fault C” clearly imaged in reprocessed seismic reflection line. Orientation, length, and upward termination of fault currently unresolved. Strike and length of “fault C” inferred from alignment of possible faults in adjacent seismic lines. Fault at least as young as Miocene or possibly Pliocene. L, N 5 “Fault C” postulated to be fault that ruptured in 1886 Charleston
earthquake. Location used in defining Local source configuration.

Chapman and Beale (2010) 5 Reprocessed seismic reflection data suggest the 1886 epicentral area lies within a zone of extensive upper crustal faulting, but does not constrain geometry/extent of possible faults. L, N 5 “Fault C” postulated to be fault that ruptured in 1886 Charleston earthquake. Location used in defining Local source configuration.

Blame fault "C " for 1886 earthquake with reprocessed information. Where is fault "C" if it isn't near (32.940, -80.150) then they are looking for a scape goat. They are also trying to make the Charleston earthquakes recent in geological terms, rather than ancient, like a serious problem below the crust.

 

[fuelair]

Is this a commentary relating to the National Lampoon picture of Martin Luther nailing 95 feces to the vatican or some place vaguely similar? It was just a joke, don't get all huffy about it!!

 

[shadron]

It feels like I just inadvertently walked in on a nasty family argument. Perhaps some background on this controversy, if such it is, would be appropriate? Nasty puns on the multiple meanings of the word cluster? Assumptions for why a study was done? Objections to Roman numerals? Pretty picky.

Do you mean impact structures as in meteorite craters? Why are you biased in that directions, and why does that have implications for the data?

And so on...

 

[JeanFromBNA]

(snip)
They (Oil and Nuclear Industry) have known for some time (many decades) what geological structures they need to hide. Both the Oil and Nuclear Industry have a stake in hiding impact structures. The oil companies hide them, so their competitors will make expensive and sometimes ruinous mistakes. The Nuclear Industry hides impact structures, since they can be geologically unstable.

While I am biased toward an geological explanation that includes impact structures, why would thorough seismic reflection profiles be against the public's best interest?

Focal Mechanisms ,is that to focus our attention from the real problem? I believe that the New Madrid area might be an enormous impact crater. They spend a lot of time trying to break up the fault complex surrounding New Madrid into separate and distinct fault zones. When they need a supporting argument they go to their friends in the oil companies to get proprietary data.

Very localized means what, it doesn't give away the show?
Regional versus local detailed data. Intentionally use regional data rather then local detailed data.
(snip)

What is your evidence for the New Madrid area being an enormous impact crater? There is a fair amount of geological data for the New Madrid area. it would take some effort to ignore it.

 

[Acleron]

Should this be in Conspiracy Theories

 

[DeathDart]

Is this a commentary relating to the National Lampoon picture of Martin Luther nailing 95 feces to the vatican or some place vaguely similar? It was just a joke, don't get all huffy about it!!

Yes this is a joke title, though the people who wrote this Feces were well paid.

The subject isn't a joke.

 

[DeathDart]

What is your evidence for the New Madrid area being an enormous impact crater? There is a fair amount of geological data for the New Madrid area. it would take some effort to ignore it.

Well I would agree that it is unlikely to be an impact crater. The geological data about deep structures is very stale. Lots of noise but not really any new data or scans.

The powers that be aren't worried about shallow scans but anything that can get down to 40 km is verbotten. There is probably plenty of proprietary data out there, but the oil companies are now in a serious legal bind for using state and federal agencies to hide this information. Information which helped put some of their smaller competitors out of business.

The impact craters are everywhere, usually buried beneath 1000's of feet of sediment. Erosion has gotten rid of 60-70% of the ones on land but that still leaves a lot.

 

[DeathDart]

New Madrid/Ragnarok crater?
My Comments Bolded
The first number is there estimate of the data quality 1=Low 5 =High
The second number Used in SSC Reliance Level (0=No, 5=High)
USGS Data Earthquakes Deeper than 6 km, 143 within a 100 mile radius of 36.410, -89.600 since 1973
USGS Data Earthquakes Shallower than 6 km 128 within a 100 Miles of 36.410, -89.600 since 1973.

Difficult to describe with available data which is mostly recycled. Lots of shallow scans in an attempt to show the time interval between major events, key word being shallow.

No good COCORP or anybody's deep scan data available. What scans I did find in the literature would show the scan lines on maps with but when you tried to find the data for that scan line it was not actually listed. Titles would say data, documents would say nada.

For such a dangerous fault system, this is the elephant hiding in your refrigerator. No deep scans available ever! Bits and pieces here and there. Shallow scans following surface features.

What little geological dating of the igneous dikes and sills covering a multi-state area of the New Madrid Fault that would date when all this happened are rare with their answers all over the map.

Information on anything that would give someone a real good understanding of the New Madrid Fault Zone has been effectively censored for the last thirty years.

So I have to take my hat off to the Evil Genius who hid this elephant in plain sight.

Table C-5.4 C-3
Chapman et al. (1997) 5 Eastern Tennessee well constrained focal mechanism solutions derived using a new velocity model and relocated hypocenters. All sources 4 Used for assessing sense of slip
and focal depths.
The need to constrain the focal mechanism because they can't have a suspicious connections between what are supposed to be unrelated sources. If it was an Impact, then they all formed at the same time, and they are connected.

Table C-5.4 C-4
Horton et al 2005) 4 Compilation of better focal mechanisms in Reelfoot, Rough Creek, and Wabash Valley All sources 3 Used for assessing sense of slip.

Table C-5.4 C-5
Shumway (2008) 5 Special study in New Madrid area with new velocity profile. All sources 4 High quality focal mechanisms, locations, and focal depths for sense of slip.

Table C-5.4 C-7
Marshak and Paulsen (1997) 3 Maps based on regionalscale extrapolations of local data sets. All sources 2 Used to confirm the presence of potential northwest-trending future earthquake rupture orientations.
NAGRA (2004) 3 Assessments from expert panel of rupture width as function of magnitude. All sources 4 Used for characterizing the depth distribution of future earthquake ruptures using the focal depth distribution of observed hypocenters.

Table C-5.4 C-8
Sibson (2007) 3 Assessment of base of seismogenic zone based on physical constraints. All sources 2 Provides physical basis for estimating depth of seismogenic zone from seismicity; confirms magnitude dependence of focal depths.
This is the reasoning for not having deep scan data available. If it is a deep quake, it is weak is what they are also implying.

Table C-5.4 C-42
Chiu et al. (1992) 4 Publication discussing results of Portable Array for Numerical Data Acquisition (PANDA) survey. Provides detailed discussion of seismicity in New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ). NMN, NMS, RFT 5 Focal depth—Seismic activity in central NMSZ occurs continuously between ~5 and 14 km (3.1 and 8.7 mi.) depth. Seismicity illuminates fault zones. RFT geometry—Two NE-trending vertical segments are concentrated about a plane that dips at ~31°SW; a separate zone to the SE of axial zone defines a plane that dips at ~48°SW; projects to surface near Reelfoot Lake and Lake County uplift.

Dr. William Bakun (USGS, electronic comm., February 3, 2010) 4 Electronic comm. confirming 2004 magnitude estimates based on intensity for 1811-1812 earthquakes. NMN, NMS, RFT 5 Magnitude of 1811-1812 earthquakes used to constrain Mmax for NMFS RLMEs (see Table 6.1.5-2).
The USGS is being helpful.

Table C-5.4 C-43
Exelon ESP (2004) (includes estimates based on Johnston, 1996b; Hough et al. 2000; Bakun and Hopper, 2004a; pers. comm. from Drs. Johnston, Hough, and Bakun) 3 Compilation and update (2003–2004 time frame) of best estimates of size of 1811-1812 earthquake sequence. NRC reviewed assessment for Early Site Permit Application.

NMN, NMS,
and RFT
5 Evaluation of intensity data for the 1811-1812 sequences provides basis for assessing magnitude of these events, which are considered typical of prehistoric events based on similar sizes and distribution of paleoliquefaction features (Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002; see Table 6.1.5-2).
Shallow Scans
Hough and Page (2011) 3 Presents magnitude estimates based on assessments by multiple experts. NMN, NMS, RFT 5 Magnitude of 1811-1812 earthquakes used to constrain Mmax for NMFS RLMEs— Revisions to previous estimates (See Table 6.1.5-2).

Dr. Arch Johnston (CERI, pers. comm., February 16, 2010) 2 Telephone conversation—New studies to evaluate size of 1811-1812 earthquakes are being considered but have not yet started. NMN, NMS, and RFT 4 Estimated sizes of 1811-1812 earthquakes as reported in EGC ESP (2004) study have not been revised.
Keep to the previous story.

Table C-5.4 C-44
Csontos et al. (2008) 3 Structure-contour map of the top of basement showing subbasins and bounding NE- and SEstriking faults. Due to projection of the map showing interpretations of basement faults, the locations are considered approximate. NMS and RFT 5 Geometry and style of faulting— Interpretation of basement structures and reactivation of faults (e.g., RFT as inverted basement normal fault).
Sub-basins not a single circular basin. Bad projection on map makes map better, reactivation of faults rather than the direct action of creating the faults and rifts. Big rock smash Earth, come on, you can say it.

Cramer (2001) 4 Publication scale map (Figure 3) with registration for digitization. NMN, NMS, and RFT 2 Used to help constrain locations of alternative segments of the NMFS.

Guccione (2005) and Guccione et al. (2005) 4 Includes detailed maps showing offset geomorphic features. NMS 4 Used to constrain location of Bootheel fault (previously referred to as the Bootheel lineament).

Johnston and Schweig (1996) 3 Small-scale line drawings of faults interpreted to be sources of 1811-1812 events. NMN, NMS, and RFT 4 Interpretation formed the initial starting basis for the delineation of geometries for the New Madrid fault system sources. This was the mother of all lies?

Table C-5.4 C-45
Mueller and Pujol (2001) 4 Detailed structure contour map of fault plane (Figure 3). RFT 4 Downdip geometry and depth of seismogenic crust—Structurecontour map of Reelfoot blind thrust.

Van Arsdale et al. (1999) 4 Publication scale maps—good registration for digitization (Figures 1 and 2). RFT 5 Used to define the SE segment of the Reelfoot thrust fault. N

Wheeler et al. (1994) 4 Detailed compilation map, USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Map. NMS 3 Locations of subsurface faults— Cottonwood Grove fault, Ridgely fault, unnamed fault west of Cottonwood Grove fault.

Calais et al. (2006) 4 Two independent geodetic solutions from close to 300 continuous GPS stations. NMN, NMS, and RFT 4 Based on observation that there is no detectable residual motion in the NMSZ at the 95% confidence level, some weight is assigned to the model that the NMFS is “out of the cluster.”
What does "out of the cluster" mean? The rest is firming up the cow patties.

Table C-5.4 C-46
Smalley et al. (2005) 4 Provides discussion of possible mechanisms to explain local but not regional geodetic signal. NMN, NMS, and RFT 3 Temporal clustering issue—

Evidence for ongoing strain across RFT and strike-slip fault zone; no apparent far-field signature. Notes that regardless of geodetic results, the challenge remains to reconcile geodetic observations with the detailed geological evidence available for repeated large earthquakes within Central United States, and that the cause of such earthquakes is not well understood.

The mantra "and that the cause of such earthquakes is not well understood." Where have I heard this line before ? Its poorly understood because it is your job to make sure it is not understood. Selling cigarettes to selling geology.

Forte et al. (2007) 3 Regional analysis NMN, NMS, and RFT 1 Provides rationale for concentrating seismic stress in the vicinity of the Reelfoot rift–NMSZ.


Table C-5.4 C-47
Grana and Richardson (1996) 4 Regional analysis, models the rift pillow in New Madrid region. NMN, NMS, and RFT) 3 Temporal clustering—Modeling indicates that stresses from the load of the rift pillow may still be present in the upper crust and may still play a role in present-day deformation. This supports “incluster’” model.
The cluster probably means what we think it means, the pillow is the probable point of crustal punch through. I didn't think they would bring it up.

Li et al. (2009) 3 3-D viscoelasto-plastic finite-element model addresses generic issues of spatiotemporal variations in seismicity in intraplate regions. NMN, NMS, and RFT 2 Temporal clustering—Supports migration of seismicity within NMSZ (out of cluster model).

Model replicates some of the spatiotemporal complexity of clustered, episodic, and migrating intraplate earthquakes. Time-scale-dependent spatiotemporal patterns of intraplate seismicity support the suggestions that seismicity patterns observed from short-term seismic records may not reflect the long-term patterns of intraplate seismicity.
Come up with anything to explain the ongoing earthquakes, anybody?


Table C-5.4 C-49
Shumway (2008) 4 Earthquakes in the NE NMSZ were relocated using a velocity model of Mississippi embayment with appropriate depths to bedrock beneath seismic stations. NMN 4 NMN long geometry—This shows that this part of the NE NMSZ is influenced by the same fault pattern and stress regime as NMN fault, may be an extension of NMSZ, and therefore may represent alternate locations of January 23, 1812, rupture.

Velocity models are used to move the position of the earthquakes to match their fictional model!

Table C-5.4 C-50
Holbrook et al. (2006) 4 Detailed analysis of geomorphic indicators of Holocene deformation in NMSZ. RFT 4 Recurrence—Provides information on “out of cluster” recurrence interval for RFT.
Out of cluster is the Goal! Devonian period not even mentioned so far.

Table C-5.4 C-51
CEUS SSC earthquake catalog 5 Comprehensive catalog; includes magnitude conversions and uncertainty assessments. ERM-S 1 Reviewed for alignment of microseismicity. Reviewed for alignment of microseismicity. Does that mean it has too much information?

Hough and Martin (2002) 4 Analysis of sparse intensity data for a large aftershock of the 1811 earthquake. ERM-S 2 Evidence for active fault along ERM—Aftershock of December 1811 NMSZ earthquake (NM1- B)—8 6.1 ± 0.2, location of event not well constrained, but probably beyond the southern end of the NMSZ, near Memphis, Tennessee (within the SW one-third to onehalf of the band of seismicity identified by Chiu et al. [1997]).
Fault lines, not fault web. A web indicates an impact. An ever expanding fault line is their worst nightmare.

Table C-5.4 C-53
CEUS SSC gravity anomaly data set 5 High-quality regional data. ERM RLMEs 0 Gravity anomaly data did not provide good resolution for delimiting the boundaries of the fault zone.
How do you think I found out that New Madrid might be an impact crater? That 800+ mile diameter ring on the gravity map. So you gave it a Zero.

Cox et al. (2006) 4 Published interpretations of highresolution S-wave seismic profile (selected portions of uninterpreted profiles provided). ERM-N and ERM-S 5 Geometry—Seismic profiles (shallow S-wave, electrical profiles) collected at paleoseismic sites are used to identify faults.
Shallow Seismic Profiles, look through these pop bottles at that mountain over there, you can't see it? That's perfect. They have enough information to know they don't want the public to know more about the real New Madrid earthquake generator

Table C-5.4 C-54
Beatrice Magnani (CERI) unpublished data Magnani et al. (2009) 3 Preliminary results of location of fault picks provided as PDF. ERM-RP 4 Geometry and activity—This data provided the basis for the location of the alternative segment defined by seismic data (ERM-RP). Connection of the three localities along the river seismic survey where recent faulting was observed suggest that there may be an alternative, more northerly trending fault along SE margin of rift zone.
CERI helping the idiots hide the spider web.

Odum et al. (2010) 4 Reinterpretation of a seismic-reflection profile across the scarp at Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park 25 km north of Memphis, Tennessee. ERM-S 2 Figures 1 and 7 show revised orientation of Meeman-Shelby fault (MSF) and relationship to Joiner Ridge. This alternative geometry for the MSF is not modeled directly as part of the RLME due to lack of information regarding timing and recent activity on the MSF. Geometry—Figure 3 is used to define the limits of the zones associated with the eastern Reelfoot rift margin.
Figure 3 defines it, not what the real world says. Another reinterpretation, they really hate to look at the fault with a seismic scan.

Table C-5.4 C-55
Williams et al. (2001) 4 Published interpretations of a seismic-reflection profile across the scarp at the Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park 25 km north of Memphis, Tennessee. Revised interpretation provided in Odum et al. (2010). Worthless data to anybody else, how about a 3D view of the lower crust?

ERM-S 2 Geometry—Meeman-Shelby fault (MSF) pick lies ~5 km (3 mi.) east of the magnetically defined southeastern margin of the Reelfoot rift. Is similar to the Crittenden County fault zone (CCFZ) in seismic profiles (up to the west). Seismic data suggest that the ERM-S may subparallel the CCFZ. Possible continuation of fault on a N33°E trend based on similar structure observed in a proprietary industry seismic line 33 km (20.5 mi.) to the northeast. Revised interpretation provided in Odum et al. AND similar structure observed in a proprietary industry seismic line 33 km (20.5 mi.) to the northeast. When they need to support the "out of the cluster" model they can get some help from their friends with a withdrawal from the proprietary data vault.

 

[dafydd]

Yawn.

 

[DeathDart]

As far as belonging in the conspiracy section, this is a scientific issue not political.

The science says we have a structure that is known to be dangerous but we have a bunch of "Studies" and "Reinterpretations" of stale deep scan data.

We have lots of press, but no new real facts or data. We have noise and not music (data).

The silence is deafening, and it is by willful and purposeful intent.

If you can show me the where all of this (detailed and thorough) information is publicly available, I will retract.

Otherwise the big blank spot on the canvas says this is a conspiracy fact.

This CEUS SSC report is the equivalent to the Oil and Nuclear Industry nailing feces to your front door.

They have gotten confidant that their power is unassailable. Time will tell.

 

[DeathDart]

Yawn Bbzzzzzz thwwip (cough) (cough) (cough)

(Wheeze)

Thunk!

 

[Myriad]

Do you have an alternate plan for continuing near-present-day levels of power usage into the future?

Or do you prefer the energy contraction (die-off) scenario?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[DeathDart]

Do you have an alternate plan for continuing near-present-day levels of power usage into the future?

Or do you prefer the energy contraction (die-off) scenario?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I actually like nuclear energy, solar doesn't work well past the orbit of Mars.

What I would like to see is a database of three different size reactors. All the schematics, all the piping. If you can't build it right then, your license gets pulled.

Make these generic plants maintainable, even to include the main reactor housing.

A correct design is more expensive (on paper) to build. A lot more money is wasted in concurrent design which produces a more expensive, less safe kludge.

But before all that, find someplace to put the nuclear waste! Savannah Rivers Reactors may be turned off, but it is still a bad place to keep nuclear waste. An idea that David Brin had was to store it in a subduction zone. Over time, the waste will get drawn deeper into the earth and segregated from the environment for geological time intervals. Just a thought.

With the real geology conditions available to the public, sites for Nuclear reactors could be found that are stable. These sites may not be convenient to the corporate operators, so screw them. Commerce WILL take a backseat to safety. The geology along much of the East Coast really is a nightmare.

The first thing that will happen, is that someone won't be satisfied with one of the approved designs. Put them in with Jimmy Hoffa.

 

[jhunter1163]

An impact of the scale you're talking about (Chicxulub-scale) would leave other evidence, no? When did your proposed impact occur? Do you have any corroborating evidence? Is there evidence of a mass extinction event at the time of your proposed impact?

 

[DeathDart]

An impact of the scale you're talking about (Chicxulub-scale) would leave other evidence, no? When did your proposed impact occur? Do you have any corroborating evidence? Is there evidence of a mass extinction event at the time of your proposed impact?

Because of the scrambled dating of the igneous intrusions around New Madrid I had to infer (guess). If the gravity signature is not an artifact, it was much bigger than Chicxulub. It looks like it ended the Devonian, it would have been big enough. Also the gravity signature is not round. It is pushed in when the Appalachians came in. This restricts the timing a bit.

This gravity map shows it pretty clearly. The northern edge is quite clear radius 400+ miles. It just skirts the bottom of the great lakes.

http://research.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=37229


I also suggest that the Mid American rift along with others were activated.

I an only guessing on this part. It was a body with cometary velocity >50 kms. It punched through crust and then exploded beneath the crust. The energy could have bulged out a good part of the Craton.

 

[DeathDart]

I actually just read the information on that map.

It wasn't done by the USGS, it was done by one of the intelligence agencies.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

http://research.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=37229

Looks like someone has airbrushed out the crater in the USGS files.

So why remove information on something that does not exist?

 

[DeathDart]

Why I like pictures. At the bottom of this page it looks like something went through the crust an then punched into the mantle. This is one of the better fragments of data out there.

http://showme.net/~fkeller/quake/commerce2.htm

If they had actually been studying New Madrid as they say they have, this would be a lot more detailed. There goal was to hide the real face of New Madrid. I guess the NGA did not get the memo telling everyone to air brush the crater out.

It is still not enough to confirm it as an impact crater, but it is a good start.

 

[Molinaro]

I actually just read the information on that map.

It wasn't done by the USGS, it was done by one of the intelligence agencies.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

http://research.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=37229

Looks like someone has airbrushed out the crater in the USGS files.

So why remove information on something that does not exist?

This nonsense belongs in the conspiracies forum.

 

[jhunter1163]

Because of the scrambled dating of the igneous intrusions around New Madrid I had to infer (guess). If the gravity signature is not an artifact, it was much bigger than Chicxulub. It looks like it ended the Devonian, it would have been big enough. Also the gravity signature is not round. It is pushed in when the Appalachians came in. This restricts the timing a bit.

This gravity map shows it pretty clearly. The northern edge is quite clear radius 400+ miles. It just skirts the bottom of the great lakes.

http://research.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=37229


I also suggest that the Mid American rift along with others were activated.

I an only guessing on this part. It was a body with cometary velocity >50 kms. It punched through crust and then exploded beneath the crust. The energy could have bulged out a good part of the Craton.

OK, fair enough. Is there other evidence for this impact, something analogous to the iridium deposits at the K-T boundary? Something of that scale surely should have left some further trace.