Want this question answered?
7.8 would be described as 'major'. Damage to most or all buildings. Death toll could be considerable
It would depend on where is happened. In an unpopullated area, the damage would be minimal. In a populated area like the case of the recent Japan earthquake, they had almost total devastation with a 9. Earthquake.
If the earthquake occurs on land - the highest damage occurs at the epicentre (the point at which the quake starts). If the quake begins at sea - most damage is caused at coastal regions from tidal waves.
An earthquake that measured 10.0 on the Richter scale would be absolutely devastating. You would see major cities crumble to pieces.
None at all. A magnitude 0.7 earthquake would be an instrumental earthquake, meaning it can be picked up on seismometers, but otherwise is not noticeable.
7.8 would be described as 'major'. Damage to most or all buildings. Death toll could be considerable
The Mercalli scale would be used to damage earthquake damage.
It would depend on where is happened. In an unpopullated area, the damage would be minimal. In a populated area like the case of the recent Japan earthquake, they had almost total devastation with a 9. Earthquake.
Certainly not haiti!
yes
granite
Hawaii would have the greatest risk of volcano damage
The Mercalli scale would most likely be used to measure earthquake damage.
The Mercalli scale would most likely be used to measure earthquake damage.
there really aren't lands that won't get the least amount of damage during an earthquake. With hills there's damage, and with flat ground there's still damage, it doesn't matter were you are it would still have damage during an earthquake.
If the earthquake occurs on land - the highest damage occurs at the epicentre (the point at which the quake starts). If the quake begins at sea - most damage is caused at coastal regions from tidal waves.
An earthquake that measured 10.0 on the Richter scale would be absolutely devastating. You would see major cities crumble to pieces.