Talk:1989 Loma Prieta earthquake/Archive 1

Comment
I doubt the Mercury News story because I just saw a video clip of the '89 World Series. One of the players is on base when the quake occurs. No players would be on the field, let alone on base, during the singing of the national anthem, so the quake didn't occur exactly as predicted in the column.
 * The column predicted that the quake would happen before the National Anthem. They players were in fact on the field warming up, and the Anthem had yet to be sung. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed in the Village Pump that it's considered bad form to edit too frequently - sorry! Blame the newbie, and I'll try to do better.

If anyone doubts the Mercury News story, I've got a clipping of it in my scrapbook. -Aion 19:04 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Quibble: This page at the Berkeley Seismological Laboratory estimates the epicentre of the quake at 10 miles (16km) from Santa Cruz. The wikipedia page currently says it happened rear Loma Prieta peak, 7 miles away. Not a huge difference, I'll grant you. I dunno if this is the prevailing concensus, however. -- Finlay McWalter 11:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good information in this document. I've added discussion of the effects of the earthquake on the region's transporation (particularly freeways). Comments welcomed; I'm new to Wiki. --hadley 21:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Conflicting Cost Claims: Loma Prieta vs. Northridge
I see the Northridge earthquake article makes the claim that it was the most costly US quake or some such. That would seem to be in conflict with the statement in this article that Loma Prieta was the costliest US natural disaster (I'm paraphrasing both here, these are not exact quotes). These appear to me to be mutually exclusive statements that need to be reconciled for article accuracy. Thoughts? FeloniousMonk 22:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This article says, "The quake also caused an estimated $6 billion in property damage, the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history at the time." That is apparently accurate. Later disasters cost more. The Northridge earthquake cost around $9 billion, and Hurrican Andrew cost yet more. I don't think there is any actual conflict. If you want to you can add that later disasters exceeded its cost. -Willmcw 22:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. I don't see much point in refering to the higher cost later disasters, do you? FeloniousMonk 23:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

What kind of name is Felonius monk??? What does Felonious mean???

Movie
There is a movie that is based on this quake. It is called Miracle on I - 880, mainly depicting the collapse of the I - 880 roadways and consequent rescue of survivors. Martial Law 20:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)

This used to air during the Christmas Holidays. Has anyone seen this movie ? Martial Law 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)


 * I don't remember that movie, but I know there was a 1990 TV movie called After the Shock, starring Jack Scalia, Yaphet Kotto, and Scott Valentine. I used to see it pretty frequently for a few years after the quake, but haven't seen it in a long time. Michael24 6 August 2006.

I was there

 * I was living in Fremont, CA (a 15 minute drive South of Oakland) when the Loma Prieta earthquake struck in 1989. I was 22 years old and working the front desk at a popular health club. Our club was in a warehouse with high ceilings and exposed duct work. There was a mild feeling of uneasiness at first, like something was not quite right. You could almost feel it coming. People stopped what they were doing and looked around. Suddenly, the building began to whip back and forth. A stomach turning wave rippled through the floor. The motion was completely unpredictable. It felt like the building was lifted off the ground and moved several feet, then moved again (in a new and unexpected direction). There was a pause. A few people laughed nervously as if to say, "Boy that was close!" Then it started again... and that's when people freaked. I mean there was total panic. Gym members began knocking other gym memebers over in a mad dash for the exits. People stepped on the backs of other people who had fallen to the ground from tripping, or being pushed. I couldn't believe how crude they were. One man did stop to help a poor woman up (a woman who's back had been stepped on by several others) when the man himself was knocked to the ground. A good example of how quickly people lost their minds was (and this is in the space of 20 seconds mind you) when I saw members trying to climb over the 7ft tall chain link fence covering our rear garage door entrance which we left open on hot days. There was a 2ft gap above the fence that people were climbing up and flinging themselves through. But the crazy thing was, a perfectly good exit door (that no one was using) stood directly next to the chain link fence.


 * I'd be curious to know which gym that was. Ironically, I too lived in Fremont, CA at that time, and I was also 22. I've worked out at one time or another at pretty much every gym in Fremont.  When the earthquake hit, I was in my car at a stop light in Menlo Park.  When the quake first started, I thought somebody had rammed into the back of my car. I turned around and there was nobody behind me.  When I looked forward again, the street lights were rocking back and forth so violently, that they were nearly touching the ground on the down-swing.  I was just about to head across the Dumbarton Bridge to get back to Fremont, when I heard the radio come back on and they were saying "The Bay Bridge has collapsed!" The way they described it, they made it sound like the entire bridge had fallen into the bay, rather than just a section collapsing.  At that point I realized nobody would have had a chance to check the Dumbarton bridge to see if it was OK, so I wasn't about to drive across it.  Big mistake.  It ended up taking me 4 hours that night to get home (Hwy 237 was a parking lot).  When I did finally get home that night, I got to witness an interesting 'science project' from watching TV.  We were watching a San Jose news station while they had an aftershock.  Realizing we were further away from the epicenter than San Jose, I told my wife "Get ready here comes an after shock.", and sure enough, about 3 or 4 seconds later, there it was.  Pretty amazing...the wave took about 3 seconds to travel roughly 15-20 miles.  Needless to say, it was a little difficult to sleep through the night for the next several days, wondering if the worst was over, or if there was something else still coming. JSDA 07:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was also there (here, actually), in Berkeley at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in the hills overlooking the bay. I had left the building and was walking quickly up a path on a ridge in full view of the bay. The first thing I noticed was two deer jumping back and forth across the trail looking confused. Then I was struck with a sudden wave of dizziness and stopped moving. At that time I saw ripples in the earth, starting at the southeastern horizon, towards Loma Prieta and circling outward in jagged, irregular-shaped waves past the Golden Gate and northward. I could see them coming right at me, moving at unbelievable speeds. I heard a number of things crashing and falling in the various buildings around me and then people came streaming out. You could tell the natives, they looked jaded or amused, while those who hadn't experienced a quake like this had eyes open wide like saucers and wore very anxious expressions.

It's true the quake's aftermath was broadcast on TV, but what is missing from this article is the vast amount of misinformation that was broadcast. It was widely reported that the entire Bay Area was in flames and leveled to the ground, that there were countless deaths and casualties, the Bay Bridge had completely collapsed, and that all utilities had been shut down from San Jose to San Rafael and beyond. From my vantage point, I could see one fire in Berkeley, one in the Marina of SF, and one on the Peninsula. My power was fine in Berkeley and only a few small things were knocked onto the floor.

I'm a ham radio operator and I activated my station to handle emergency messages. I was shocked to hear people in places like Clear Lake and other areas receiving SF TV stations spreading the misinformation like it was gospel -- according to them we were in ruins, the Bay Bridge completely collapsed and there was no power so no stations would be on the air.

The TV networks eventually got it right, and a few people did apologize for their grossly exaggerated and alarming reports. It was a tragic day for us here, but the reporting only added to the problems and I think we need to remember and document this in the hope it won't be repeated. If nothing else, it taught me that TV news stations are more interested in viewer numbers than accuracy, by far. Jack-z (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Book about the Loma Prieta Earthquake
There is a novel written about the events in and around the town of Loma Prieta during and after the earthquake, told from the point of view of a teen-age girl. The book is titled "Quake!" by Joe Cottonwood, published by Scholastic in 1995.

AKA
Could this be also retitled as "The world Series Earthquake", since it happenerd while this was going on ? 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Precursors
Something is wrong with the first heading under Scientific Precursors, not sure if some phrase was deleted or what. --Mjrmtg 19:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Cops" Stalled Rescue
It seems to me that this statement in the section about the Cypress Freeway collapse is suspicious: "Cops arrived soon after and told everyone to stop their rescue efforts, a move that has been widely criticized." I've been searching for evidence of this event or criticism of the police efforts on the Internet and have not been able to find any. Does anyone know more about this? Otherwise, I think this line should be deleted. (I changed the first word from "Cops" to "Police" in the article.) --Everyguy 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Information closer to the epic center
I'm curious why there is a lack of information on the damages and impacts closer to the epic center? Namely the Santa Cruz area as well as the nearby areas of Aptos, Capitola and Scotts Valley. For example, the Santa Cruz downtown area was practically devastated by the quake due to the old buildings there. The little mentioning of the towns and cities closer to the epic center seem not as severely effected by the quake.

Yes San Francisco is a major city, but earthquakes affects smaller cities as well. I'm posting this as a way to add further awareness to this event in California history. 75.24.192.45 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, the destrution and the fires in the SF Marina District were spectacular. High density housing that was old and built on bad soil.  Even though the quake was 50 miles away, there were geological factors that amplified the earthquake's effect.  Because of its large population, the earthquake affected more people in San Francisco than further south near the epicenter.


 * But the reader is certainly right. Pacific Ave in Santa Cruz really got nailed:  Old brick buildings on bad soil.  Scotts Valley, Aptos and Capitola were comparatively not too badly damaged.  (Newer buildings, better soil).  Watsonville, which is at the southern end of Santa Cruz County and is one of its poor areas really got hammered but hardly made the news.  75.7.35.166 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem with the Loma Prieta earthquake, and the lack of information coming from Santa Cruz county, was that the county was completely cut off. Highway 1 at Waddell Creek was covered in landslide, Highway 1 at the Pajaro river was destroyed (the bridge collapsed), Highway 9 between Santa Cruz and Los Gatos was covered in land-slide, Highway 17 was covered in land-slide, and 152 between Watsonville and Gilroy was covered in land-slides as well.  There was absolutely no way to get any information out of Santa Cruz county.  In order to get emergency personel and supplies into the county, FEMA brought in C-130s and a large number of general aircraft into Watsonville airport.  That airport became the main conduit into the area.


 * I was working in Santa Cruz on Mission street (highway 1 as it goes through town) when the earthquake hit. A friend of mine who was on a business trip in Europe thought that the entire county had fallen into the bay, there was no information at all coming out.  We had severe damage to the mall.  Sany Lydon has information on the earthquake nearer the epicenter, apparently all of the trees in that area had their tops snapped off because of the rapid ground shift at Loma Prieta. 128.114.20.37 23:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare this to the 1906 "San Francisco" earthquake, which was much closer to San Jose than San Francisco. San Jose was destroyed, but you'll see little or no mention of this in any account of the 1906 quake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadmanpaul (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I added a cleanup tag because the article is full of grammatical errors and inconsistancies. I had to double back and read numerous sentences over again to understand them. At first I thought there were just a couple little mistakes but it looks like a bigger job - some parts kind of read like they were translated well but imperfectly from another language. ---67.85.183.103 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now (14 May 2008) edited the Marina District section, where the cleanup tag was, and tightened it up considerably, eliminating repetition and putting related material together. I think it's now basically up to snuff, so I've removed the cleanup tag.  Not that it can't be further improved, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.188.95.34 (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Looks good. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Reorganization (Cleanup)
I'd like to start a discussion on how to better organize this article. The existing section titles don't really add to the article, and lend themselves to information being repeated. Here's my first stab at it:

Loma Prieta earthquake

Epicenter

Fatalities and injuries

Damage


 * --Cypress Street Viaduct


 * --San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge


 * --Marina District


 * --Santa Cruz County


 * --Other damage

1989 World Series

Effects on Transportation

Government response

Science of the earthquake


 * --Liquifaction


 * --Precursors

This is just a rough draft, so feel free to provide your input.--Brianvdb 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. I made a first draft at reorganizing the material. Now someone needs to do a better consolidating edit, fix the language, and so on. Elf | Talk 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Images
There seems to be a lot of images bunched together on this page - and many of them are of the same thing. For instance:

-3 photos of the damage to the Cypress Structure

-2 photos of the damage to the Bay Bridge (the overhead shot, in my opinion, doesn't show the damage that well)

-3 photos of the Marina District

What do y'all think of getting rid of a few of these pictures? Any opinions on which ones should go? Maybe we can find some other applicable pictures that could serve as repalcements?--Brianvdb 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a question! Here is a quote from the book, The Girls Next Door: "After the Northern California earthquake of 1989, newspapers and newscasts all over the world conveyed dimensions of the tragedy with the image of a distraugt woman whose' friend' was buried underneath the rubble of a collapsed coffee shop. Although the woman was openly gay and specifically asked reporters to make clear that she had lost a spouse, few did."

Could someone help me out? I can't find this photo anywhere, or any pertaining article whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.69.13 (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Moala Kalushia
This person's situation needs a re-write. If someone is picked up from the SFO airport, they would be driving east (bottom level) on the Bay Bridge. So the word "plunge" is too strong and slightly indicates they were on the top level. They drove into a "wall" that was the fallen portion of the bridge, correct?

i found this article, but it is frustrating how they say a herd of cars went from the bottom to top level...i just dont understand that

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/1999/10/12/MN41QUA.DTL

SF Bay is Fresh Water??
A recent edit indicates that SF Bay is not salt water. How can this be true? Isn't most of it tidal? And there are large salt marshes at the southern end neat San Jose. Or am I really missing something here? JXM 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

SF Bay is at least partially salt water; certainly it is not fresh water. It is estuarial, which means that it is a mixture of fresh/salt water, with the salinity varying seasonally with rainfall, tides, and with distance from the ocean. Near the Golden Gate, it is probably pretty close to seawater; farther inland it will have more freshwater mixed in, depending on inflows from rivers and creeks and rainfall. --Crandmck 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar
Can somebody go over this and correct all the grammar mistakes and missing words, reading this it doesn't seem to flow. Also some decent headings would be nice. I would think you should seperate the different effects, like the Oakland Bridge and the Cypress Structure, which would get rid of the huge blocks of text.
 * See above. Elf | Talk 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Tone
The tone of this article is not in line with other Wikipedia pages.

Much of this is written like the script to a soap opera, rather than an encyclopedia article. For example: “Anamafi Moala Kalushia approached the collapse site too quickly to stop, drove the car off the ledge and smashed onto the collapsed roadbed. Halangahu was pulled to safety and eventually recovered from multiple compound fractures to both his legs. Anamafi Moala Kalushia died shortly after plunging off the upper deck. She was the only fatality on the bridge”

Some of the terms used in the article are intentionally emotive, rather than objective, such as “One family lost their baby boy” and “deadly freeway”.

Also, the facts have been over dramatized. For example, “the columns exploded outward, thrusting the upper deck onto the one below” could be changed to the more succinct “the columns collapsed”.

Can I suggest that the article is rewritten in a similar style to other Wikipedia articles. jxs97s 16 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How many people died?
The summary at the top says 67 people died, but the information table on the side reads 68. What is the correct number? --Spcleddy (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

USGS photo credit
On this page, the USGS writes "Feel free to use any of these images but please cite the photographer and the U.S. Geological Survey." I have complied with their request as a courtesy. I feel that they were asking for citation whenever a photo was used; that is, on each Wikipedia page that it appears. That's why the photographer and USGS are credited both here and on each photo's own page. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercalli scale
I lowered the scale to VIII. Special construction suffered very little damage. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Name
Was the quake really named for Loma Prieta peak? Because the epicenter is closer to the site of Loma Prieta Mill than it is to the peak. 68.185.95.28 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it was. I put a reference there to support the sentence. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www2.santacruzpl.org/gallery2/v/lochistphotos/rs009.jpg.html
 * In 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake on 2011-05-25 05:46:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake on 2011-06-24 08:00:38, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Two predictions, one funny and one serious
An editor has removed paragraphs describing two predictions of the earthquake, one funny, offhand comment made by a sportswriter in Baltimore, and one serious prediction made by a retired USGS employee. The explanation offered by User:Ikluft was that the Baltimore guy paragraph was original research and the USGS guy's reference failed the reliable sources test.

The Baltimore Sun website won't let me search archives older than 1990, and the San Jose Mercury News website doesn't recall Kevin Cowherd's supposed "prediction" article. I don't see this bit anywhere on Google books. Unless Cowherd's piece can be found at a reliable source, that paragraph must stay out.

I have the original faded and yellow SJ Mercury News section that contains Kevin Cowherd's column. The "prediction" is all fact. I can scan it and send it to anyone if additional verification is needed. User:Rschreck —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Please check out predictions by Edgar Cayce, who died in 1945. The Sleeping Prophet by Jess Stearn p 40 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.161.210.241 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You can see the article with his prediction (it;s fuzzy, but you can make it out) at: http://www.sportsmemorabiliaandmore.com/articles/earthquake.html Shouldn't that be enough proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.119.243 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim Berkland, retired USGS geologist, did indeed print on October 13 a prediction of a major earthquake occurring within the date range of October 14–21, 1989. Opinions differ regarding the accuracy of his later predictions, but that does not erase his one notable prediction. The reference that was in the article was an independent publisher book about him, written by magazine writer Cal Orey. I guess the Orey book was seen by Ikluft as unreliable. Without trying to answer that question, if The Gilroy Dispatch article were used, or other articles about the prediction, then we could solve the problem of WP:RS. Some choices include:
 * Tales of the earth: paroxysms and perturbations of the blue planet, page 47
 * California fault: searching for the spirit of state along the San Andreas, pages 248 to 262
 * The Gilroy Dispatch, January 19, 2006. "Geologist Tuned In to Temblors"

Perhaps one or two of these would suffice to return Berkland to the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Resource
A good resource if anyone wants to do more work on this is the October 1991 special issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. The introductory article is freely available and provides a good guide. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What a great find! Perhaps the source in your link could be used to help advance this article to GA status. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The name is confusing for anyone not from the Bay Area
I'm sure the name of the earthquake is correct - but nobody in the world is going to find this article without first going to the page about San Francisco. Would it be so strange to actually call it 1989 San Francisco Earthquake? Remember that readers interested in this topic are not just from California ... in fact some are not even from the US. I would never in a million years remember "Loma Prieta". Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC) (in northern England)
 * We have a redirect (1989 San Francisco earthquake) to help readers find the article. Dawnseeker2000   00:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the redirect is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination
I just nominated the article for Good Article status, even though I know that there are some unresolved issues such as various formatting niceties, and the deletion or reference support of paragraphs that cite no sources. To make this process go as quickly as possible, I think it would be best not to introduce new sections, or at least not conduct edit wars! ^_^

Thanks in advance to any who jump in to help. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The readability is near ideal, with appropriately sized words and sentences of appropriate length, as seen by this measure:
 * http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/readability1.4.py?page=1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake


 * The URLs check out, as seen here:
 * http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake


 * Let me know if there are other issues to fix. Or fix them! Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

--2001:558:6033:EF:5C7A:A62C:C76B:B89C (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Italic textItalic textyeah it was because im studying about it

Anamalfi Moala
Is the name Anamafi Moala or Anamafi Maala?

And the Oakland Bay Bridge section is really unclear. Did she lose her life directly when the earthquake struck, or when she was misdirected back onto the collapsed bridge? 176.68.114.41 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting proper edit
Why revert my change of ...maximum intensity of V (Moderate) back to the incorrect description of (Rather Strong) only to change it back to as I had written it? Imveracious (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd been using our table at Mercalli Intensity Scale for those one word descriptors. Been doing it that way for several years, but last night I looked around and found that that list doesn't align with what the USGS lists, so I reverted myself, and even used AWB to modify quite a few other articles to align with this. Dawnseeker2000   14:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As I had properly written in the first place, correct? Imveracious (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Like I said, I'd been using our own (incorrect) table as listed at Mercalli Intensity Scale for these one word descriptors, and only realized this after I reverted you. This also initiated a change in probably 75 or so articles (Destructive → Severe / Rather Strong → Moderate). Thank you, Dawnseeker2000   15:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

6.9 or 7.1?
Which is it, 6.9 or 7.1? We have both figures, and RS use both. Ref 2, p. 30, has "The Ms = 7.1 event (Mw = 6.9) was a moderate earthquake..." I'm no expert, so what's going on here? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A variety of instruments at different locations whose seismograms are interpreted by different seismologists that yielded different results (using different magnitude scales). Dawnseeker2000   05:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Goodyear Blimp
I am a geophysicist and am skeptical of the "mass air movement" above the earthquake detected in the blimp. Please provide a reference to where this information came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.200.50 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just Wondering what happened with the Goodyear blimp and the "massive air movement" I am highly skeptical of this information and would like a source included. If no source is included then delete the information. I also belive that this scenario is highly implausable.


 * Thank you. Koobaxion (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I found a People magazine reference for the blimp pilot reporting four bumps occurring during the earthquake while it was hovering over the stadium. What I don't have (yet) is a geologic study which supports the other conclusions made in that same paragraph: "The Goodyear blimp... was the first blimp to be airborne over the location of a major earthquake" and "confirmed by onboard sensors and cameras" and "the first confirmation that the air column above an earthquake is affected by the movement of the ground underneath." These three phrases still need to be supported by a geologist expert source or they should be taken out as original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just reading the article and was struck by the exact same thing (even before reading the thread here, in fact). If the air column did in fact "shake" and this was the first time such a phenomenon was recorded and documented, then this would be an important scientific discovery and in the scientific literature. Instead, the only source given here is People magaine(!), which is a damn sight far from being a reliable source, much less any kind of scientific literature. A quick search of Google Scholar doesn't seem to turn up anything. When I have more time, I'm going to do a more thorough search, but if nothing turns up, I'm going to edit out the section in question. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The magazine reference isn't weak; they don't try to editorialize about the pilot's experience, they just print what he said. I feel confident the pilot really said what he is reported to have said. The original research parts, though, I will be taking out now. They've sat there long enough. As for why the scientific community hasn't touched this one, I have no comment except that the opportunities for further study and corroboration rely on having equipment aloft over an active, powerful earthquake. Not an easy sell for funding. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing to consider about the geography and winds around the stadium (Candlestick Park): It's surrounded by some fairly significant mountains and suffers from high winds, especially during the later afternoon hours. These westerlies, coming off the pacific ocean, can be fairly strong at times. The area also has several mountains (Mount San Bruno as well as the ridge formed by the San Andreas fault). I am not saying that this is what happened (I was on the ground, inside, during the earthquake), but present it as a possible explanation for the phenomenon seen. Roger -Dot- Lee, Aviation Geek, perpetual student, amature scientist (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Compass Directions
The Forest of Nisene Marks State Park is wholly south of Santa Cruz. kencf0618 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If a person wanted to depart Santa Cruz to the south, one way they could do it would be from the harbor. Dawnseeker2000  05:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur. I'm taking this to to 3O. kencf0618 (talk)


 * You're right; I was wrong. Now that I've pulled up a Google Map I see that my mental map was wrong. kencf0618 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707140502/http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Cypress_Viaduct_Freeway.html to http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Cypress_Viaduct_Freeway.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105135903/http://www.sfmuseum.net/alm/quakes4.html to http://www.sfmuseum.net/alm/quakes4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002551/http://www.sfmuseum.net/alm/quakes3.html to http://www.sfmuseum.net/alm/quakes3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

First major quake televised?
The lead has this:

Due to the sports coverage of the 1989 World Series, it became the first major earthquake in the United States that was broadcast live on national television (and as a result is sometimes referred to as the "World Series earthquake").

I'm not sure it qualifies as a broadcast of an earthquake. From what I remember, the TV audience lost the picture as someone said "We're having an earthquake", before the signal from the stadium was lost. SlowJog (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The traditional, conventional notion of an "earthquake" is ground shaking. However, as this is always very much a localized phenomenon; scientists prefer to refer to the underground rupture that generates the shaking. So between something that can't be observed, and a particular very localized effect, it's curious just how "an earthquake" could be "broadcast".


 * I am generally under enthused by any kind of "first" (anything can be a "first", if suitably qualified). Perhaps what the lead could say is that this event is called the "World Series earthquake" because it interrupted a live national broadcast. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * How about this: "It is sometimes called the "World Series earthquake" because it interrupted the 1989 World Series, which was being broadcast nationally." ? SlowJog (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Throw it in and we'll see if it sticks to the wall. :-) &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Map Bug?
The map next to the lead shows some dots with names (Oakland, Santa Cruz, Salinas), and, to show the location, concentric red rings. But, when I click on the map, I get an unlabeled image. The dots, names, and rings are not there. SlowJog (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you using a mobile device? There is a problem (since around the start of the year) in how various maps with overlays – such as the location map you describe – are processed for mobile devices. Non-mobile device users can savor the experience with this url. I have been told this has been reported at Phabricator, but I know nothing on the status. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm using a desktop, with Firefox or Chromium browsers. SlowJog (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The link I provided should show, on any device, what mobile devices are seeing. Click on it and see if that approximates the problem you are seeing. There might also be problem if your browser is implementing these features using PHP7; check that. Also check your WP personal configuration: are you using any experimental features? If so, see if disabling them makes any difference. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The same thing happens if I use the mobile devices link you provided. When I hover the mouse cursor over the map, it's a "hand pointing up", except near the 'quake center, where it is an arrow. This happens with the mobile and non-mobile versions. SlowJog (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Magnetic disturbance seems far fetched even if sourced
While reading the section on "Magnetic Disturbance", I decided to look up historical A-index and Planetary K-index data, and whomever came up with this notion that the sensors were detecting something unrelated seems to not have had access to the actual historical data. In the immediate three days prior, the geomagnetic field was at very low activity but rising out of the zone of deadness maximus in the days immediately preceeding that. although a few days later there would be a large geomagnetic storm, in the days leading up to and including the day of the quake, the geomagnetic indices were at reasonably low levels, such that if they were the cause of the low frequency noise, that it would have been a near constant observance.

For instance, here is the situation on the ground in the days immediately prior to and after the quake:

8910132134 117 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 6  2  0  0  0  0  0  0  10.00148224.20 8910142134 2 0 3 0 3 7 0 0 0 13  0  2  0  2  3  0  0  0  10.00159225.90 8910152134 3 7 7 3 7101327 7 80  3  3  2  3  4  5 12  3  40.21189225.40 8910162134 41717172733302720187  6  6  6 12 18 15 12  7 100.63209237.00 8910172134 53033303023202717210 15 18 15 15  9  7 12  6 120.73206225.30 8910182134 64337133333232337243 32 22  5 18 18  9  9 22 170.94184221.31 8910192134 75347434037172313273 56 39 32 27 22  6  9  5 241.26159214.72 8910202134 82330436777778370470  9 15 321111791792361321121.98140205.40 8910212134 96367708377678063570 94111132236179111207 941462.09152206.20 8910222134106357434747535340403 94 67 32 39 39 56 56 27 511.67158217.80 8910232134113057502320202730257 15 67 48  9  7  7 12 15 221.15145210.40 8910242134123730432327233733253 22 15 32  9 12  9 22 18 170.94131214.20 8910252134135050473713201023250 48 48 39 22  5  7  4  9 231.15121183.31

FORMAT FOR RECORDS OF SELECTED GEOMAGNETIC AND SOLAR ACTIVITY INDICES --- COLUMNS  FMT   DESCRIPTION --- 1- 2     I2    YEAR 3- 4    I2    MONTH 5- 6    I2    DAY

7-10    I4    BARTELS SOLAR ROTATION NUMBER--a sequence of 27-day intervals counted continuously from February 8, 1832. 11-12    I2    NUMBER OF DAY within the Bartels 27-day cycle.

13-14    I2    Kp or PLANETARY 3-HOUR RANGE INDEX for 0000 - 0300 UT. 15-16     I2    Kp or PLANETARY 3-HOUR RANGE INDEX for 0300 - 0600 UT. 17-18     I2    Kp or PLANETARY 3-HOUR RANGE INDEX for 0600 - 0900 UT. 19-20     I2    Kp or PLANETARY 3-HOUR RANGE INDEX for 0900 - 1200 UT. 21-22     I2    Kp or PLANETARY 3-HOUR RANGE INDEX for 1200 - 1500 UT. 23-24     I2    Kp or PLANETARY 3-HOUR RANGE INDEX for 1500 - 1800 UT. 25-26     I2    Kp or PLANETARY 3-HOUR RANGE INDEX for 1800 - 2100 UT. 27-28     I2    Kp or PLANETARY 3-HOUR RANGE INDEX for 2100 - 2400 UT. 29-31     I3    SUM of the eight Kp indices for the day expressed to the nearest third of a unit. 32-34    I3    ap or PLANETARY EQUIVALENT AMPLITUDE for 0000 - 0300 UT. 35-37     I3    ap or PLANETARY EQUIVALENT AMPLITUDE for 0300 - 0600 UT. 38-40     I3    ap or PLANETARY EQUIVALENT AMPLITUDE for 0600 - 0900 UT. 41-43     I3    ap or PLANETARY EQUIVALENT AMPLITUDE for 0900 - 1200 UT. 44-46     I3    ap or PLANETARY EQUIVALENT AMPLITUDE for 1200 - 1500 UT. 47-49     I3    ap or PLANETARY EQUIVALENT AMPLITUDE for 1500 - 1800 UT. 50-52     I3    ap or PLANETARY EQUIVALENT AMPLITUDE for 1800 - 2100 UT. 53-55     I3    ap or PLANETARY EQUIVALENT AMPLITUDE for 2100 - 2400 UT. 56-58     I3    Ap or PLANETARY EQUIVALENT DAILY AMPLITUDE--the arithmetic mean of the day's eight ap values.

in other words, although there was a geomagnetic storm a few days later, this was not the case in the days preceeding the earthquake, or the day of the earthquake, and again, if the geomagnetic field was the cause of the low frequency noise, it would have been a constant problem because of the low levels of geomagnetic activity that is normal and was present on the days in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.207.5.46 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Blackout and Milky Way
Hi. A fact known amonst some amateur stargazers is that the earthquake, probably this one, in California, caused a widespread power outage. When the quake struck, people ran outside during the night, and when the power went off, many people saw the Milky Way for the first time. The authorities were flooded with calls of people asking what that silvery light in the sky was, and some asked if a sudden brightening of the stars had caused the earthquake. Although this has more to do with light pollution than the earthquake, and I'm not sure this would be considered a "notable event" during the earthquake, I'm sure citations could be found. I'd add it myself, but I'm checking first to see if this is appropriate for the article. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, maybe it was the 1994 Northridge earthquake. I will ask the reference desk. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * About 2 years ago, I read an article making that claim about the 1994 Northridge earthquake. SlowJog (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Time to do Archive_2?
We have ten-year old cruft here that's collecting dust. I think it's time to move all of this to /Archive_2, if anyone has the time and inclination to do so. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)