Latest Entries »

pt 1-2

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

Collapse of the Industrial Civilization | Interview with Michael Ruppert

 

Published on Feb 28, 2013

Michael Ruppert let’s fly with both barrels as he speaks on Peak Oil, who the media are serving, and the truth behind Pat Tilman and Christopher Dorner. Ruppert’s candor is so strong that it is clear to see why he has been persecuted for his journalism, and he also shows why he is resilient enough to keep on speaking his truth.

GUEST BIO:
Michael Ruppert is an investigative journalist and author of two books, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil and Confronting Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post Peak Oil World. In the 1970s, Ruppert was a narcotics officer for the LAPD. While there, he discovered evidence that the CIA was complicit in the illegal drug trade. He alerted his superiors with this information and soon found himself dismissed even though he had an honorable record. These events spurred Ruppert to begin a new career for himself as an investigative journalist. He was the publisher/editor of the From The Wilderness newsletter which, until its closure in 2006, examined government corruption and complicity in such areas as the CIA’s involvement in the war on drugs, the Pat Tillman scandal, the 2008 economic collapse and issues surrounding Peak Oil. Ruppert has lectured widely on these topics and was the subject of a documentary,Collapse, in 2009 which was based on one of his books. Currently, he hosts the radio show, The Lifeboat, on the Progressive Radio Network.

ADD’L LINKS:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
http://www.collapsenet.com/
http://www.thelip.tv

EPISODE BREAKDOWN:
00:01 Coming up on Media Mayhem.
00:50 Welcoming Michael Ruppert
01:44 Getting persecuted as a journalist over Pat Tilman.
04:35 Bringing down the Bush administration.
08:55 The Pat Tilman cover-up.
15:01 Getting push back from controversial stories.
23:14 Media red herrings and distractions from the Right and Left.
27:54 Collapse, peak oil and the Iraq War explained.
36:17 The cognitive dissonance swirling around Christopher Dorner.
45:04 Investigative journalism appears through the cracks.

 

Part 2

 

.

Published on Mar 5, 2013

Collapse mastermind Michael Ruppert joins Media Mayhem to continue his conversation about the dirty secrets of the US government. This time he pulls out the big guns when discussing 9/11, the Bush administration, and why Dick Cheney was such an important (and nefarious) figure.
He also gives his thoughts on President Obama, and the overwhelming force that keeps the machine of US government ticking in the direction of criminality.

GUEST BIO:
Michael Ruppert is an investigative journalist and author of two books, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil andConfronting Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post Peak Oil World.In the 1970s, Ruppert was a narcotics officer for the LAPD. While there, he discovered evidence that the CIA was complicit in the illegal drug trade. He alerted his superiors with this information and soon found himself dismissed even though he had an honorable record. These events spurred Ruppert to begin a new career for himself as an investigative journalist. He was the publisher/editor of the From The Wilderness newsletter which, until its closure in 2006, examined government corruption and complicity in such areas as the CIA’s involvement in the war on drugs, the Pat Tillman scandal, the 2008 economic collapse and issues surrounding Peak Oil. Ruppert has lectured widely on these topics and was the subject of a documentary, Collapse, in 2009 which was based on one of his books. Currently, he hosts the radio show, The Lifeboat, on the Progressive Radio Network.

ADD’L LINKS:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
http://www.collapsenet.com/
https://www.facebook.com/MediaMayhem
https://twitter.com/ahopeweiner
http://thelip.tv/

EPISODE BREAKDOWN:
00:01 Coming Up on Media Mayhem
00:41 The Collapse network of outside media.
03:34 30 years of experience in skepticism.
05:24 Osama Bin Laden and the truth.
09:44 9/11 was orchestrated by Dick Cheney.
11:24 Evidence for his case.
16:33 How Cheney consolidated power so effectively.
20:56 The excuse for the Iraq War, and the connection to Pearl Harbor.
26:12 Halliburton and the C.I.A.
31:44 Working with the LAPD and C.I.A. and coming from a background related to security.
34:34 The C.I.A. drug shipment conspiracy.
36:35 Has the LAPD changed since Rodney King?
40:14 Obama and the machine.
43:52 The balance of power and the executive.

….

Enhanced by Zemanta
 

Armed men outside an administrative building in Slovyansk, Ukraine. American officials say Russian troops or pro-Russian separatists under Moscow’s influence control such buildings. Credit Genya Savilov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry has accused Russia of behaving in a “19th-century fashion” because of its annexation of Crimea.

But Western experts who have followed the success of Russian forces in carrying out President Vladimir V. Putin’s policy in Crimea and eastern Ukraine have come to a different conclusion about Russian military strategy. They see a military disparaged for its decline since the fall of the Soviet Union skillfully employing 21st-century tactics that combine cyberwarfare, an energetic information campaign and the use of highly trained special operation troops to seize the initiative from the West.

“It is a significant shift in how Russian ground forces approach a problem,” said James G. Stavridis, the retired admiral and former NATO commander. “They have played their hand of cards with finesse.”

The abilities the Russian military has displayed are not only important to the high-stakes drama in Ukraine, they also have implications for the security of Moldova, Georgia, Central Asian nations and even the Central Europe nations that are members of NATO.

The dexterity with which the Russians have operated in Ukraine is a far cry from the bludgeoning artillery, airstrikes and surface-to-surface missiles used to retake Grozny, the Chechen capital, from Chechen separatists in 2000. In that conflict, the notion of avoiding collateral damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure appeared to be alien.

Since then Russia has sought to develop more effective ways of projecting power in the “near abroad,” the non-Russian nations that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has tried to upgrade its military, giving priority to its special forces, airborne and naval infantry — “rapid reaction” abilities that were “road tested” in Crimea, according to Roger McDermott, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.

The speedy success that Russia had in Crimea does not mean that the overall quality of the Russian Army, made up mainly of conscripts and no match for the high-tech American military, has been transformed.

“The operation reveals very little about the current condition of the Russian armed forces,” said Mr. McDermott. “Its real strength lay in covert action combined with sound intelligence concerning the weakness of the Kiev government and their will to respond militarily.”

Still, Russia’s operations in Ukraine have been a swift meshing of hard and soft power. The Obama administration, which once held out hope that Mr. Putin would seek an “off ramp” from the pursuit of Crimea, has repeatedly been forced to play catch-up after the Kremlin changed what was happening on the ground.

“It is much more sophisticated, and it reflects the evolution of the Russian military and of Russian training and thinking about operations and strategy over the years,” said Stephen J. Blank, a former expert on the Russian military at the United States Army War College who is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council.

Read More and Watch Video  Here

…..

American Forces Press Service

 News Article

Stavridis Presses for More NATO-Russia Dialogue

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 – Noting increased cooperation between NATO and Russia in several key areas, the top NATO and U.S. European Command commander emphasized today the importance of working through stumbling blocks in what he called a “complicated partnership.”

In a blog post, Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis cited concerted efforts by both parties since NATO’s 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal, where the alliance’s 28 heads of state and government agreed on the need to pursue “a true strategic partnership” between NATO and Russia and noted in the strategic concept that they expect reciprocity from Russia.

Stavridis recognized several areas where increased cooperation has shown signs of paying off: counterpiracy; support for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, military exchanges and training exercises, counterterrorism and counternarcotics, among them.

“Overall, we enjoy cooperation and some level of partnership in a variety of important areas,” he said. “On the other hand, there are clearly challenges in the relationship.”

Stavridis noted Russia’s objections to the European phased adaptive approach for missile defense. “Russia sees the NATO missile defense system as posing a threat to their strategic intercontinental ballistic missile force,” he said. “We strongly disagree, and feel that the system is clearly designed to protect populations against Iran, Syria and other ballistic-missile-capable nations that threaten the European continent.”

NATO and Russia also disagree over Russian forces stationed in Georgia and NATO’s role in Libya, Stavridis said.

“We maintain that we operated under the U.N. Security Council mandate to establish a no-fly zone, provide an arms embargo and protect the people of Libya from attacks,” he said, calling NATO’s actions “well within the bounds of the [U.N.] mandate and the norms of international law.

“Russia sees this differently,” Stavridis continued, “and whenever I discuss this with Russian interlocutors, we find little room for agreement. This tends to create a differing set of views about the dangerous situation in Syria as well.”

Stavridis noted Russian Ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko’s stated concerns that these differences — and the installation of NATO military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders — threaten to unravel progress made in their relations.

“Notwithstanding differences on particular issues, we remain convinced that the security of NATO and Russia is intertwined,” Stavridis said, quoting the NATO strategic concept agreed to in Lisbon. “A strong and constructive partnership based on mutual confidence, transparency and predictability can best serve our security,” it states.

Stavridis recognized areas in which the growing NATO-Russian relationship is bearing fruit:

– Counterpiracy: Loosely coordinated efforts by NATO and Russian ships have reduced piracy by 70 percent over the past year and caused the number of ships and mariners held hostage to plummet in what the admiral called “a very effective operation.”

– Afghanistan support: Russia contributed small arms and ammunition to the Afghan security forces and sold MI-17 helicopters and maintenance training to the Afghan air force. In addition, Russia provides logistical support, including a transit arrangement that helps to sustain NATO-led ISAF forces and redeployment efforts.

– Military exchanges and exercises: Russian service members are participating in more of these engagements with the United States and NATO. These exchanges, including port calls in Russia, have been well-received by both militaries, Stavridis noted.

– Arctic cooperation: Russia is collaborating with other members of the Arctic Council, including the United States, Norway, Denmark, Canada and Iceland, to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation.

– Counterterrorism: In the lead-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, NATO is offering assistance and information-sharing via a variety of channels, Stavridis reported.

– Counternarcotics: NATO and Russia are working together to stem the flow of heroin from Afghanistan, a high priority for Russia.

Expressing hopes that NATO and Russia can continue to build on this cooperation, Stavridis said areas of tensions and disagreements need to be addressed.

“No one wants to stumble backwards toward the Cold War, so the best course for the future is open discussion, frank airing of disagreements, and hopefully seeking to build the ‘true strategic partnership’ set out in the NATO strategic concept,” he said. “Clearly, we have some work to do.”

 

Contact Author

Biographies:
Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis
Related Sites:
NATO International Security Assistance Force
U.S. European Command
Special Report: U.S. European Command

 

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta

Miracle stowaway survives five hour jet flight hidden in wheel well

 

Published on Apr 22, 2014

Airport authorities in the US are trying to work out how a 16 year-old boy survived a five hour flight hidden in the wheel well of a jet liner.

During the journey from San Jose airport in California to Maui in Hawaii, the plane climbed to 12,000 meters.

The 16-year-old who was picked up by police after being spotted by ground crew, apparently lost consciousness due to a lack of oxygen and temperatures in the compartment dropping to minus 62 degrees Celsius.

But how did he get onto the plane in the first place?

Spokesperson for Mineta San Jose International airport, Rosemary Barnes gave her theory:

“No system is 100 percent secure and it is possible to scale a perimeter fence line, especially under cover of darkness and remain undetected and it appears that is what this teenager did.”

Lucky to be alive, the stowaway arrived in Hawaii with nothing but a hair comb. When questioned he told FBI officials he had run away from home.

The authorities are reviewing whether to file criminal charges against the boy.

What is in the news today? Click to watch: http://eurone.ws/1kb2gOl

euronews: the most watched news channel in Europe
Subscribe! http://eurone.ws/10ZCK4a

…..

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.,said on Twitter that the incident “demonstrates vulnerabilities that need to be addressed.”

 

Actually Mr Swalwell of California, it reflects on the government’s inept  and overreaching attempts  at  ensuring security. 

While the TSA  focuses on tormenting and  harassing  the  elderly the handicapped and  toddlers; the real security threats  are  left unattended. 

Inept , inexperienced and  unqualified  agents are entrusted  with  the safety of  passengers who are groped and fondled in the  name  of  National  security. 

Isn’t it about time the government  left that  job to the airports  and  the  private  security  firms who  know  what they are  doing and have never had  to  molest a  passenger  to do it ?

But the TSA  was  never  really  about  security  was it?  It was  rather  a  weapon  of  indoctrination  to ensure  the slow  but steady subjugation of a  people.  It was  more  about  familiarizing  the  American People  with the  violatuion of  their freedom and  personal  space.   As well as the knowledge of helplessness against said violations.  All in the name of National Security , of course.

Wasn’t it ?

Had it been  otherwise.  Had  the  desire  to  provide  security  been  real.   The bungling, ineptitude and depraved abuse of power  that  has been  witnessed  would not have been  tolerated.  This  has all been a  sham  to  train the  people to knuckle  under and  be  humiliated.  As  much as  it  has  been  about  making  millions  for  Chertoff  and  his scanners …..all strategically  placed in  airports  …..for  our own  good  of  course.

Never allowing a good crisis to go to waste……..

Isn’t that right?

~Desert Rose~

…..

NBC News

Teen Stowaway Walked Right Through San Jose Airport Security Gap

Surveillance video at two airports shows how a 16-year-old boy managed to stow away in the wheel well of a flight from California to Hawaii — He simply climbed a fence without anyone stopping him, authorities told NBC News on Monday.

The boy from Santa Clara, Calif., who is believed to have run away after an argument with his father, first hopped a fence Sunday at about 1 a.m. local time (4 a.m. ET) near a fuel farm at Mineta San Jose International Airport, officials said.

About 12 minutes later, video shows him climbing into the wheel well of Hawaiian Airlines Flight 45, which was parked between gates two and three. He apparently chose the plane at random, authorities said.

The jet plane landed at Kahului Airport at 10:30 a.m. local (4:30 p.m. ET) Sunday.

It’s ‘Miraculous’ Hawaii Stowaway Survived

Nightly News

About 45 minutes later, the boy can be seen on video at that airport climbing out of the left main landing gear wheel — disoriented but in good condition, despite having been unconscious with little oxygen for most of the 5½-hour flight. Airline personnel immediately noticed him on the tarmac and called authorities.

While the fact that the boy beat the odds of survival is good news, the episode raises troubling questions about security at airports.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a member of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, said on Twitter that the incident “demonstrates vulnerabilities that need to be addressed.”

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Earth Watch Report  -  Earthquakes

 

Papua New Guinea  -  104 EQs in the last 30 days  4.21.2014 photo PapuaNewGuinea-106EQsinthelast30days4212014_zpsfc20c73d.png

104 earthquakes in map area

  1. 5.4 97km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-21 16:59:05 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  2. 4.8 75km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-21 14:58:18 UTC-05:00 10.0 km

  3. 4.8 49km W of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-21 14:46:51 UTC-05:00 52.9 km

  4. 5.3 108km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-21 09:57:56 UTC-05:00 46.7 km

  5. 5.1 118km W of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-21 06:25:27 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  6. 5.2 123km W of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-21 04:04:24 UTC-05:00 46.8 km

  7. 4.5 103km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-21 01:32:42 UTC-05:00 56.8 km

  8. 4.7 55km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-20 22:37:58 UTC-05:00 36.0 km

  9. 4.5 92km S of Kandrian, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-20 18:00:21 UTC-05:00 35.2 km

  10. 4.6 119km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-20 10:58:08 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  11. 5.1 108km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-20 08:28:42 UTC-05:00 57.1 km

  12. 4.6 91km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-20 07:14:37 UTC-05:00 33.6 km

  13. 4.9 63km WNW of Kandrian, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-20 03:56:40 UTC-05:00 62.4 km

  14. 5.0 88km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-20 03:24:29 UTC-05:00 34.9 km

  15. 4.6 106km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-20 03:10:20 UTC-05:00 79.7 km

  16. 5.1 126km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 23:23:13 UTC-05:00 35.1 km

  17. 5.7 117km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 23:17:34 UTC-05:00 28.2 km

  18. 4.6 113km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 21:26:48 UTC-05:00 25.1 km

  19. 4.8 66km W of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 20:02:14 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  20. 6.1 96km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 19:15:58 UTC-05:00 18.1 km

  21. 5.2 81km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 19:10:44 UTC-05:00 17.3 km

  22. 5.1 88km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 18:06:16 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  23. 4.7 95km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 17:33:26 UTC-05:00 35.8 km

  24. 4.8 92km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 16:31:38 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  25. 4.8 100km W of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 15:00:13 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  26. 4.9 127km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 14:16:18 UTC-05:00 9.4 km

  27. 5.1 134km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 13:11:25 UTC-05:00 73.3 km

  28. 5.3 109km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 12:55:19 UTC-05:00 26.5 km

  29. 5.3 105km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 12:45:11 UTC-05:00 39.8 km

  30. 5.1 65km W of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 12:19:50 UTC-05:00 87.5 km

  31. 5.2 125km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 11:56:14 UTC-05:00 47.4 km

  32. 5.2 129km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 11:49:44 UTC-05:00 80.3 km

  33. 4.9 126km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 11:41:47 UTC-05:00 77.6 km

  34. 4.8 149km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 10:52:57 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  35. 4.8 119km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 09:56:39 UTC-05:00 106.6 km

  36. 4.7 150km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 09:32:15 UTC-05:00 106.4 km

  37. 4.8 112km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 09:24:38 UTC-05:00 47.8 km

  38. 5.6 120km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 08:47:51 UTC-05:00 72.2 km

  39. 7.5 75km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 08:27:59 UTC-05:00 30.9 km

  40. 5.2 64km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-19 08:21:20 UTC-05:00 62.4 km

  41. 6.6 59km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-18 20:04:03 UTC-05:00 24.4 km

  42. 4.8 43km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-18 12:53:39 UTC-05:00 38.5 km

  43. 4.5 108km WNW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-17 16:09:08 UTC-05:00 104.6 km

  44. 4.5 31km E of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-17 13:06:44 UTC-05:00 142.0 km

  45. 4.8 97km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-16 17:43:27 UTC-05:00 80.1 km

  46. 5.4 76km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-16 15:00:06 UTC-05:00 38.9 km

  47. 4.8 76km S of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-16 11:07:52 UTC-05:00 54.8 km

  48. 5.3 155km SSE of Taron, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-15 14:16:16 UTC-05:00 47.2 km

  49. 4.5 127km NNE of Lae, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-15 06:22:34 UTC-05:00 191.8 km

  50. 4.7 58km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-14 14:45:55 UTC-05:00 55.0 km

  51. 4.6 103km WNW of Kandrian, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-13 21:42:01 UTC-05:00 119.0 km

  52. 4.7 93km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-13 16:49:04 UTC-05:00 39.8 km

  53. 5.3 78km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-13 08:19:19 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  54. 4.7 42km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-13 04:12:07 UTC-05:00 86.4 km

  55. 4.6 73km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-13 01:13:20 UTC-05:00 68.1 km

  56. 5.3 108km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 10:59:27 UTC-05:00 6.7 km

  57. 5.0 113km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 10:46:28 UTC-05:00 22.6 km

  58. 4.6 111km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 06:42:34 UTC-05:00 43.4 km

  59. 4.9 114km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 05:55:46 UTC-05:00 47.2 km

  60. 4.6 117km S of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 03:54:11 UTC-05:00 57.8 km

  61. 4.7 77km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 01:22:21 UTC-05:00 89.9 km

  62. 5.3 96km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 01:15:36 UTC-05:00 41.0 km

  63. 5.1 78km S of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 00:29:37 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  64. 6.1 92km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 00:24:25 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  65. 4.5 150km S of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-12 00:03:31 UTC-05:00 58.9 km

  66. 5.1 74km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 23:00:56 UTC-05:00 50.2 km

  67. 4.7 86km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 17:02:34 UTC-05:00 71.8 km

  68. 4.8 93km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 14:06:11 UTC-05:00 11.1 km

  69. 4.9 88km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 13:56:14 UTC-05:00 12.8 km

  70. 4.8 80km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 13:52:25 UTC-05:00 15.8 km

  71. 4.7 23km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 13:20:58 UTC-05:00 91.6 km

  72. 4.7 85km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 11:43:04 UTC-05:00 63.1 km

  73. 4.9 89km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 11:35:32 UTC-05:00 81.8 km

  74. 4.9 119km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 10:52:44 UTC-05:00 47.2 km

  75. 5.6 78km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 09:33:43 UTC-05:00 21.3 km

  76. 5.5 87km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 07:55:22 UTC-05:00 44.8 km

  77. 4.6 55km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 07:34:04 UTC-05:00 50.6 km

  78. 4.7 57km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 05:47:21 UTC-05:00 79.7 km

  79. 5.1 72km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 05:30:31 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  80. 4.7 92km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 04:35:57 UTC-05:00 65.7 km

  81. 4.8 63km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 03:39:04 UTC-05:00 44.3 km

  82. 5.2 83km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 03:31:48 UTC-05:00 52.6 km

  83. 5.1 75km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 03:23:46 UTC-05:00 45.9 km

  84. 6.5 78km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 03:16:48 UTC-05:00 39.4 km

  85. 7.1 57km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-11 02:07:21 UTC-05:00 50.0 km

  86. 4.9 138km S of Vanimo, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-10 13:19:14 UTC-05:00 73.3 km

  87. 5.1 259km ESE of Kulumadau, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-09 03:32:38 UTC-05:00 24.0 km

  88. 4.8 210km S of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-08 17:22:41 UTC-05:00 17.4 km

  89. 4.6 136km N of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-08 09:41:40 UTC-05:00 462.2 km

  90. 4.5 106km S of Taron, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-08 06:18:07 UTC-05:00 41.5 km

  91. 4.8 87km WSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-07 09:30:01 UTC-05:00 82.6 km

  92. 5.2 84km SSW of Aitape, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-04 22:34:37 UTC-05:00 62.6 km

  93. 4.7 109km SSW of Taron, Papua New Guinea 2014-04-02 10:00:03 UTC-05:00 50.4 km

  94. 5.6 100km NW of Kokoda, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-31 08:40:59 UTC-05:00 10.0 km

  95. 4.5 101km WNW of Kokoda, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-31 08:19:27 UTC-05:00 10.0 km

  96. 4.8 70km W of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-28 23:26:52 UTC-05:00 113.5 km

  97. 5.0 124km S of Taron, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-28 11:14:58 UTC-05:00 19.7 km

  98. 4.9 118km WNW of Rabaul, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-28 02:07:46 UTC-05:00 10.0 km

  99. 4.9 137km S of Taron, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-27 10:32:28 UTC-05:00 15.8 km

  100. 4.8 121km SW of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-27 06:52:37 UTC-05:00 133.1 km

  101. 5.1 67km WNW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-25 14:56:14 UTC-05:00 179.8 km

  102. 4.6 41km NW of Finschhafen, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-25 03:51:48 UTC-05:00 77.5 km

  103. 4.8 19km W of Aitape, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-24 06:19:00 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  104. 4.9 84km SSE of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea 2014-03-23 10:59:59 UTC-05:00 58.3 km

…..

 

M 6.1 – 96km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea

 

Earthquake location 7.167°S, 155.312°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-20 00:15:58 UTC
  2. 2014-04-20 10:15:58 UTC+10:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-19 19:15:58 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

7.167°S 155.312°E depth=18.1km (11.2mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 96km (60mi) SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
  2. 108km (67mi) SSW of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  3. 459km (285mi) SE of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea
  4. 569km (354mi) WNW of Honiara, Solomon Islands
  5. 599km (372mi) ESE of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea

…..

 

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

 

M 7.5 – 75km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea

 

Earthquake location 6.720°S, 154.931°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-19 13:27:59 UTC
  2. 2014-04-19 23:27:59 UTC+10:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-19 08:27:59 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

6.720°S 154.931°E depth=30.9km (19.2mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 75km (47mi) SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
  2. 87km (54mi) SW of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  3. 394km (245mi) SE of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea
  4. 545km (339mi) ESE of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea
  5. 629km (391mi) WNW of Honiara, Solomon Islands

…..

 

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

M 6.6 – 59km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea

Earthquake location 6.679°S, 155.085°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-19 01:04:03 UTC
  2. 2014-04-19 11:04:03 UTC+10:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-18 20:04:03 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

6.679°S 155.085°E depth=24.4km (15.2mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 59km (37mi) SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
  2. 71km (44mi) SW of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  3. 404km (251mi) SE of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea
  4. 561km (349mi) ESE of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea
  5. 616km (383mi) WNW of Honiara, Solomon Islands

 

…..

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

M 6.1 – 92km SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea

Earthquake location 7.116°S, 155.236°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-12 05:24:25 UTC
  2. 2014-04-12 15:24:25 UTC+10:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-12 00:24:25 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

7.116°S 155.236°E depth=35.0km (21.7mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 92km (57mi) SSW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
  2. 105km (65mi) SSW of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  3. 449km (279mi) SE of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea
  4. 579km (360mi) WNW of Honiara, Solomon Islands
  5. 589km (366mi) ESE of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea

…..

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

M 6.5 – 78km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea

Earthquake location 6.855°S, 155.017°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-11 08:16:48 UTC
  2. 2014-04-11 18:16:48 UTC+10:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-11 03:16:48 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

6.855°S 155.017°E depth=39.4km (24.5mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 78km (48mi) SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
  2. 91km (57mi) SW of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  3. 411km (255mi) SE of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea
  4. 558km (347mi) ESE of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea
  5. 613km (381mi) WNW of Honiara, Solomon Islands

…..

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

M 7.1 – 57km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea

Earthquake location 6.625°S, 155.064°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-11 07:07:21 UTC
  2. 2014-04-11 18:07:21 UTC+11:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-11 02:07:21 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

6.625°S 155.064°E depth=50.0km (31.1mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 57km (35mi) SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
  2. 69km (43mi) SW of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  3. 399km (248mi) SE of Kokopo, Papua New Guinea
  4. 557km (346mi) ESE of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea
  5. 621km (386mi) WNW of Honiara, Solomon Islands

…..

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

Tectonic Summary

The M 7.5 April 19, 2014 earthquake southwest of Panguna, Papua New Guinea, occurred as the result of thrust faulting on or near the subduction zone interface between the subducting Australia plate and overriding Pacific plate. At the location of the earthquake, the Australia plate moves towards the east-northeast at a velocity of 102 mm/yr with respect to the Pacific, and begins its subduction into the mantle beneath Bougainville Island at the New Britain Trench south of the earthquake. The moment tensor and depth of the event are consistent with thrust-type motion on the interface between these two plates. Note that at the location of the earthquake, some researchers divide the edge of the Australia plate into several microplates that take up the overall convergence between Australia and the Pacific. Here the Solomon Sea plate moves slightly faster and more northeasterly with respect to the Pacific plate than does Australia due to sea-floor spreading in the Woodlark Basin several hundred kilometers to the south of the April 19 earthquake.

This event is the latest in an ongoing sequence of seismicity in the same region over the past week, which began with M 7.1 and 6.5 earthquakes on April 11, just to the northeast and southeast of the April 19 earthquake, respectively. Over the intervening eight days, 45 earthquakes of M 4.5 or greater have occurred nearby, including a M 6.6 event about 12 hours before the April 19 earthquake.

In the Papua New Guinea region, the boundary between Australia and Pacific plates is very active seismically; 35 M 7+ events have occurred within 250 km of the April 19, 2014 earthquake over the past century. None are known to have caused any shaking-related fatalities. The largest was an M 8.0 175 km to the northwest of the April 19, 2014 earthquake, one of two M8+ earthquakes 140 km apart in July 1971. The M 8.1 Solomon Islands earthquake in April 2007, which caused a devastating tsunami, was 300 km southeast of the April 19, 2014 event.

 

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta

Earth Watch Report  -  Earthquakes

Solomon Islands - 71 EQs in the last 30 days  4.21.2014 photo SolomonIslands-71EQsinthelast30days4212014_zps6f2d3aac.png

71 earthquakes in map area

  1. 5.0 71km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-20 02:45:45 UTC-05:00 18.6 km

  2. 4.7 154km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-18 10:24:14 UTC-05:00 51.0 km

  3. 4.6 135km WSW of Lata, Solomon Islands 2014-04-18 08:02:51 UTC-05:00 42.4 km

  4. 5.1 129km WSW of Lata, Solomon Islands 2014-04-18 02:30:17 UTC-05:00 36.6 km

  5. 6.0 122km WSW of Lata, Solomon Islands 2014-04-17 23:13:12 UTC-05:00 10.0 km

  6. 5.0 135km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-17 02:28:43 UTC-05:00 34.6 km

  7. 4.9 82km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-16 06:43:49 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  8. 4.7 78km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-16 05:24:45 UTC-05:00 37.4 km

  9. 4.6 126km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-16 05:00:15 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  10. 4.6 149km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-15 16:08:21 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  11. 4.8 77km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-15 10:43:05 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  12. 4.7 152km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 19:30:02 UTC-05:00 22.1 km

  13. 4.8 82km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 19:24:32 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  14. 4.9 139km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 19:12:06 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  15. 5.3 142km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 19:07:53 UTC-05:00 27.3 km

  16. 5.1 133km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 18:56:30 UTC-05:00 32.4 km

  17. 4.7 155km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 18:51:59 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  18. 4.7 155km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 18:47:26 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  19. 4.8 77km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 16:55:53 UTC-05:00 35.1 km

  20. 4.7 121km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 15:44:19 UTC-05:00 33.6 km

  21. 4.9 72km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 11:51:27 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  22. 4.7 79km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 08:08:40 UTC-05:00 37.9 km

  23. 5.0 57km SW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 05:47:19 UTC-05:00 34.0 km

  24. 4.8 77km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 03:09:58 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  25. 5.2 93km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 02:40:46 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  26. 4.6 118km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 02:31:06 UTC-05:00 27.6 km

  27. 4.8 80km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 02:16:34 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  28. 5.9 91km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-14 01:29:50 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  29. 5.0 142km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 23:57:35 UTC-05:00 36.6 km

  30. 4.9 130km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 22:30:17 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  31. 5.3 120km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 19:09:11 UTC-05:00 39.8 km

  32. 4.8 104km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 16:13:33 UTC-05:00 14.9 km

  33. 4.6 74km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 14:41:35 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  34. 4.8 130km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 13:11:30 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  35. 4.8 112km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 10:24:01 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  36. 4.7 142km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 09:30:58 UTC-05:00 37.5 km

  37. 4.9 131km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 09:26:38 UTC-05:00 22.6 km

  38. 5.0 86km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 08:42:46 UTC-05:00 33.7 km

  39. 6.6 75km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 08:25:03 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  40. 5.6 84km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 08:12:21 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  41. 5.7 119km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 07:46:43 UTC-05:00 31.4 km

  42. 7.4 111km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 07:36:18 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  43. 4.7 124km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 07:24:35 UTC-05:00 20.0 km

  44. 4.9 65km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 06:12:48 UTC-05:00 10.0 km

  45. 4.8 102km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 05:54:28 UTC-05:00 10.0 km

  46. 4.7 82km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 05:26:24 UTC-05:00 34.9 km

  47. 5.1 95km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 05:09:49 UTC-05:00 8.1 km

  48. 5.0 87km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 05:05:39 UTC-05:00 21.1 km

  49. 5.2 69km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 04:29:20 UTC-05:00 11.7 km

  50. 4.9 122km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 03:55:12 UTC-05:00 19.1 km

  51. 4.8 146km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 02:02:20 UTC-05:00 10.0 km

  52. 4.6 126km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 01:19:25 UTC-05:00 20.0 km

  53. 4.9 124km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 00:59:24 UTC-05:00 14.4 km

  54. 4.7 89km SW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 00:36:01 UTC-05:00 20.0 km

  55. 4.6 87km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-13 00:25:24 UTC-05:00 19.1 km

  56. 4.8 82km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 23:36:26 UTC-05:00 23.8 km

  57. 4.6 95km SSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 23:31:10 UTC-05:00 24.0 km

  58. 4.8 131km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 22:41:01 UTC-05:00 18.1 km

  59. 4.9 124km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 22:17:56 UTC-05:00 24.1 km

  60. 5.1 127km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 18:52:14 UTC-05:00 7.0 km

  61. 4.9 129km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 17:40:33 UTC-05:00 34.9 km

  62. 4.6 142km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 17:18:51 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  63. 5.1 85km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 16:39:05 UTC-05:00 43.1 km

  64. 4.6 124km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 16:34:39 UTC-05:00 38.1 km

  65. 5.0 149km SE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 16:17:05 UTC-05:00 35.0 km

  66. 4.7 72km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 16:11:02 UTC-05:00 35.3 km

  67. 4.9 123km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 15:49:56 UTC-05:00 40.3 km

  68. 5.9 96km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 15:24:46 UTC-05:00 26.8 km

  69. 7.6 100km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-12 15:14:39 UTC-05:00 29.3 km

  70. 6.0 28km WSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands 2014-04-04 06:40:32 UTC-05:00 63.8 km

  71. 5.1 196km W of Lata, Solomon Islands 2014-04-01 21:51:29 UTC-05:00 26.2 km

…..

 

M 6.0 – 122km WSW of Lata, Solomon Islands

 

Earthquake location 11.155°S, 164.806°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-18 04:13:12 UTC
  2. 2014-04-18 15:13:12 UTC+11:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-17 23:13:12 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

11.155°S 164.806°E depth=10.0km (6.2mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 122km (76mi) WSW of Lata, Solomon Islands
  2. 547km (340mi) NNW of Luganville, Vanuatu
  3. 565km (351mi) ESE of Honiara, Solomon Islands
  4. 820km (510mi) NNW of Port-Vila, Vanuatu
  5. 1111km (690mi) NNW of We, New Caledonia

 

…..

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

……

 

M 6.6 – 75km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands

Earthquake location 11.130°S, 162.037°E

 

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-13 13:25:03 UTC
  2. 2014-04-14 00:25:03 UTC+11:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-13 08:25:03 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

11.130°S 162.037°E depth=35.0km (21.7mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 75km (47mi) S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
  2. 295km (183mi) SE of Honiara, Solomon Islands
  3. 738km (459mi) NW of Luganville, Vanuatu
  4. 898km (558mi) SE of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  5. 996km (619mi) NW of Port-Vila, Vanuatu

…..

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

M 7.4 – 111km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands

Earthquake location 11.451°S, 162.069°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-13 12:36:18 UTC
  2. 2014-04-13 23:36:18 UTC+11:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-13 07:36:18 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

11.451°S 162.069°E depth=35.0km (21.7mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 111km (69mi) S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
  2. 321km (199mi) SE of Honiara, Solomon Islands
  3. 713km (443mi) NW of Luganville, Vanuatu
  4. 922km (573mi) SE of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  5. 967km (601mi) NW of Port-Vila, Vanuatu

…..

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

M 7.6 – 100km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands

Earthquake location 11.315°S, 162.211°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-12 20:14:39 UTC
  2. 2014-04-13 07:14:39 UTC+11:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-12 15:14:39 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

11.315°S 162.211°E depth=29.3km (18.2mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 100km (62mi) SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
  2. 323km (201mi) SE of Honiara, Solomon Islands
  3. 711km (442mi) NW of Luganville, Vanuatu
  4. 925km (575mi) SE of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  5. 968km (601mi) NW of Port-Vila, Vanuatu

…..

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

M 6.0 – 28km WSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands

Earthquake location 10.530°S, 161.672°E

Event Time

  1. 2014-04-04 11:40:32 UTC
  2. 2014-04-04 22:40:32 UTC+11:00 at epicenter
  3. 2014-04-04 06:40:32 UTC-05:00 system time

Location

10.530°S 161.672°E depth=63.8km (39.6mi)

Nearby Cities

  1. 28km (17mi) WSW of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
  2. 224km (139mi) ESE of Honiara, Solomon Islands
  3. 813km (505mi) NW of Luganville, Vanuatu
  4. 827km (514mi) SE of Arawa, Papua New Guinea
  5. 1072km (666mi) NW of Port-Vila, Vanuatu

…..

Instrumental Intensity

ShakeMap Intensity Image

 

…..

Tectonic Summary

The April 13, 2014 M 7.4 Solomon Islands earthquake occurred as the result of nearly pure reverse faulting on an approximately east-west oriented structure near the oceanic trench that marks the plate boundary between the Australia and Pacific plates. At the location of the earthquake, the Australia Plate converges with and slips past the Pacific plate at a rate of 95 mm/yr. The April 13 earthquake occurred along a portion of this plate boundary that transitions from thrust to transform tectonics between the New Britain Trench to the northwest and the New Hebrides Trench farther east. The earthquake occurred about 110 km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands.
The April 13 earthquake occurred less than 24 hours and approximately 20 km to the southwest of a M 7.7 strike-slip earthquake on April 12, 2014. While the April 12 strike-slip earthquake likely represented Australia:Pacific plate boundary faulting, the April 13 earthquake is located south of the plate boundary at a depth of approximately 35 km, and as such may represent tearing of the Australia plate to accommodate the abrupt change in Australian plate interaction with the Pacific plate (subduction to the north and west; left-lateral translation to the east).
The region of the April 12 earthquake is very seismically active, with 28 earthquakes of M6+ occurring within 100 km and 62 events of M7+ within 500 km since 1900. The majority of these earthquakes are grouped to the northwest around the Solomon Islands and to the east near Vanuatu and the Santa Cruz Islands. Notable earthquake within 100 km include a doublet of M7.0 events in November 1978, events of M7.1 in 1931 and 1937, and an M7.2 in 1910. The most recent local event prior to the April 12 earthquake was an M6.0 on April 4, 2014 94 km to the NW. The April 12 earthquake also occurred about 950 km to the SE of an earthquake sequence south of Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea that began with an M6.1 on April 11, 2014. On February 6, 2013, an M8.0 struck offshore of the Santa Cruz Islands about 340 km east of the April 12 event. The 2013 earthquake triggered a regional tsunami of about 1.5 m and was followed by aftershocks of M7.0 and two of M7.1.

 

 

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta

Image Source

…..

ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news

Hepatitis C treatment cures over 90 percent of patients who also have cirrhosis

Date:
April 12, 2014
Source:
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
Summary:
Twelve weeks of an investigational oral therapy cured hepatitis C infection in more than 90 percent of patients with liver cirrhosis and was well tolerated by these patients, according to a new study.

Twelve weeks of an investigational oral therapy cured hepatitis C infection in more than 90 percent of patients with liver cirrhosis and was well tolerated by these patients, according to an international study that included researchers from UT Medicine San Antonio and the Texas Liver Institute. Historically, hepatitis C cure rates in patients with cirrhosis (liver scarring) have been lower than 50 percent and the treatment was not safe for many of these patients.

Hepatitis C virus is the No. 1 driver of cirrhosis, liver transplants and liver cancer in the United States, noted Fred Poordad, M.D., lead author on the study, which was released Saturday by The New England Journal of Medicine in conjunction with Dr. Poordad’s presentation of the data at the International Liver Congress in London. UT Medicine is the clinical practice of the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, where Dr. Poordad is a professor of medicine. He is vice president of the Texas Liver Institute in San Antonio.

Interferon previously was the only agent to show effectiveness against hepatitis C, but patients often relapsed and the therapy caused multiple side effects. The new regimen is interferon-free and consists of several agents — ABT-450/ritonavir, ombitasvir, dasabuvir and ribavirin. Twelve weeks after the last dose, no hepatitis C virus was detected in the bloodstream of 91.8 percent of patients who took the pills for 12 weeks. Among patients treated for 24 weeks, 95.9 percent were virus-free 12 weeks after the end of therapy.

 

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta
 Combination Drug Therapy Amazingly Effective In Tackling Hepatitis C

.
ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news

 

New combination drug therapy proves very effective in hepatitis C treatments

Date:
April 12, 2014
Source:
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Summary:
Treatment options for the 170 million people worldwide with chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) are evolving rapidly, although the available regimens often come with significant side effects. Two multi-center clinical trials show promise for a new option that could help lead to both an increase in patients cured with a much more simple and tolerable all oral therapy.

Treatment options for the 170 million people worldwide with chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) are evolving rapidly, although the available regimens often come with significant side effects. Two multi-center clinical trials led by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center show promise for a new option that could help lead to both an increase in patients cured with a much more simple and tolerable all oral therapy.

A new 12-week single tablet regimen of ledipasvir and sofosbuvir have proven to be highly effective in treating a broad range of patients with HCV genotype 1, a form of the virus found in up to 75 percent of infections, according to results unveiled today at the European Association for the Study of the Liver and published simultaneously online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

Between 94 percent and 99 percent of patients were cured of hepatitis C and results were similar in patients who have never been treated and for those who had previously been treated with a combination of peginterferon and ribavirin, the current course that carries sometimes significant side effects.

“Eliminating interferon and ribavirin from treatment regimens is expected to reduce the incidence and severity of adverse events, to simplify the treatment of patients with HCV infection and to provide an option for patients who are ineligible for the current interferon-based treatments,” said Nezam Afdhal, MD, the senior author of the studies, Director of the Liver Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Hepatitis C is an infectious disease primarily affecting the liver and which can lead to scarring and cirrhosis and is transmitted primarily through blood transfusions (prior to 1991), intravenous drug use, poorly sterilized medical equipment and sexual transmission.. After exposure 80 percent of patients develop a chronic hepatitis which can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer and hepatitis C is the most common cause for liver transplantation in the US.

Prior treatments have been with interferon which is an injectable cytokine released in response to viral infections. Interferon is combined with other antiviral agents and needs to be used for up to 48 weeks to cure hepatitis C. but is associated with number of side effects, including influenza-like symptoms depression and anemia. Many patients are ineligible for these interferon-based therapies.

“The real advances seen in the Ion trials is that the sofosbuvir-ledipasvir combination tablet enables us to treat almost all genotype 1 patients with a short duration of 8-12 weeks of treatment expanding the treatment pool and increasing the overall cure rate,” said Afdhal.

Recent recommendations by the CDC and endorsed by the USPHS Task force have recommended screening of baby boomers (persons born between 1945 and 1965) for hepatitis C since up to3 percent may have silent infection without symptoms.
“Screening for HCV needs to be associated with a safe and effective treatment for these “baby boomers” with newly identified HCV and the ION trials clearly give an exciting new option for these patients” stated Afdhal.

 

 

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta
OZONE NEWS

Plugging an ozone hole


by Staff Writers
Boston MA (SPX) Apr 17, 2014


File image.

Since the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, scientists, policymakers, and the public have wondered whether we might someday see a similarly extreme depletion of ozone over the Arctic.

But a new MIT study finds some cause for optimism: Ozone levels in the Arctic haven’t yet sunk to the extreme lows seen in Antarctica, in part because international efforts to limit ozone-depleting chemicals have been successful.

“While there is certainly some depletion of Arctic ozone, the extremes of Antarctica so far are very different from what we find in the Arctic, even in the coldest years,” says Susan Solomon, the Ellen Swallow Richards Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science at MIT, and lead author of a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Frigid temperatures can spur ozone loss because they create prime conditions for the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. When sunlight hits these clouds, it sparks a reaction between chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), human-made chemicals once used for refrigerants, foam blowing, and other applications – ultimately destroying ozone.

A success story of science and policy
After the ozone-attacking properties of CFCs were discovered in the 1980s, countries across the world agreed to phase out their use as part of the 1987 Montreal Protocol treaty. While CFCs are no longer in use, those emitted years ago remain in the atmosphere.

 

Read More Here

 

…..

 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

An aerial view of clouds over a mountain range in Greenland.

Courtesy of Michael Studinger/NASA Earth Observatory

Full Screen

Courtesy of Michael Studinger/NASA Earth Observatory

 

.

An Arctic ozone hole? Not quite

MIT researchers find that the extremes in Antarctic ozone holes have not been matched in the Arctic.

Audrey Resutek | Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
April 14, 2014

Since the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, scientists, policymakers, and the public have wondered whether we might someday see a similarly extreme depletion of ozone over the Arctic.

But a new MIT study finds some cause for optimism: Ozone levels in the Arctic haven’t yet sunk to the extreme lows seen in Antarctica, in part because international efforts to limit ozone-depleting chemicals have been successful.

“While there is certainly some depletion of Arctic ozone, the extremes of Antarctica so far are very different from what we find in the Arctic, even in the coldest years,” says Susan Solomon, the Ellen Swallow Richards Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science at MIT, and lead author of a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Frigid temperatures can spur ozone loss because they create prime conditions for the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. When sunlight hits these clouds, it sparks a reaction between chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), human-made chemicals once used for refrigerants, foam blowing, and other applications — ultimately destroying ozone.

‘A success story of science and policy’

After the ozone-attacking properties of CFCs were discovered in the 1980s, countries across the world agreed to phase out their use as part of the 1987 Montreal Protocol treaty. While CFCs are no longer in use, those emitted years ago remain in the atmosphere. As a result, atmospheric concentrations have peaked and are now slowly declining, but it will be several decades before CFCs are totally eliminated from the environment — meaning there is still some risk of ozone depletion caused by CFCs.

 

Read More Here

 

…..

OZONE NEWS

NASA Pinpoints Causes of 2011 Arctic Ozone Hole


by Maria-Jose Vinas for NASA’s Earth Science News
Greenbelt MD (SPX) Mar 13, 2013


Maps of ozone concentrations over the Arctic come from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA’s Aura satellite. The left image shows March 19, 2010, and the right shows the same date in 2011. March 2010 had relatively high ozone, while March 2011 has low levels. Credit: NASA/Goddard.

A combination of extreme cold temperatures, man-made chemicals and a stagnant atmosphere were behind what became known as the Arctic ozone hole of 2011, a new NASA study finds. Even when both poles of the planet undergo ozone losses during the winter, the Arctic’s ozone depletion tends to be milder and shorter-lived than the Antarctic’s.

This is because the three key ingredients needed for ozone-destroying chemical reactions -chlorine from man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), frigid temperatures and sunlight- are not usually present in the Arctic at the same time: the northernmost latitudes are generally not cold enough when the sun reappears in the sky in early spring. Still, in 2011, ozone concentrations in the Arctic atmosphere were about 20 percent lower than its late winter average.

The new study shows that, while chlorine in the Arctic stratosphere was the ultimate culprit of the severe ozone loss of winter of 2011, unusually cold and persistent temperatures also spurred ozone destruction. Furthermore, uncommon atmospheric conditions blocked wind-driven transport of ozone from the tropics, halting the seasonal ozone resupply until April.

“You can safely say that 2011 was very atypical: In over 30 years of satellite records, we hadn’t seen any time where it was this cold for this long,” said Susan E. Strahan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and main author of the new paper, which was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

“Arctic ozone levels were possibly the lowest ever recorded, but they were still significantly higher than the Antarctic’s,” Strahan said. “There was about half as much ozone loss as in the Antarctic and the ozone levels remained well above 220 Dobson units, which is the threshold for calling the ozone loss a ‘hole’ in the Antarctic – so the Arctic ozone loss of 2011 didn’t constitute an ozone hole.”

The majority of ozone depletion in the Arctic happens inside the so-called polar vortex: a region of fast-blowing circular winds that intensify in the fall and isolate the air mass within the vortex, keeping it very cold.

 

Read More Here

 

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta
WOOD PILE

Nutrient-rich forests absorb more carbon


by Staff Writers
Laxenburg, Austria (SPX) Apr 17, 2014


File image.

The ability of forests to sequester carbon from the atmosphere depends on nutrients available in the forest soils, shows new research from an international team of researchers, including IIASA.

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed that forests growing in fertile soils with ample nutrients are able to sequester about 30% of the carbon that they take up during photosynthesis. In contrast, forests growing in nutrient-poor soils may retain only 6% of that carbon. The rest is returned to the atmosphere as respiration.

“This paper produces the first evidence that to really understand the carbon cycle, you have to look into issues of nutrient cycling within the soil,” says IIASA Ecosystems Services and Management Program Director Michael Obersteiner, who worked on the study as part of a new international research project sponsored by the European Research Council.

Marcos Fernandez-Martinez, first author of the paper and researcher at the Center for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF) and the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) says, “In general, nutrient-poor forests spend a lot of energy-carbon-through mechanisms to acquire nutrients from the soil, whereas nutrient-rich forests can use that carbon to enhance biomass production.”

 

Read More Here

 

…..

Research: Arid areas absorb unexpected amounts of carbon

By Eric Sorensen, WSU science writer

PULLMAN, Wash. – Researchers led by a Washington State University biologist have found that arid areas, among the biggest ecosystems on the planet, take up an unexpectedly large amount of carbon as levels of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere. The findings give scientists a better handle on the earth’s carbon budget – how much carbon remains in the atmosphere as CO2, contributing to global warming, and how much gets stored in the land or ocean in other carbon-containing forms.


“It has pointed out the importance of these arid ecosystems,” said R. Dave Evans, a WSU professor of biological sciences specializing in ecology and global change. “They are a major sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide, so as CO2 levels go up, they’ll increase their uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. They’ll help take up some of that excess CO2 going into the atmosphere. They can’t take it all up, but they’ll help.”

Published in Nature Climate Change

The findings, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, come after a novel 10-year experiment in which researchers exposed plots in the Mojave Desert to elevated carbon-dioxide levels similar to those expected in 2050. The researchers then removed soil and plants down to a meter deep and measured how much carbon was absorbed.

“We just dug up the whole site and measured everything,” said Evans.

The idea for the experiment originated with scientists at Nevada’s universities in Reno and Las Vegas and the Desert Research Institute. Evans was brought in for his expertise in nutrient cycling and deserts, while researchers at the University of Idaho, Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University and Colorado State University also contributed.

Funding came from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Terrestrial Carbon Processes Program and the National Science Foundation’s Ecosystem Studies Program.

Vast lands play significant role

The work addresses one of the big unknowns of global warming: the degree to which land-based ecosystems absorb or release carbon dioxide as it increases in the atmosphere.

Receiving less than 10 inches of rain a year, arid areas run in a wide band at 30 degrees north and south latitude. Along with semi-arid areas, which receive less than 20 inches of rain a year, they account for nearly half the earth’s land surface.

 

Read More Here

…..

Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

 

04 Mar 2014: Analysis

Soil as Carbon Storehouse:
New Weapon in Climate Fight?

The degradation of soils from unsustainable agriculture and other development has released billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. But new research shows how effective land restoration could play a major role in sequestering CO2 and slowing climate change.

by judith d. schwartz

In the 19th century, as land-hungry pioneers steered their wagon trains westward across the United States, they encountered a vast landscape of towering grasses that nurtured deep, fertile soils.

Today, just three percent of North America’s tallgrass prairie remains. Its disappearance has had a dramatic impact on the landscape and ecology of

The world’s cultivated soils have lost 50 to 70 percent of their original carbon stock.

the U.S., but a key consequence of that transformation has largely been overlooked: a massive loss of soil carbon into the atmosphere. The importance of soil carbon — how it is leached from the earth and how that process can be reversed — is the subject of intensifying scientific investigation, with important implications for the effort to slow the rapid rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

According to Rattan Lal, director of Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, the world’s cultivated soils have lost between 50 and 70 percent of their original carbon stock, much of which has oxidized upon exposure to air to become CO2. Now, armed with rapidly expanding knowledge about carbon sequestration in soils, researchers are studying how land restoration programs in places like the

polar jet stream

Rattan Lal
Soil in a long-term experiment appears red when depleted of carbon (left) and dark brown when carbon content is high (right).

former North American prairie, the North China Plain, and even the parched interior of Australia might help put carbon back into the soil.

Absent carbon and critical microbes, soil becomes mere dirt, a process of deterioration that’s been rampant around the globe. Many scientists say that regenerative agricultural practices can turn back the carbon clock, reducing atmospheric CO2 while also boosting soil productivity and increasing resilience to floods and drought. Such regenerative techniques include planting fields year-round in crops or other cover, and agroforestry that combines crops, trees, and animal husbandry.

Recognition of the vital role played by soil carbon could mark an important if subtle shift in the discussion about global warming, which has been

A look at soil brings a sharper focus on potential carbon sinks.

heavily focused on curbing emissions of fossil fuels. But a look at soil brings a sharper focus on potential carbon sinks. Reducing emissions is crucial, but soil carbon sequestration needs to be part of the picture as well, says Lal. The top priorities, he says, are restoring degraded and eroded lands, as well as avoiding deforestation and the farming of peatlands, which are a major reservoir of carbon and are easily decomposed upon drainage and cultivation.

He adds that bringing carbon back into soils has to be done not only to offset fossil fuels, but also to feed our growing global population. “We cannot feed people if soil is degraded,” he says.

“Supply-side approaches, centered on CO2 sources, amount to reshuffling the Titanic deck chairs if we overlook demand-side solutions: where that carbon can and should go,” says Thomas J. Goreau, a biogeochemist and expert on carbon and nitrogen cycles who now serves as president of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. Goreau says we need to seek opportunities to increase soil carbon in all ecosystems — from tropical forests to pasture to wetlands — by replanting degraded areas, increased mulching of biomass instead of burning, large-scale use of biochar, improved pasture management, effective erosion control, and restoration of mangroves, salt marshes, and sea grasses.

“CO2 cannot be reduced to safe levels in time to avoid serious long-term impacts unless the other side of atmospheric CO2 balance is included,” Goreau says.

Scientists say that more carbon resides in soil than in the atmosphere and all plant life combined; there are 2,500 billion tons of carbon in soil, compared with 800 billion tons in the atmosphere and 560 billion tons in plant and animal life. And compared to many proposed geoengineering fixes, storing carbon in soil is simple: It’s a matter of returning carbon where it belongs.

Through photosynthesis, a plant draws carbon out of the air to form carbon compounds. What the plant doesn’t need for growth is exuded through the roots to feed soil organisms, whereby the carbon is humified, or rendered stable. Carbon is the main component of soil organic matter and helps give soil its water-retention capacity, its structure, and its fertility. According to Lal, some pools of carbon housed in soil aggregates are so stable that they can last thousands of years. This is in contrast to “active” soil carbon,

‘If we treat soil carbon as a renewable resource, we can change the dynamics,’ says an expert.

which resides in topsoil and is in continual flux between microbial hosts and the atmosphere.

“If we treat soil carbon as a renewable resource, we can change the dynamics,” says Goreau. “When we have erosion, we lose soil, which carries with it organic carbon, into waterways. When soil is exposed, it oxidizes, essentially burning the soil carbon. We can take an alternate trajectory.”

 

Read More Here

 

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,503 other followers