True, this time. But infrastructure in that part of the world isn't built for earthquakes. Actually makes a 3.8 in Bloomington potentially more dangerous than a 6.8 in L.A. Just sayin'.
That's... not actually true. A 3.8 against unreinforced structures can't do the kind of damage a 6.8 can do.
meh-we had that here a few summers back. I was ironically enough sitting in my doorway when it hit. Felt like I lost my balance sitting down for about 15 seconds and nothing fell off of the shelves
No muslims or minorities died so it doesn't make the news nor rate on Obamas chart. We can send all kinds of shit to Haiti but we don't care about middle America.
I've experienced up to a 4.0, plus a lot of ripples from that mess on the San Diego/Mexico border a while back, and yeah, it's no big deal. Which is why I get a kick out of the RR "OMG, California's finally going to fall into the Pacific!" reaction every time there's a bump out here.
You're seriously retarded. The extent of the damage was limited to precariously balanced items falling down.
Same thing in Haiti, but the precarious items were buildings they built like shit that they knew were built like shit.
The quake in Haiti was a 7.0. That's nearly 2000 times more energetic than the quake in Indiana. Why the hell would anyone in Indiana need "all kinds of shit" given the lack of any damage?
