TheBanyanTree: To Those Down Under

[Peter Macinnis]

On 2/09/2013 17:16, Kate wrote:
> The University of Canterbury (which is on the west side) did suffer from damage, but not catastrophic compared to other parts of the city.

Just replying to this, rather than Kate's later comment, my daughter 
Cate was stuck there for a day or so after the quake, and being a 
scientist, talked mainly to Canterbury scientists until she could fly out.

They were adamant, in the immediate aftermath, that the University of 
Canterbury stood up well because the buildings were over-engineered, but 
I think that in hindsight, they stood up as much as anything because 
they were out of the main zone.

The other thing is what lies below the ground.  Mexico City (pedants may 
sneer, but that's what most of us call it), 1985, took a pasting because 
it was sitting on uncompacted sediments, and in Australia (supposedly 
earthquake free), Hamilton in Newcastle at the end of 1989 was also on 
uncompacted sediments.  I have no idea what is below Christchurch, but 
liquefaction usually indicates a fair depth of sediment.

As Kate said, New Zealand is a beautiful place.

-- 
Peter Macinnis, boutique word herder & science gossip,
stand-up chameleon and part-time lay-down misère:
http://oldblockwriter.blogspot.com/