M4.6 Earthquake – 2 Km Ese of Berkeley, Ca
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
earthquake.usgs.govResearchstoryHigh profile
skepticalneutral
Debate
60/100
EarthquakeBay AreaSeismology
Key topics
Earthquake
Bay Area
Seismology
A minor M4.6 earthquake struck near Berkeley, CA, prompting discussion on its significance and sparking debate about its relevance to the HN community.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
15m
Peak period
87
0-6h
Avg / period
15.7
Comment distribution94 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 94 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 22, 2025 at 6:00 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 22, 2025 at 6:15 AM EDT
15m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
87 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 25, 2025 at 6:06 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45331213Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 5:57:30 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Luckily it was short.
I miss those storms man. Nothing like sitting on the porch and watching them roll through
I can nap through a tornado, j tell you.
[1] https://www.meteorage.com/thunderstorm-report/ireland-lightn...
(Coming from the Midwest where thunderstorms are so common as to just be assumed every rainstorm is one, it must be weird …)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/25/uknews
It's fun to think about it - some Japanese people would move to CA just because of the more stable geology.
As a result, [modern] Japanese construction is incredibly resilient.
I've never been in Tokyo, during a strong quake, but I'm told the skyscrapers wave around like drunken dancers.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault#The_next_%22...
I question their research skills. I would avoid California if geology was my main motivator.
San Andreas sounds like nothing by comparison, especially since it doesn't pose as much of a tsunami risk.
Significant damage can be experienced starting at about mag 6, though that tends to be pretty specific (individual structures, often pre-dating earthquake codes, and locations on poorly-suited terrain such as riverbottoms, reclaimed wetlands, or sand). Widespread general damage would only be experienced with larger quakes (mag 7--8).
Japan has a significantly higher risk of mag 8--9 quakes. The 2011 Tōhoku quake was a magnitude 9, which is 100 times more powerful than a mag 7, and over 100,000 times more powerful than this morning's temblor in Berkeley. Japanese faults include subduction zones and considerable tsunami risk.
Similar risks exist between the California-Oregon border through to British Columbia on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and could similarly product a mag 9 event.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCERF3>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone>
That is actually 1,000x more powerful. For historical reasons, the magnitude scale is 10^1.5 between whole numbers.
This quake is a tad more notable than rain in LA in the summer. In other words, not very notable. That doesn't make it zero, just very low.
https://youtu.be/kCpjgl2baLs
endofworld.swf
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/83720/so-that-eart...
The revelation that the ground does not stay where I left it was quite disturbing.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=40.31872...
But it didn't prepare me for the few small quakes I experienced in the bay area (typically a bunch of car alarms go off and dogs bark, there's a thud, and then a gentle rocking).
And we had a M4.2 one there about twenty years ago when I was living there.
This is why I use every chance I can to espouse a scale like Japanese Shindo which actually measures the surface shaking (what matters to civilians) rather than the Magnitude scale that just measures the energy of the earthquake (more interesting to seismologists). Japanese news always focuses on the maximum observed Shindo which immediately tells you had bad it felt/affected people living nearby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Meteorological_Agency_se...
FWIW, I've been expecting something like this. The Pacific Rim ("ring of fire" or whatever you want to call it) has been overly active, and that second 7+ magnitude earthquake in Kamchatka was definitely not a coincidence. That said, earthquakes are not my area, but it is a topic we talk about in terms of catastrophic failure of storage systems as "Hayward Fault Tolerance" where we have tertiary backups in a region outside of the earthquake zone.
I'm pretty sure this is the closest epicenter to SF I've seen too (at least one that was noticeable)
4.3 will certainly get your attention if you're relatively close-by... but yeah, worth a "did you feel that?!" on the local news and not much more.
At mag 5 there's localised damage, most characteristically of goods knocked off grocery store shelves, with glass-bottled liquids often producing a photogenic mess.
At mag 6, pre-code construction or at-risk areas (bay fill, river bottoms, sand) may see significant structural damage. The 2014 South Napa earthquake is the most recent of these, and downtown Napa was hit pretty hard, due to terrain (reclaimed river bottomlands, bay-fill, and some old masonry construction). See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_South_Napa_earthquake>.
Mag 7 is the scale of some of the largest quakes recorded in California, including the 1906 San Francisco quake. This would create widespread damage within 100+ miles of the epicentre. Marc Reisner's A Dangerous Place (2003) includes a detailed description of impacts of a mag 7 quake along the Hayward fault, which would extend well beyond the immediate region into Southern California due to reliance on delta and Central Valley water projects.
<https://baynature.org/article/book-review-a-dangerous-place/>
Mag 8 is about the upper bound of expected seismic activity on the San Andreas and related fault systems.
Apparently 7.6km depth is "very shallow"
https://old.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1nnia94/earthquake...