November 1st, 2011
09:16 AM ET

Shallow quake hits off Mexican coast

An 6.5-magnitude earthquake 6.5 struck off Mexico's Pacific coast Tuesday, the U.S. Geological Survey reported.

There were no immediate reports of damages or injuries.

The quake was shallow, at only 3.1 miles deep, the USGS reported.

It struck at 5:32 a.m. (8:32 a.m. ET) in the ocean, about 206 miles south of the resort town of Cabo San Lucas, and 260 miles west of another popular beach destination, Puerto Vallarta.

There is no tsunami threat, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said.

Post by:
Filed under: Earthquake • Mexico
soundoff (54 Responses)
  1. banasy©

    Hi, BtBC.
    Interesting here today, no?

    @The Devil: lol

    November 1, 2011 at 11:06 am | Report abuse |
  2. Damian

    @ Bimbo
    When I'm at the lion and tiger dens at the zoo, I'm doing my part for not only the environment but for the human race too by pushing pedophiles and bible thumpers over the wall.

    November 1, 2011 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
  3. Bimbo the Birthday Clown

    Hi banasy. Yes it is. I wonder what would the casual observer's reaction would be if, in our lifetime, we got one of those 9.8 quakes in a populated area.

    November 1, 2011 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
  4. banasy©

    I think we've got a fair sampling of that today with the 6.5 in Mexico...

    November 1, 2011 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
  5. MiMi

    the word Shallow is misleading yet is also correct, depending on varibles.
    A shallow EQ can be intense yet there are other facters when looking at an EQ so many people looking at the word SHALLOW might think it wasn't as intense when just the opposite could be true.
    Shallow can start at a depth of 70 km but you would have to factor in the rate at which it travels up and the distance it covers as well as other considerations
    A intermediate EQ can start at a depth of 300 km while all the same factors have to be evaluated before we could determine which did the most damage
    So, yes a word can be misleading, that's my 2 cents

    November 1, 2011 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      It's not misleading if we all agree and understand that depth and magnitude are completely independent characteristics. The damage potential to the surface is a function of both. You can have any magnitude EQ at any depth. I believe intuitively the shallower the quake the more damaging it will be, unless somehow the earth between the EQ and the surface amplifies the motion. I believe though it will most likely be attenuated (i.e. damped).

      November 1, 2011 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Earth's menopause

    A 6.5 is not shallow.

    November 1, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kani

      They are talking about the depth... 3.1 miles deep 🙂

      November 1, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
  7. MiMi

    @ Chris
    I agree that the shallow ones can potentionaly do more damage, I really don't think I said other wise in my previous post
    @ Earth's menopause It's the Depth anything 70 kn or less considered shallow

    November 1, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      That's cool, MiMi. I'm just unsure why you (and others) think the article is misleading. It was a shallow EQ (based on your criteria of depth of 0-70 km), was it not?

      November 3, 2011 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
  8. dragon-slayer

    hey btbc hows the weather there in Michigan?

    November 1, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
  9. dragon-slayer

    @ earths menopause, magnitude and depth are not the same.

    November 1, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Kani

    "An" 6.5 magnitude... lol

    November 1, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
  11. banasy©

    Bimbo lives in Canada. The Alberta area, I believe.

    November 1, 2011 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Theriabab

    yep sweethttp://uk.air– – ,
    i'm new herehttp://uk.air– – .http://uk.air– – .http://uk.air– – .
    nice 2 look over this forum.

    November 7, 2011 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3