North Korea detonates second nuke test?? (Doesn’t look like it)

When North Korea detonated their first nuclear bomb in a mountain on Sunday/Monday, I submitted a link to the USGS earthquake site showing details of the related seismic event for addition to the related BoingBoing article (which kindly posted a link to this weblog, thanks!).

Now, there is a Reuters article indicating that Japan is claiming that NK may have conducted a second nuclear test.

However, at this time — 5pm PST, Oct 10 2006 — there have been no new events in the North Korea area on the Asia Region seismic activity map.

And the AP has a similar story on the wire that indicates that neither the South Koreans nor US seismic monitors show any sign of an event.

Not so coincidentally (I suspect), there was a magnitude 5.8 seismic event southeast of Japan. It sounds like someone might have jumped the gun on the reporting.

Typically, when a seismic event occurs, the USGS site is updated extremely rapidly. Updates frequently occur within minutes of an event in CA. And the site reports events of extremely minor magnitude; often reporting magnitude 1.0 and 2.0 events caused by quarry explosions at the end of Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino.

So, unless there is a significantly greater delay in event reporting for global (or Asia region) seismic events, then it is unlikely that Korea has managed to detonate a second device. There certainly could be a delay — it did take a few hours for the original event to show up on the map.

2 Responses to “North Korea detonates second nuke test?? (Doesn’t look like it)”

  1. Morning Coffee says:

    Norks Suspected of Second Nuke Test

    TOKYO (AP) — The Japanese government suspects North Korea has conducted a second nuclear test and was trying to confirm it, a government official said Wednesday.
    But a South Korean official said seismic monitors did not detect any tremors that co…

  2. Charles says:

    The data’s up on the site now.
    I used to work at USGS and they always said that seismo reports from close to the epicenter were less accurate than data taken from far away, and the USGS results are aggregated from the world seismo network, so they are the authority. The local results tend to be noisier and don’t have enough distance to measure propagation of the wave accurately (I will spare you a lecture on the P Wave vs S Wave equations).
    I remember I used to watch the incoming data on the seismograms in my Denver office, and was always puzzled at the constant tiny quakes that would register. I finally asked someone about it, and they said “oh that’s just mining operations up in the mountains.”

Leave a Reply

Line and paragraph breaks automatic.
XHTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>