I don't know if we are getting more natural disasters - but with earth being so overpopulated in many places then loss of live will continue to rise. I don't really believe we have to much to worry about here in New Zealand, the building standards are so strict, it would have to be a massive earthquake in downtown Wellington. When the big one does happen chances are that it will not centre on Wellington and if it did then loss of life would still be minimal - with New Zealand being so underpopulated I don't really see an issue in being over prepared....worse case you might have to queue to get fresh water and fix the cracks in your house yourself.

You forgot to mention the genius idea of storing national treasures on reclaimed land in an earthquake prone area as well.

I don't think they are any more frequent but the panic and paranoia after Thailand is getting beyond a joke. I can count on one hand the number of tsunamis I am aware of in my life and that is one. I remember a time when there was an earthquake and no one paniced about the possible tsunami that would follow it.

Am I prepared, not really but then I live in Auckland surrounded by volcanoes.

Are we due a big one? Over any length of time we are due any sort of cataclysm. Tsunamis, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, extreme weather are always due. There is just as much chance of death from above with asteroids, comets or intense radiation from a number of stellar sources with energy output that makes earthquakes look like a rounding error.

Should I be worried? Probably, but there isn't anything I can do to stop any of these events happening so what is the point.

Actually according to Chinese records going back centuries there have been more measurable earthquakes in the last 100 years than combined up until that point.

But it's not so much the amount it's the levels and damage caused that's the issue. There seems to have been more disastrous earthquakes in the last 20 years as populations grow which of course increases the chance of it being a disaster which is defined as "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life".

Also something tells me the more oil we pump out of the ground the more risk of bigger, shallower, and therefore more disastrous earthquakes there will be. I mean if we use oil for lubrication what does the earth use oil for?

We may not think we are getting anymore earth quakes than normal, so why is they are centering around the ring of fire. It is only a matter of time before NZ has a one in a populated area. You can bet most people would like to deny this will happen in there life time, ... what if it does are you ready. I would be more worried about the super VOLCANO in Taupo now. Hence why the Waikato is in the best place for main IT/communications and datacenters Less than 2.0 - Microearthquakes, not felt.- About 8,000 per year 2.0-2.9 - Generally not felt, but recorded - No damages - About 1,000 per year 3.0-3.9 - Often felt, but rarely causes damage.- 49,000 per year (estimated) 4.0-4.9 - Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises. Significant damage unlikely. - 6,200 per year(estimated) 5.0-5.9 - Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings.- 800 per year http://www.armageddononline.org/earthquakes.html 6.0-6.9 - Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 miles across in populated areas.- 120 per year 7.0-7.9 - Can cause serious damage over larger areas. Skyscrapers as risk. 18 per year 8.0 or greater - Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred miles across. Building structures collapse - skyscrapers as SERIOUS risk. Average 1 per year

Quote from Wiki A supervolcano is a volcano capable of producing a super volcanic eruption, which is a volcanic eruption with ejecta greater than 1,000 cubic kilometers (240 cubic miles), which is thousands of times larger than most historic volcanic eruptions

@Wookie

LOL - yeah it's geological lubricant....

The reason the Chinese have recorded more earthquakes in the last 100 years is because prior to that they didn't have the technology available to measure them the same way.

Also a growing population gives you a better reporting system.

NZ is well overdue for a massive earthquake. If it is shallow then it won't matter how good our building codes are - it will be devestating.

Isn't the Civil Defence HQ in Wellington also on the fault line?

Oil is actually ingrained within porous rock. You dont suck it out and leave an empty void. The removal of oil Im fairly confident has absoulutly no relationship with earth quakes. Also as the Chinese had extremely basic methods of recording tremours it is no wonder the last 100 years out weighs the last 1000 years or so. All that means is they missed the vast majority of them.

Sirknz your lack of knowledge on the Tsunamis points more to your lack of knowledge rather than their lack of frequency. They are a very real and common threat. Being aware of the risk and potential has nothing to do with panic it's simply about being prepared. Nonone suggests we can stop them. It is our response when they Do happen that is important

@Jason

The one thing that 2012 did get right was Yellowstone Park is a super volcano. When (not if) that blows - a good chunk of the North American continent will cease to exist. Except perhaps as an Archipelago.

Rudimentary or not they have recorded earthquakes the world over including direction and strength for thousands of years. They measured quakes at Mt Egmont, Krakatoa, Taupo and others around the world long before seismology was judged to be science.

Some earthquakes are actually triggered on purpose by pouring water into the fault lines to trigger smaller quakes in an effort to reduce the pressures that can cause massive quakes.

It's not too much of a push to think oil can be used by the earth for lubrication. Some oil is in porous rocks but gushing oil obviously comes from reserves deep in the ground which will leave a void when drained. Even in porous rocks it would provide some form of lubrication alleviating rock against rock in much the same way the fluid between bones stops bone grinding against bone which is what happens with arthritis. Yes I am saying the earth has arthritis.

Add to that massive skyscrapers which put lots of downward pressure on the ground can cause all sorts of issues and conceivably earthquakes over certain spots. The earth wasn't designed for the sorts of stresses man has put onto it in the last 300 years or so since the Industrial Revolution. We've scorched the earth turning once luscious lands into sprawling deserts, we've nuked areas, we've dug massive holes just to remove ores, we've destroyed wetlands, sucked the earth almost dry of oil, and you're trying to tell me that man's actions have no bearing on earthquakes? I don't buy it. We have to be doing the earth irreparable damage by our actions.

if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it still make a noise?? the earth is lacking in catastrophic events, be they natural or caused by man...time for a significant decrease in the population.

@ #1

The casualties experience in Sumatra in October last year were of the order expected in NZ in the case of a magnitude 8 earthquake on the alpine fault. While loadings standards have become progressively more stringent in the last 30 years there are many old unreinforced masonry buildings in our cities built with zero capacity to withstand a significant earthquake. We would be extremely naive to think that the quality of our building stock would limit the loss of life in the event of a major earthquake centred close to either CHCH or Wellington.