<p>D in SF felt it. She had a couple of things fall. She said it felt rolling. Her dog was scared. They huddled in the middle of the room since Her bed is next to several large windows. Sister in Marin who lives on the bay said it was long swaying not jerky motion but scary. Her kids slept through it. Other D who lives west of Sacramento didn’t feel anything but did wake up around that time.
It is a reminder to me to restock some earthquake supplies. </p>
<p>I was wrong. There is no nearby nuclear plant. One of them which is no longer in-service is dangerously close:</p>
<p>The 913 MW Pressurized Water Reactor at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, located about 25 miles south of Sacramento, is owned by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in and was operation from April 1975 to June 7, 1989. It was closed by public referendum.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html”>http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html</a></p>
<p>Do not know anything about the military facility in the bay area (a navy base?!) though.</p>
<p>@dstark Glad to hear that you and others nearby are ok.</p>
<p>An odd feeling to have missed it as I’m back east getting two settled at their colleges. We’re about 50 miles away and highly doubt we have any damage, based on neighbors’ posts on facebook. Wondering how the dog did (boarded in our town) and only have key access through the garage…hope nothing became un-aligned or we’ll have a problem! Thinking of those who have been impacted and wishing them well.</p>
<p>DS’s are out surfing today. Wonder what would happen if they are in the water during an aftershock??</p>
<p>Ooh, emilybee-- yum on wineries in Oakville. Hope they are ok. I saw a picture of many broken wine bottles in what looked like a liquor store. Broke my heart. Also hearing about injuries. Hope everyone is ok.</p>
<p>A CNN reporter this morning described large chunks of stone brickworks and cement that had fallen from a building as “boxes on the street”. Um, no.</p>
<p>I thought the Navy base was closed and converted to housing?</p>
<p>Down in the South Bay, didn’t even feel anything. </p>
<p>It’s the usual story: in a quake, unreinforced masonry falls, so we have stories of facades falling off, and chimneys separating from houses. And the usual picture of things falling off shelves.</p>
<p>New construction should not be failing in a 6.0 quake, not in California.</p>
<p>A 6.0 quake is no joke, and if it had hit in a great many other places it would have resulted in many deaths and untold damage. But I think that '89 quake helped the Bay Area prepare for future quakes, so they were fairly well prepped for this one. </p>
<p>There were earthquake standards before the '89 Loma Prieta quake that would already have protected recent (at the time) construction, and did protect it. Nobody was putting up unreinforced masonry in Northern California in 1988. We know more now, but we knew a lot then.</p>
<p>Hundreds of homes and businesses are damaged. Not falling down, but foundation cracks and gas and power line issues.Historical building downtown are in sad shape and mobile homes are on fire. 6.0 is big. Damage is estimated at a-billion dollars. Three people are in critical condition. A man, a woman, and a child who was hit by a falling fireplace.</p>
<p>The '89 Loma Prieta quake was magnitude 6.9 . This one is 6.0. Because of the way that the Richter scale is calculated (logarithmic scale), there is huge difference:</p>
<p>A magnitude 6.9 earthquake is 7.943 times bigger than a magnitude 6.0 earthquake on a seismogram, but is 22.387 times stronger (energy release).</p>
<p>I got that calculation from the “Try it Yourself” calculator at <a href=“http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/how_much_bigger.php”>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/how_much_bigger.php</a></p>
<p>I am still surprised that there aren’t greater reports of damage and injuries near the epicenter, especially with the fires. </p>
<p>Emilybee, doct, and mom2collegekids, </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>My house in the Bay Area was built to withstand 7.0 earthquake. It was built in the mid 90s. So 6.0 is nothing.
However where I live now, I think there less chance of earthquake. But there are no bricks to worry about, the house is mostly built by wood and then they spray stucco. There is a reason why my house insurance is in the $300+ range.</p>
<p>'Cause it’s California:
<a href=“https://twitter.com/SDuncovered/status/503590428008927233/photo/1”>https://twitter.com/SDuncovered/status/503590428008927233/photo/1</a></p>
<p>OMG the pittie on the right (I notice the important things!)</p>
<p>As someone who does NOT live in earthquake country, the thought of going over a crack like that is terrifying (even if there is no crack- we’re not used to the ground moving like that)</p>
<p>Glad everyone on here is OK</p>
<p>The earthquake is over. Only the cracks remain.</p>
<p>I understand that- but the cracks are terrifying for someone who isn’t used to the ground opening! 
</p>
<p>Yea, one of the issues with sinkholes and “ground opening” is that it can be pretty deep (swallow car/home). Don’t think too many of us get used to the ground moving. We have some earthquakes in HI too, but not as many as CA. We don’t have the same building codes so their structures will stand up a lot better than ours, especially since so many of ours are old.</p>
<p>Sebastiani is a big winemaker as winemakers go, but there are literally hundreds of other wineries in Sonoma and Napa Counties. And there are wineries up north near Mendocino, and down south near Paso Robles, and over in the foothills north of Yosemite. This is bad for Sebastiani and other wineries whose tanks were damaged, but I doubt it will make much difference to people who drink California wines.</p>
<p>My Napa friends are fine. Their home sustained about $10,000 in damage…which insurance does not cover. But they fee lucky that is all…and no one was hurt.</p>