Statement from Şener Üşümezsoy after the earthquake felt in Istanbul: 'It is not on the main fault'
Quick Look
- A 3.5 magnitude earthquake occurred off the coast of Yalova in the Sea of Marmara at 22.08.
- According to AFAD data, the earthquake, with a depth of 7.96 km, was felt slightly around Kartal and Tuzla in Istanbul.
- Evaluating the earthquake, Prof.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
After the 1999 Gölcük earthquake, fault lines and earthquake risk in the Marmara region remained on the agenda. Scientific evaluations about the depth of earthquakes and fault movements are frequently made.
A 3.5 magnitude earthquake occurred off the coast of Yalova in the Sea of Marmara at 22.08.
After the earthquake, which was slightly felt in the surrounding provinces, especially in Istanbul, all eyes turned to the fault lines in the region.
According to the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) data, the depth of the earthquake was measured as 7.96 kilometers.
Making evaluations regarding the earthquake, Prof. Dr. Şener Üşümezsoy claimed that the earthquake did not occur on the main Marmara Fault or the line known to the public as the "Islands Fault".
'EARTHQUAKE OCCURRED ON SECONDARY FAULTS'
Üşümezsoy argued that the earthquake was related to the stress changes that occurred in the secondary fault branches after the 1999 Gölcük Earthquake.
Stating that the earthquake was caused by a rupture in a small fault plane of approximately 1 square kilometer, Üşümezsoy suggested that such secondary fault branches do not have the potential to produce large earthquakes.
Üşümezsoy stated that the tension accumulated with the rupture of the main fault line in the 1999 earthquake was released, and smaller-scale movements could be experienced in the secondary fault branches.
WHY WAS IT FELT IN ISTANBUL?
Üşümezsoy also evaluated the fact that the earthquake was felt in the coastal areas of the Anatolian Side, especially around Kartal and Tuzla, and said that this may be related to the secondary and oblique fault branches extending to the north and towards Tuzla.
Üşümezsoy reiterated his view that the earthquake in question was not caused by a large-scale rupture in the main fault line.
'ISLANDS FAULT IS A DEAD FAULT'
Speaking about the expectation of a major earthquake on the Adalar Fault, Üşümezsoy claimed that this expectation has no scientific basis.
Arguing that the faults that are active around the islands are not main faults, Üşümezsoy stated that these are small secondary branches intersecting the main fault.
Open Questions
- What is the frequency of such small earthquakes on secondary fault branches?
- Does the long-term accumulation of these earthquakes reduce or increase the stress on major fault lines?
- What data is needed to determine whether the Islands Fault is truly a 'dead fault'?
