richard_smith237

Also note the values are in MMI (Modified Mercalli Intensity)..... Bangkok ranged between IV, V and VI Equivalent to ML: 3.5 – 4.0 / ML: 4.0 – 4.9 / ML: 5.0 – 5.9 Behaviourally (i.e. based on observation) the quake can be measured up to VII, (Very Strong): Equivalent ML: 6.0 – 6.9 Everyone feels it, many people run outdoors, substantial damage (e.g., walls cracked, some structural damage). This is higher than the calculated ML equivalency posted yesterday (between 4 and 5 ML) but corresponds with some of the structural building damage we are seeing in photos yesterday and today.

This is exactly why the quake was amplified in in Bangkok compared to nearby regions. Seismologists sometimes call this problem the "Mexico City Effect" - and Bangkok is often used as another example in modern textbooks because the physics are almost the same. Depending upon how the quake occurred impacts the type of wave and even the direction of dissipation of energy impact how the quake is felt at distance. The magnitude of the 7.7Mw estimated to be between 4-5 in Bangkok due to the dissipating of energy through the bed rock, which was then amplified by the 'basin effect' of Bangkoks 'bowl' lakebed setting.... effectively like shaking a bowl of jelly. In layman's terms the quake in Bangkok was a 4-5 LM Magnitude wobble, where as in area's such as Pattaya and throughout the Korat Plateau the energy of the all waves would have dissipated within the older much harder formations. Much of how Bangkok was impacted also depends upon how the waves travel, the type of wave, and intensity each individual type, and direction of the movement. Body Waves (move through the inside of the Earth) P-Waves (Primary Waves), these are fastest type of seismic wave and move in a push-pull (compressional) motion, like a slinky. These are the first to be detected by seismographs. S-Waves (Secondary Waves), slower than P-waves, move in a side-to-side (shear) motion, perpendicular to the direction of wave travel. These cause more damage than P-waves because of their stronger movement. Surface Waves (move along the surface of the Earth) Love Waves, which move the ground side-to-side, like a snake, only travel along the surface. Usually cause a lot of damage to buildings. Rayleigh Waves, which move the ground in a rolling, elliptical motion (like ocean waves). Slowest of all seismic waves, and cause both up-and-down and side-to-side shaking.

The local magnitude (ML) of a Myanmar earthquake measured in Bangkok is calculated by recording the maximum amplitude of seismic waves at a seismograph in Bangkok. The recorded amplitude is corrected for distance using a regional attenuation model that accounts for the unique seismic wave propagation characteristics of Southeast Asia, including geological variations and wave attenuation between Myanmar and Bangkok and local events and observations (i.e. eye witness accounts). This ensures accurate ML estimation despite the significant distance between the epicentre and the measurement location. Hence the reason for a 'range' of figures given across Bangkok... 4 to 5 ML and not one single figure. Kind of correct... away from the epicentre 'impact' is not 'measured' specifically... But, it is reported as an equivalent magnitude based on events, eye witness reports etc.... and reported as ML (local Magnitude), hence my figures quote Bangkok reported an energy of between 4 and 5 ML (i.e. 4-5 equivalent magnitude) many other reports are suggesting 4.5ML and others 5.0ML.

Who would assume after one day... all buildings had been assessed and then make a judgement. 6 have been classified so far... more to come... Use your brain... .

Kind of correct... away from the epicentre 'impact' is not 'measured' specifically... But, it is reported as an equivalent magnitude based on events, eye witness reports etc.... and reported as ML (local Magnitude), hence my figures quote Bangkok reported an energy of between 4 and 5 ML (i.e. 4-5 equivalent magnitude) many other reports are suggesting 4.5ML and others 5.0ML.

Why 'could' this be the aftermath in Thailand ??? Thailand does not sit near an Major plate Boundary - a quake of this magnitude in Thailand has never happened. The largest quake to epicentre in Thailand was the 6.1 Mw Chiang Rai quake in 2014 (Mae Lao District).

'Thailand' handled this one remarkably well.... How many occupied buildings collapsed causing massive loss of life ??? Reportedly: 10 fatalities and 68 injuries... Though 85 individuals reported missing from the building collapse was tragic - but there are extenuating circumstances for that. Looking at this coldly for perspective - the rate has hardly exceeded the national road fatality daily rate (not a nice thing to say - but it adds a level of balance when responding to comments such as above) Also - if you are going to ask how Thailand 'handles Major Earthquake' then you should first understand the Geology - or Thailand or Rather Bangkok does not sit on a Major fault line / plate boundary. Ultimately, for Thailand (Bangkok) - it can't really get any bigger than yesterdays local magnitude level.

No disagreement from me there.... I see stuff like that... It doesn't really bother me, but I'm not spending my money there that all... On threads like this I'll voice an opinion for the purpose of discussion as I find the varying inputs *interesting, those that completely disagree or make firmer points than I have. (*once the trolling idiots are on ignore and not being catered to)....

I think this is a valid point... But when a natural disaster strikes with devastating consequenses no country handles it well... (even localised events such as Grenfell Tower fire in London etc). Japan has an excellent system: A couple of years ago, We'd arrived in Tokyo... We'd used Data Roaming, and were not even on a local cell 'call' netowork, just data. Within a few hours an Emergency Alert Alarmed on our phones and Watch (Apple Watch) - Earth Quake Warning - within seconds the building was shaking. Last year it was announced that Thailand was adopting an emergency warning system.... Like Many announcements here, there is no follow up - Yesterday was the perfect situation to see such an emergency alert in action... (all the need to do is copy the Japanese and have a centralised system that alerts to all networks). This can be used for Tsnumani Alerts, for high Pollution Alerts etc... so much potential. https://aseannow.com/topic/1321682-thailand-trials-first-mobile-phone-emergency-alert-system/ https://aseannow.com/topic/1331505-true-corporation’s-emergency-alert-system-unveiled/

These figures are not very encouraging; it is possible that we may obtain a magnitude increase of +1. Very slim... for that to occur the earthquake in Mandalay would have to reach a 9.0 (Richter) which his exponentially more powerful than the last quake. Recently history shows the largest quakes along the Sagaing Fault. - March 28, 2025: magnitude of 7.7 Mw - January 1990: magnitude of 7.0 Mw - February 1912: magnitude of 7.9 Mw Thus a 9.0 Mw quake and resulting ~1.0 ML increase in intensity in Bangkok is extremely unlikely / Geologically improbable.

Then as I pointed out earlier - in that case 'its ok for the seller to sell T-shirt of a deceased loved one with a profanity'.... its within the Thai Law, but clearly that would be morally reprehensible. The subjected is far more nuanced that simplifying it to... Its within the law, its just a T-shirt etc... I think there is a line in the sand that shifts within a grey area, over time, from region to region... clearly there are extremes, and I'm sure someone 'responsible and considerate' would like to remain on the respectable side of this line. This shop seller is either naively and perhaps even innocently ignorant, or just doesn't care - as others have pointed out, thats entirely their prerogative - but its also understandable that in such situations others may become insulted.

If a 7.7 magnitude earthquake in Mandalay resulted in a 4.5 ML local magnitude in Bangkok, then a 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Mandalay would approximately result in a 5.8 ML local magnitude in Bangkok. A 9.0 magnitude earthquake would release about 90.5 times more energy than the 7.7 magnitude earthquake, significantly increasing the shaking felt even at the same distance. A 7.0 ML magnitude in Bangkok is ultimately, geological improbable, arguably impossible.

Adding racism and bigotry to the silliness.... you're outdoing yourself ! The Myanmar earthquake (magnitude 7.7 Mw) was felt in several parts of China, particularly in Yunnan Province and neighbouring areas. Inferred localised intensities evaluated by the reported perceived shaking and damage reported were as follows: Ruili and Mangshi (near the border): Local intensity: Approximately 5.0 to 5.5 ML equivalent This intensity correlates with "moderate" to "rather strong" shaking. Kunming (capital of Yunnan, ~500 km from the epicentre): Local intensity: Around 4.0 to 4.5 ML equivalent.This would be "light" shaking, where windows rattle and people indoors clearly feel the tremor. Distant areas (Sichuan, Guizhou, Guangxi): Local intensity: Roughly 3.0 to 3.5 ML equivalent. This would be "weak" shaking, noticeable mainly to people indoors, without damage. There were no major building collapses, some small homes and mall garages reported collapsed, some reports of major buildings suffering structural damage. All those surviving high rises were clearly built by non-Chinese, eh ???

Trying to double down with dim comments I see...

Yes, because all buildings in Bangkok collapsed, right... just like Tofu !!!... Grade A1 for dim comment of the day !!!!

It depends how the waves travel, the type of wave, and intensity each individual type, and direction of the movement. Body Waves (move through the inside of the Earth) P-Waves (Primary Waves), these are fastest type of seismic wave and move in a push-pull (compressional) motion, like a slinky. These are the first to be detected by seismographs. S-Waves (Secondary Waves), slower than P-waves, move in a side-to-side (shear) motion, perpendicular to the direction of wave travel. These cause more damage than P-waves because of their stronger movement. Surface Waves (move along the surface of the Earth) Love Waves, which move the ground side-to-side, like a snake, only travel along the surface. Usually cause a lot of damage to buildings. Rayleigh Waves, which move the ground in a rolling, elliptical motion (like ocean waves). Slowest of all seismic waves, and cause both up-and-down and side-to-side shaking. Depending upon how the quake occurred impacts the type of wave and even the direction of dissipation of energy. Thus: its possible the initial 7.7 Mw quake released a greater intensity of shear waves than the secondary 6.4 Mw aftershock. The magnitude of the 7.7Mw quake was estimated to be between 4-5 Mw in Bangkok (I've not seen any official figures) due to the dissipating of energy through the bed rock, which was then amplified by the 'basin effect' of Bangkoks 'bowl' lakebed setting.... effectively like shaking a bowl of jelly. Thus in layman's terms the quake in Bangkok was a 4-5 Mw Magnitude wobble, where as in area's such as Pattaya and throughout the Korat Plateau the energy of the all waves would have dissipated with no soft formations to amplify the energy.

I’ll admit, I’m something of a fence-sitter on this one. I don’t believe anyone should be demanding that a shop owner stop selling certain items — that’s ultimately a matter for the authorities to decide, not random individuals. At the same time, I completely understand why some people might take offence at such items. Offence is subjective, and in many cases, it's entirely understandable. That said, I also reject the idea that foreigners somehow have no right to voice an opinion. I believe everyone has the right to express their view, provided it's done respectfully and with consideration. This whole discussion is far more multifaceted than some make it out to be. Unfortunately, many approach it with a narrow, binary mindset - you’re either for it or against it, full stop. These kinds of discussions become especially difficult when they’re dominated by the most extreme and often the loudest voices. The nuance gets lost, and we end up debating dumbed down and over simplified absolutes on a lower intellectual level that doesn't really handle the truer issues at hand instead of working through the complexity.

I think many if not most such policies may include a 'force majeure' clause... That said - I think many buildings also have a 'sinking fund' which is (often related to condominiums, apartments, or housing estates) and is collected from co-owners or residents to cover major repairs, replacements, or upgrades of common property or infrastructure in the future. I don't think the 'sinking fund' covers structural damage, but may cover necessary repairs to cosmetic damage (thats as I understand it - I could be mistaken).

Your argument is made up of two facets 1) Workers wearing PPE 2) Buildings meeting structural code We all see workers not meeting the basic PPE standards walking out of constructing sides past 'Safety First' signs.... and many draw the parralell that a shortcuthere leads to a shortcut in the construction itself.... But... I think there are additional facets here - structural integrity and finishing. There can be no shortcuts with structural integrity the industry simply cannot get away wit this - if there were we'd see buildings falling all the time..... this is not the case. But, we do see an abundance of cosmetic flaws down to shoddy workmanship in even the best and most expensive of buildings - Thailand is not alone in this, its prevalent in the west too.

I would argue that it largely depends on how the subject is approached. I’ve personally given restaurant owners respectful feedback when I felt their food wasn't up to standard - is that not simply voicing an opinion about how they run their business? In fact, clever business owners depend on honest feedback to improve. So, I see nothing wrong with offering respectful feedback - it’s part of any healthy exchange. Of course, as you rightly pointed out, there is a big difference between offering feedback and outright telling people what to do, or, to use your stronger example, “telling Thais trying to earn a living what items they should or should not sell.” That would indeed be crossing a line. But then I have to ask - would it be any different if a Thai person did the same? Why would a Thai have any more right than a foreigner to tell another Thai - a stranger - what they should or shouldn’t be selling in their shop? Would that not also be overstepping? This is precisely why I don’t think nationality is the deciding factor here. It comes down to how something is said, not who is saying it.

@alex8912 @richard_smith237 Who is the fool now? YOU.... who ridiculed Thailands building standards... the fact that so many buildings held is testament to the building standards. You can't compare to Japan becasue Japan is on a Major tectonic plate boundary, Thailand is not, just like London, Paris, Madrid etc, the building codes and requirements are different. Thailand is doing exactly the right thing... they're inspecting the buildings. I'm sure more will / maybe found to be structurally unsound - as will some roads etc - but the vast majority will not. None of that makes your sweeping generalisation that Thailands building standards are substandard - your comment was still bigoted. Had this same magnitude of Earthquate struck London, Paris or Madrid etc (4-5 Mw) some of those buildings too would have suffered structural damage. BUT... the imagery on the internet at the moment is of 'superficial' damage, tiles etc.... not ultrasonic images of primary structural components of buildings.

+1 from me — I agree with your points (mostly). The very fact that we can have these kinds of discussions is, in itself, a testament to the freedoms we enjoy. And I wouldn’t trade those freedoms for anything. In my view, someone should absolutely have the right to sell such symbolic images if they wish — but equally, others should have the right to peacefully voice their objection. That’s the healthy balance of free expression. That said, this particular individual acted like a bit of a pr!ck, if I’m honest. I can't help but wonder - had he calmly and respectfully explained to the shop owner that these T-shirts are considered offensive by many, might she have been more open to the conversation? Perhaps the problem wasn't just the symbol on the shirt, but the attitude the Westerner brought into the discussion. It’s entirely possible that he approached it poorly from the outset, upsetting the shop owner before the conversation even began. Having an opinion and voicing it respectfully should not be contingent on holding a Thai passport - nor should it be in any country. I completely disagree with the perspective held by some that "we are guests in this country and have no rights to an opinion" - I find such sentiment rather stupid.

But it's Thailand. What happens in home countries is irrelevant. It’s difficult to ignore this, especially when Thailand so actively markets itself as a global destination. If Thailand aspires to be part of the global community, then surely it carries a responsibility to act with a sense of decency and consideration towards other cultures - just as we should all strive to do. Basic mutual respect should be the foundation of any society that wishes to engage with the world at large. Agreed - many of us aren’t personally offended by such symbolism (I certainly am not), but that doesn’t mean we’re blind to the fact that others might find it offensive. As you’ve pointed out, one of the reasons I (we) enjoy being here is precisely because there is generally less confrontation over minor social faux pas. Many small slips that would spark conflict in the West are simply shrugged off here, thanks to a more relaxed temperament and a capacity to let the small things go. That’s exactly why I take issue with the individual confronting the shop owner in this particular story. Yet, for the sake of honest discussion, I also fully understand why some would take offence - and I recognise that openly pushing such symbols often stems from ignorance. It’s the same kind of ignorance as selling socks emblazoned with a Thai flag or panties featuring an image of Buddha in a Western market. In many cases, it may simply be a lack of awareness - ignorance without malice. But once someone knows, and continues regardless, it crosses into insensitivity.

Valid points, I completely agree... If we were to see a T-shirt that says "Moh is a Pedo" - I think it perfectly normal for anyone to understand that this is offensive and its down the personal responsibility of both the printer (designer) and shop owner to avoid such deliberately controversial indecency.

Valid points - nevertheless both are provocative, and when worn by some (i.e forum members who suggest they will go out and buy such shirts) would be deliberately provocative. Again, valid, yet it continues to highlight a degree of insensitivity when anyone wishes to wear such items - even to the point of being deliberately provocative. Those wearing such items or displaying such symbolism can only be dismissed as simple minded idiots. Being elated over someone wearing a hitler T-shirt in Thailand would tend to show a significantly juvinile mindset. Indeed... If there wasn't a market for them, they wouldn't print such T-shirts. Fortunately, we don't see many, because the vast majority of people are not ignorant and culturally insensitive fools.