Seems like a minor earthquake. Does it deserve top of HN?
It's fun to think about it - some Japanese people would move to CA just because of the more stable geology.
As a result, [modern] Japanese construction is incredibly resilient.
I've never been in Tokyo, during a strong quake, but I'm told the skyscrapers wave around like drunken dancers.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault#The_next_%22...
I question their research skills. I would avoid California if geology was my main motivator.
San Andreas sounds like nothing by comparison, especially since it doesn't pose as much of a tsunami risk.
Significant damage can be experienced starting at about mag 6, though that tends to be pretty specific (individual structures, often pre-dating earthquake codes, and locations on poorly-suited terrain such as riverbottoms, reclaimed wetlands, or sand). Widespread general damage would only be experienced with larger quakes (mag 7--8).
Japan has a significantly higher risk of mag 8--9 quakes. The 2011 Tōhoku quake was a magnitude 9, which is 100 times more powerful than a mag 7, and over 100,000 times more powerful than this morning's temblor in Berkeley. Japanese faults include subduction zones and considerable tsunami risk.
Similar risks exist between the California-Oregon border through to British Columbia on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and could similarly product a mag 9 event.
That is actually 1,000x more powerful. For historical reasons, the magnitude scale is 10^1.5 between whole numbers.
This quake is a tad more notable than rain in LA in the summer. In other words, not very notable. That doesn't make it zero, just very low.