Earthquakes can impact almost anywhere
It's not just places along tectonic boundaries that are at risk
When we think of earthquakes, our minds often jump to the Pacific Ring of Fire, a horseshoe-shaped zone notorious for its frequent and powerful seismic activity. This is where I live and, as such, am well acquainted with its potential for a powerful earth rattler. But if you don’t live here, or on one of the other many tectonic boundaries around the world, you might think you’re safe from earthquakes. While you’re certainly “safer,” you might be surprised by just how shaky your place can get.
And, of course, if you’re interested in learning more about the United Kingdon’s history with and potential for a large earthquake, do check out my most recent video:
Our first stop for this article is, of course, the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) in the central United States, spanning parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Illinois. Despite being thousands of miles from a tectonic plate boundary, this zone was the site of some of the largest earthquakes in North American history during the winter of 1811-1812. These quakes, estimated to be magnitude 7.0 or greater, caused the Mississippi River to flow backward in places, created new lakes, and were felt as far away as Boston. While large events are infrequent, the NMSZ experiences hundreds of smaller tremors each year. The concern lies in the region's infrastructure, much of which was not built to withstand significant seismic shaking, unlike in more seismically active areas. A magnitude 6.0 or larger earthquake in this zone, which scientists estimate has a 25% to 40% chance of occurring within any 50-year period, could lead to billions of dollars in damages and widespread disruption. The underlying cause of these earthquakes is believed to be the reactivation of ancient fault lines within the Earth's crust, remnants of a failed rift system from millions of years ago.
Moving north, while Canada's west coast, particularly British Columbia, is well-known for its seismic activity due to its position on the Pacific Ring of Fire, earthquakes are also a regular occurrence in Eastern Canada. Far from the active plate boundaries, the seismic activity here is largely attributed to stresses within the North American plate. These stresses, which can be remnants of past glacial loading and unloading or deep crustal processes, are relieved along ancient fault lines that were active millions of years ago when the continent was forming. The Charlevoix-Kamouraska Seismic Zone in Quebec, for instance, has a history of powerful earthquakes, including several estimated to be above magnitude 6.0 in historical times. Another notable area is the Western Quebec Seismic Zone, which encompasses urban areas like Montreal and Ottawa. Although most eastern Canadian earthquakes are small, the infrequent larger events pose a significant risk, especially given the density of population and infrastructure in cities like Montreal that were not necessarily built with high seismic resistance in mind.
Moving all the way to the far east, Thailand, a pretty tranquil country overall, was reminded of its seismic vulnerability in March 2025, when a powerful magnitude 7.7 earthquake originating in central Myanmar caused significant damage and fatalities within its borders. (Fun fact: I was there when this hit!) While the epicenter was in Myanmar, the tremors were strongly felt across Thailand, particularly in Bangkok, nearly 1,000 kilometers away. The impact in Bangkok was exacerbated by the city's geology, characterized by a top layer of soft marine clay. This soft soil amplifies seismic waves, especially long-period ground motion, which can resonate with and affect tall buildings. Many buildings in Bangkok are also not designed with modern earthquake safety standards in mind, a factor highlighted by the collapse of a multi-story building under construction during the Myanmar earthquake.
And, of course, there’s the United Kingdom which is the subject of my video above. But just to expand on it a bit, the UK might seem like an unlikely candidate for earthquake activity, but it does experience hundreds of earthquakes annually. Thankfull for most Brits, these are usually too small to be felt or cause damage but the UK does have a history of more significant events. For instance, the 1931 Dogger Bank earthquake, with a magnitude of 6.1, occurred offshore but still caused minor damage to buildings on the English east coast. Even more impactful was the 1884 Colchester earthquake, which, despite a modest magnitude of around 4.6, necessitated repairs to some 1200 buildings, toppled chimneys, and cracked walls. The UK's earthquakes are not directly caused by active plate boundaries but rather by the release of crustal stresses within the European plate, potentially linked to regional compression and even the ongoing uplift of land after the melting of ice sheets from the last ice age. The western side of mainland Britain tends to be more seismically active due to thinner and weaker lithosphere, which allows for easier deformation and fault movement.
Basically, the geography of earthquakes is, in my opinion, not well understood by most people. Again, we like to think of places along tectonic boundaries as being the most vulnerable. And while earthquakes do hit those places more often (hello Japan!), those places are also often better equipped to withstand it. An 8.0 earthquake hitting Tokyo is probably not going to cause as much damage as a 7.0 earthquake hitting London, despite the much larger magnitude of energy released by the 8.0.
Bangkok is a prime example of this. The city has little or no experience with earthquakes. And when one did hit earlier this year, cracks formed on highrise offices and apartments, one building under construction collapsed entirely, and people were generally just in a state of panic. And this was from an earthquake that hit hundreds of miles away.
So, if you think you’re safe from an earthquake, you might want to dig in to the data a bit. You might be surprised that you’re actually on shakier ground than you’ve been lead to believe.
Good article, but you've sidelined, by minor sub subject to the core subject, of really big seismic area of geo earth, where the real big ones have happened.