even a moderate earthquake could damage buildings in sydney and...

even a moderate earthquake could damage buildings in sydney and melbourne, but should not substanially damage modern buildings in cities such as in wellington or auckland (unless buildings had design faults or unless the earthquake was for a prolonged period causing liquafaction). their buildings are built to withstand substantial horizontial forces, whereas in the south and the east of australia they are not.

christchurch was damaged because many of the buildings were like those in melbourne and because there were numerous earthquakes. modern buildings in christchurch that were damaged generally had design faults.

the christchurch earthquakes were the most costly natural disaster in history and will be more costly than the fukuoka earthquakes.

even some of the aftershocks after the fukuoka earthquake each released a couple of hundred times more energy than in yesterdays melbourne earthquake!

in my last post it should read 'magma' and should not read 'larva'.