that was felt across a broader area. east coast earthquakes are translated across a large agree graphical area. this was felt across a sizable area but not felt in salt lake city or nevada. it was felt in fresno, los angeles and las vegas. again, as the expert up on seismology before me mentioned, this is not necessarily it wasn t the san andreas fault. it was another fault to the east. fortunately a loss populated area. many people live in ridgecrest but if this were 200 miles west or southwest, different impacts obviously tied to this. there s reports of a little more than 9,000 customers without power in southern california and more than half of them are in kern county. that s a concern. you can multiply that by 2 or 2.4 for the number of people add
particular earthquake occurred to past earthquakes in other parts of the state, where it is in southern california, could it be a safer area where you won t see as much damage-potentially as you could in other areas. well, at least one thing just to my mind is the new madrid fault in the midwest, in the early 1800s, there was a spectacular quick in kentucky, southern illinois, southeast missouri, we re talking about an area south of st. louis and west of paducah, kentucky. we don t associate that area with earthquakes. there s a fault there. at some point it s likely to repeat itself. great concern in that area. because of building construction and codes. in southern california, the legislators and general contractors, they build to a different standard and that protects people there. much more so than what could happen in areas like memphis.
4.0s and then it goes up. those are just statistics. in california, archaeology is complex. we have lots of faults all around us, hundreds. you know, the one that winterlier today caused the 6.4, that is one fault. all of these after shocks are occurring on it. we have the san andreas. don t get too obsessed worrying about the one that just happened. we could have another one at any time on any other fault. the location of the epicenter is very key to point out. you just brought up the andres fault. would the aftermath be more severe? depends the 6.4. yeah, the 6.4 with the san andreas, depends on where it is.
geologists in the felt to tell us what happened on the fault. in fact, the details. we would get more details by walking down that fault than we ll everybody get from an instrument. over many years of recording them and comparing them, we have a guess that magnitude 6.4 is partially a statement of how much slip happened, how much we expect. at that magnitude with this fault length, it s on the order under a meter but half a meter. so a couple feet. so it s potentially a big offset. the question is whether it s confined and whether it made it up to the surface. there s been hypotheses that if it comes to the surface, you get a different shaking pattern than if it doesn t. not all not every one agrees with it. so that s an interesting piece of scientific testing that can go on because of it. what is your knowledge of this in terms of how deep it is?
when i felt the motion, it felt rolling motion and it lasted for ten seconds. i could estimate that it was at least a magnitude 6 and it had to be pretty far way. lot of cities are taking this live. can you back up to the beginning? are we getting reports of damage? where was the earthquake centered exactly? so, the earthquake is near ridge crest. so the area east of the southern most part of the san andreas fault. the nearest salt is the little lake fault. it might be associated with it, but we don t know. we have to have a field geologist tell us. it is a relatively uninhabited area, so the number of people who would have received damage is much lower. i think we need to check what s happening in ridge crest and china lake. but damage reports do not come here. we are seismologists measuring the movement of the ground.