A Tennessee earthquake rattles homes as far away as Atlanta

Los Angeles Times - May 10th, 2025

A magnitude 4.1 earthquake struck near Greenback, Tennessee, early Saturday morning, sending tremors across the southern U.S. and waking residents as far away as Atlanta, Georgia. Although no injuries or significant damage were initially reported, the quake was felt by thousands, leading to over 23,000 reports to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) within the first hour. The epicenter was located approximately 12 miles from Greenback and about 30 miles south of Knoxville. Residents in the affected areas, such as Gabriela Reilly in Braselton, Georgia, and Jason Pack near Knoxville, reported shaking that lasted several seconds. USGS also indicated there is a 5% chance of a similar aftershock occurring in the next week.

The earthquake highlights the seismic risk in the southeastern U.S., particularly in the East Tennessee Seismic Zone. Historically, this region has experienced similar seismic activity, including a notable magnitude 4.7 quake near Knoxville in 1973. The event serves as a reminder of the broader earthquake risks in the area, as well as the need for preparedness in case of a larger quake. According to experts, Eastern U.S. geology allows seismic waves to travel farther, impacting a wider area compared to similar quakes in the West. This geographical characteristic means more people are likely to feel tremors from even smaller earthquakes in the region.

Seismic Activity Atlanta Usgs Jason Pack Tennessee Earthquake East Tennessee Seismic Zone Gabriela Reilly

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive and factual account of a recent earthquake in Tennessee, effectively informing readers about the event's magnitude, location, and impact. Its use of credible sources, such as the USGS and personal anecdotes, adds depth and authenticity to the narrative. The article excels in clarity and readability, presenting complex information in an accessible manner. However, it could benefit from greater transparency through direct citations of USGS data and a more balanced exploration of expert perspectives on regional preparedness and policy implications. While the article is timely and of public interest, its potential impact could be enhanced by discussing broader implications for infrastructure and safety. Overall, the story is a well-structured and informative piece that effectively communicates the significance of the earthquake to its audience.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of the earthquake event, including the magnitude, location, and time, which aligns with typical USGS reporting standards. The claim of a magnitude 4.1 earthquake occurring near Greenback, Tennessee, is consistent with standard geological reporting methods. However, verification from USGS reports would be necessary to confirm these specifics.

The report states that over 23,000 public reports were received by the USGS, which is a significant number indicating widespread impact. This claim, along with the absence of reported injuries or major damages, should be cross-verified with official statements from the USGS or local authorities to ensure precision.

Personal accounts from individuals like Gabriela Reilly and Jason Pack add depth to the report but are anecdotal and should be considered supplementary to verified data. The historical context provided about previous earthquakes in the region is factual but requires checking against historical seismic data to ensure accuracy.

Overall, the story is factually robust but would benefit from direct citations or links to USGS data to enhance verifiability and precision.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the factual recounting of the earthquake event, with limited exploration of broader perspectives. It includes personal anecdotes which provide a human angle to the story, illustrating the personal impact of the earthquake.

However, the report could improve balance by including expert opinions on the implications of such earthquakes in the region, particularly regarding infrastructure safety and preparedness. This would provide a more comprehensive view of the event's significance.

The story does not exhibit overt bias or favoritism towards any particular viewpoint, but the inclusion of more diverse perspectives, such as those from local authorities or emergency response teams, could enhance the narrative's depth and balance.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and clearly written, providing a logical flow of information that is easy to follow. It starts with the earthquake's occurrence and impact, followed by personal accounts and historical context, which helps build a comprehensive picture of the event.

The language used is straightforward and accessible, making the article easy to understand for a general audience. Technical terms related to seismology are kept to a minimum, and where used, they are explained in context.

The tone of the article is neutral and informative, focusing on delivering facts rather than sensationalizing the event. This approach aids in maintaining clarity and ensures the information is presented in an unbiased manner.

Source quality

The primary source for the earthquake data appears to be the USGS, a reputable and authoritative source for geological information. The article also references statements made by a USGS spokeswoman, which adds credibility to the report.

The inclusion of personal accounts from local residents adds authenticity, although these are anecdotal and should be supported by more authoritative sources. The reliance on the Associated Press for additional reporting also contributes to the article's credibility, given AP's reputation for journalistic integrity.

Overall, the sources used are credible, but the article would benefit from more direct citations or links to official data to strengthen its reliability.

Transparency

The article provides clear information about the earthquake, including its magnitude, location, and the number of reports received. However, it lacks explicit citations or links to the USGS data, which would enhance transparency and allow readers to verify information independently.

The personal anecdotes included in the article are clearly attributed to specific individuals, adding a level of transparency to those elements of the story. However, the methodology for gathering these accounts, such as how these individuals were selected or contacted, is not disclosed.

Greater transparency could be achieved by providing more context on how the USGS data was obtained and by including expert commentary to explain the geological aspects of the story.