New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

San Francisco Rattled by Predawn Earthquake

The San Francisco Bay Area was rattled early this morning by a magnitude 4.3 earthquake along the Hayward fault line

USGS map showing epicenter of San Francisco earthquake on September 22, 2025

USGS/CISN: Northern California Seismic System (UC Berkeley, USGS Menlo Park, and Partners)

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Sleeping residents of California’s San Francisco Bay Area were rattled awake by a magnitude 4.3 earthquake in the early morning hours of September 22.

The earthquake struck 1.25 miles east-southeast of Berkeley, Calif., with shaking felt as far away as Salinas, Calif., about 100 miles to the south, and Chico, Calif., about 150 miles to the north. The temblor does not pose any tsunami threat, according to the National Tsunami Warning Center.

The epicenter of the earthquake was about 4.7 miles deep, according to a preliminary report from the U.S. Geological Survey. The agency’s analysis is continuing, but experts have tentatively linked the event with 10 other smaller quakes, mostly too weak for people to notice, that have rattled the region within the past month.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A set of concentric circles cropped within a rectangular frame are scaled to show the amplitude of earthquakes measuring 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 on the Richter scale. Each whole number increase corresponds to a 10-fold increase in amplitude. A second set of concentric circles cropped within a rectangular frame are scaled to show the energy released by earthquakes measuring 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 on the Richter scale. Each whole number increase corresponds to a 32-fold increase in energy.

Amanda Montañez

The earthquake occurred near the Hayward fault line, which runs from the north side of San Francisco Bay to southeast of San Jose. The largest known earthquake on record in the area of this fault was a magnitude 6.8 event in 1868.

The earthquake scale is logarithmic, not linear, so the historical quake released more than 5,600 times more energy than this morning’s event. By comparison, San Francisco’s deadly 1906 earthquake, which occurred along the San Andreas fault, was at least a magnitude 7.7 event.

Because of its history, the Hayward fault has been carefully watched by scientists, who worry that the now densely populated region could see much more serious damage the next time a very strong earthquake strikes.

So far, nearly 26,000 people have reported feeling Monday’s quake through USGS’s “Did You Feel It?” reporting tool, which gathers on-the-ground data about the intensity and effects of earthquakes. If you are in the Bay Area—whether you felt the temblor or not—you can fill out the agency’s form to contribute to observations.

Meghan Bartels is a science journalist based in New York City. She was previously a senior reporter at Scientific American. Before that she spent more than four years as a writer and editor at Space.com, as well as nearly a year as a science reporter at Newsweek, where she focused on space and Earth science. Her writing has also appeared in Audubon, Nautilus, Astronomy and Smithsonian, among other publications. She attended Georgetown University and earned a master’s degree in journalism at New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

More by Meghan Bartels

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe