Why Now? Mega-Quake Would Destroy Big Portion Of Pacific Northwest

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: infolurker

Having lived within 20 miles of Seattle for my entire life, I have heard this meme repeated since the '64 quake. There are many factors involved, but taking all data into consideration, I don't doubt we are overdue for a major quake in our region.

We have quake-proofed our home(per utilities suggestions), set aside supplies to be self-sufficient for 60 days, and maintained insurance coverage. Past that, I have no control over what happens. It does amaze me that many I know have not taken any steps to prepare for/survive a major seismic event.

As to why the sudden hype, it appears to be a cyclic media alert every few years. I seem to remember the local affiliates running similar stories just after BHO was elected, and during the latter part of the Clinton presidency prior to that.

Your comment seems entirely reasonable and well reasoned. I've got one question though.....within 20 miles of Seattle.....inland? So....what's the terrain like 20 miles east of Seattle, if that's where you are. Is it mountainous, hilly, mud slide prone, etc.? Just curious. We'd never be able to visit the west coast safely that's why I'm asking. It seems for example that in South/Central California they're always having mud slides and such which would make surviving an earthquake pretty difficult.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: The Vagabond

Just based on the "everything west of I-5, we assume will be toast" comment by the regional authority is enough to say that the casualties in that scenario would be monsterous. Seattle's bulk density is west of I-5. Factor in the very real probability that a major quake will destroy the crumbling Viaduct, 520 floating bridge East pylons, and potentially the I-90 bridge, and you have a whole lot of folks who are going to be stuck if a big tsunami comes into the area.

The same goes with California if a large enough tsunami would occur. If it makes it up past the coastal mountains it would inundate a large amount of the Central Valley, meaning Sacramento is toast because all the retreating water would leave through the sacremento delta.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

Are we basing the projection of a flooded central valley on the I-5? That seems very unlikely.

Besides being offset about 400 miles south of the fault which is releasing its energy as east and west movement, you've got not one but two mountain chains over 1000 feet with narrow valleys in between for most of the central valley.

The coastal ranges will do a pretty decent job of making sure those who live in the exurbs and have bug out plans get to experience planning an out of state move without electricity or the internet. I imagine there are some places on California's lost coast where one theoretically could see the tsunami not quite make it over the cliffs at the shoreline- that'd be a hell of a sight but it would require you to stand on a sea cliff during one hell of an earthquake first.

The fly in the ointment is that that a lot of the Northern California coast is small towns situated on highway junctions that lead into mountains right by the coast- prime territory for becoming a secondary casualty- this area has been all but isolated by disasters before- but the places where people actually live in large populations tend to be on nice flat areas where the mountains recede from the coast just a bit.

a reply to: The Vagabond

I'm saying if a big enough tsunami hit and traveled up the bay, Sacramento and the delta would be the hardest hit in the valley. Once to the valley all the water would breach the levees and start spreading north and south along the inside of the coastal mountains. Not needing to go all the way over.

Update: While the state emergency department admits to not being ready for such a quake they also say the New Yorker article added, to say, a bit of hype to the whole story.

State official: Washington not ready for 'The Big One'

"The Big One" may not occur in the near future, but it's caused some to tremble on social media. The recent New Yorker article about the potential for a catastrophic event in the Puget Sound was also on the agenda at the Washington State Transportation Commission meeting in Seattle on Tuesday.

The commission received a special briefing from emergency managers, who for the most part agreed with much of the New Yorker article and even took it one step further.

"The truth is, we're not ready," said Peter Antolin, Deputy Director of Washington's Emergency Management Division.

He told the commission a 9.0 quake in the Cascadia Subduction Zone would cause significant damage, as the article suggested. However, he dismissed the idea that everything "west of Interstate 5 will be toast."

Breaking down the MEGA-earthquake threat "Define toast," Antonlin said.

"I think the reality is there will be pockets where people will be able to survive."

Higher elevation area, etc. Also, to point out as other news outlets(namely Fox)shared, that the whole of the Pac NW will be devastated. However it won't be geographically, rather largely economy wise.

According to researchers, there has not been a major quake in the Cascadia Subduction Zone since 1700 and these type of major events happen every 300-500 years.

There's the question of the keyword "overdue" that popups in many discussion of earthquakes. Do they happen every time? Not this one so far as I'm sure other examples exist(Bay Area). News shares from "anytime" in general to "expected in 40 years" and now research shares "within 15 years".

However, the deputy director said the article brings up a discussion that people in Western Washington need to have.
cont...

He added that the state will be better prepared after a four-day, real-time exercise next year. "Cascadia Rising 2016" will take place June 7-10, 2016.

Source - King5

Goes on tot explain about preparation, which is sorely needed. Too bad the soonest date for these exercises is set for next year.

Natural megaquake or chinese/russian nuclear mines?

You decide.