Did you guys feel that?

[Shelli]

in answer to the title question...

OH GAWDS, YES!!!1!

[Plant Woman]

I've been through a 5.4 before; it's big enough to make you scared while it's happening because you don't know if it's going to get worse. Then you wonder where the epicenter was and if it was worse than what you just felt.

A 6.8 that we had a few years back was terrifying.

I didn't feel yours though.

[Caligulette]

I was in the area for Loma Prieta. We had been heading for the Richmond/San Rafael bridge when it hit. Decided to just go home instead. Thank goodness, as it's another of the "double-decker" bridges.

[Qingdai]

I can't remember how big the "spring break quake" was here, but it did cause me to re-think my love of old brick buildings with painted shut windows.

[MonCapitan2002]

Just out of curiosity is the entire west coast up to Alaska prone to violent earthquakes or are the worst mostly confined to California and Nevada? For instance, is it possible that Seattle or Vancouver, B.C. could get hit with a nasty earthquake?

[Ensign Steve]

The whole west coast of the US, and Canada, and Alaska, and all of Southeast Asia (the Pacific Rim) are susceptible to quakes. They call it the "Ring of Fire." Australia, too, I think.

[Dingfod]

Alaska is definitely prone to earthquakes.

[Plant Woman]

We can and have had 9.0 earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest (none recently though). Alaska had a 9.2 in 1964 that killed 15 people. But the tsunami that was generated killed 113 and went as far down to Crescent City, California. We saw the damage not too long after when we went down to camp out. Had this happened in a high population area it would have been a lot worse.

[Qingdai]

Yay, we are always told to "expect the big one" which will be neat because much of the Willamette valley is clay and it going to shake like Jello.

Then the buildings will probably sink or something.

Neat as in, interesting geological phenomena with the potential for much destruction.

Hey, let's put a bridge over that clay and not invest in infrastructure! Or maintenance!
That won't bite us in the ass or anything will it?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

The whole west coast of the US, and Canada, and Alaska, and all of Southeast Asia (the Pacific Rim) are susceptible to quakes. They call it the "Ring of Fire." Australia, too, I think.

I don't think it includes Australia. The most recent volcanic activity in Australia was about 5000 years ago. New Zealand, on the other hand, is quite active.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

The whole west coast of the US, and Canada, and Alaska, and all of Southeast Asia (the Pacific Rim) are susceptible to quakes. They call it the "Ring of Fire." Australia, too, I think.

Nah, Australia's got really boring geology*. It's just a big chunk of really old rock that doesn't move much at all. Us Kiwis, on the other hand, are right on the Pacific plate boundary, just like you west coasters.


* Well, apart from all the opals, precambrian fossils, uranium and so on...

[fragment]

:shakeding: for crosspost.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by fragment

Nah, Australia's got really boring geology*. It's just a big chunk of really old rock that doesn't move much at all. Us Kiwis, on the other hand, are right on the Pacific plate boundary, just like you west coasters.


* Well, apart from all the opals, precambrian fossils, uranium and so on...

You forgot limestone.

[Deadlokd]

We had one back in 1989 at Newcastle that did some damage. Our biggest onshore quake was in WA back in 1941. It was a 7.2.

But they're rarities. Which is why the whole nation rallied around Newcastle after their quake.

This talk of quakes does remind me to ask this question. Why would you live in a city built on the San Andreas Fault especially when every expert is predicting a major event in the near future? I'm genuinely curious as to why a human would deliberately put themselves and their families in harms way like that. Do you not believe that the earthquake will happen? Is it a matter of favourable risk assessment? Do earthquake drills and survival tips give you the skills to survive?

I'm really curious.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by MonCapitan2002

Just out of curiosity is the entire west coast up to Alaska prone to violent earthquakes or are the worst mostly confined to California and Nevada? For instance, is it possible that Seattle or Vancouver, B.C. could get hit with a nasty earthquake?

Not only is the PNW prone to quakes, they are prone to quakes-with-tsunamis.

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

Why would you live in a city built on the San Andreas Fault especially when every expert is predicting a major event in the near future?

I have lived in Southern California (quakes and a whole fire season)

The foothills of the Rockies in Colorado (blizzards, tornadoes, hail the size of softballs, and again fires)

And Nevada (flash floods, and more fucking fire, plus possibility of quakes)

When I moved to the Gulf coast everyone (who live in the aforementioned disaster areas) was all "OMG the HURRICANES". Guess what, I can see a hurricane coming for like a week. I can get out of the way. Can't say that about tornadoes, quakes or wildfires can ya?

[Shelli]

Originally Posted by fragment

for crosspost.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

This talk of quakes does remind me to ask this question. Why would you live in a city built on the San Andreas Fault especially when every expert is predicting a major event in the near future? I'm genuinely curious as to why a human would deliberately put themselves and their families in harms way like that. Do you not believe that the earthquake will happen? Is it a matter of favourable risk assessment? Do earthquake drills and survival tips give you the skills to survive?

Because it's my home.

And "every expert is [not] predicting a major event in the near future". There is no "The Big One". There have been several "A Big One"s in my lifetime, and in my parents lifetimes. And people get hurt, and people die, and buildings and roads are damaged, and the majority of people survive and rebuild. That's called life on planet earth.

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

We had one back in 1989 at Newcastle that did some damage. Our biggest onshore quake was in WA back in 1941. It was a 7.2.

But they're rarities. Which is why the whole nation rallied around Newcastle after their quake.

This talk of quakes does remind me to ask this question. Why would you live in a city built on the San Andreas Fault especially when every expert is predicting a major event in the near future? I'm genuinely curious as to why a human would deliberately put themselves and their families in harms way like that. Do you not believe that the earthquake will happen? Is it a matter of favourable risk assessment? Do earthquake drills and survival tips give you the skills to survive?

I'm really curious.

Earthquake drills and tips do help, if you get the chance to use them. I have spent lots of time in doorways and under heavy tables.

As to why people would want to live on a faultline- well, I guess it's a question which could be applied to areas of Australia undergoing stage 4 water rationing as well. A lot of people are born there, or have jobs there, or think it's pretty.

There is no perfectly safe area on Earth. Some have more dramatic risks, but the time spent in actual earthquakes is relatively small compared to the time not spent in earthquakes.

[Sock Puppet]

ES and Caligulette pretty much nailed it. Just about any region on Earth has a native, potential natural disaster looming over it. People tend to downplay the significance of their own native disaster, since they're used to it, and be terrified of alien ones, since they're not. I grew up in earthquake country, so earthquakes don't faze me much at all. But I would be terrified of a tornado.

[fragment]

Deadlokd, it's like asking you why you live in a country chock full of venomous beasties.

[Ensign Steve]

Maybe a dingo ate your baby!

[Plant Woman]

I ain't afraid of no earthquakes and tsunamis.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

This talk of quakes does remind me to ask this question. Why would you live in a city built on the San Andreas Fault especially when every expert is predicting a major event in the near future?

The money's good?

[Deadlokd]

To me, the difference between living in a hurricane or cyclone area and an earthquake area is the warning time. I used to live in North Queensland and we'd have days of warning of an impending cyclone. With an earthquake you have what, minutes? I'm not going to argue about what the experts say because quite frankly I pulled that statement out of my arse, but it is known that the San Andreas fault is a nasty one.

With the drought in Australia now, that's unpredictable. If La Nina had done her thing we wouldn't have had seven years of drought. And our politicians really needed some foresight in water management but that's a different thread. My point is that any natural disasters in Australia either come with a lot of warning or procedures to lessen the impact of the disaster. With an earthquake though there's bugger all warning and you don't know how strong it's going to be until it's over. It's the same as living in a trailer in Tornado Alley.

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

The money's good?

That sounds like something I'd say.