13 ms·

San Andreas fault 'ready' with big earthquake, expert says

159 points by smaili 10y ago

tristanj 10y ago
I wish people would take the California earthquake situation more seriously. We've had decades of warning yet are still minimally prepared for disaster. The sad thing is, the only way we'll see real change is after a major earthquake where thousands of people are killed/injured. Then people will fight/sue/vote for change. It's just like in the city I live in, where we have multiple known-to-be unsafe traffic intersections. Only after there's a serious accident and someone sues the traffic lights get built. It's unfortunate that even today, the cost of change is priced in human lives.
- Retric 10y ago
  If you compare similar earthquakes California might see 1,000 deaths to a quake which would kill 100,000 people in less prepared areas. IMO, they simply hit diminishing returns where an extra million can save more lives dealing with other problems.
- dvdcxn 10y ago
  Humanity as a collective is comparable to cockroaches. Purely reactive to their environment, completely oblivious to the information that could make it proactive.
- maaku 10y ago
  What action have you taken to have a new traffic light installed?
- masterleep 10y ago
  Given that seismic upgrades have been underway for decades, I'm not sure what you mean by "minimally prepared."
  - tristanj 10y ago
    The rules apply to all new construction, yes. But there are thousands of unsafe buildings built in the 60s and 70s that are grandfathered into the seismic safety rules. Some cities have made an effort to retrofit these buildings (Napa and Los Angeles come to mind) but there isn't a state driven effort to do so.
- MrMullen 10y ago
  Which California are you in? My part, Southern California, we take it very seriously and so does the local government. There are earthquake drills, the building codes reflect the environment and CalTrans has reinforced the freeways over the last 20 years. Will Southern California come out unscath in a large earthquake? No, but our death and injury rate will be lower than similar quakes in other parts of the world.
- dasil003 10y ago
  I'd be more concerned about Seattle.
  - vvanders 10y ago
    Yup, throw in Rainier there for good measure and you've got yourself a proper natural disaster.
    - xyience 10y ago
      There's also long been talk about a big earthquake due in central Utah. Really there are so many "big ones" due it'd be thematically disappointing if they didn't all happen at once and then set off Yellowstone as a finale. But in the real world, it's scary thinking about how many people will die and how poorly it will be handled. Anything that could cripple a large part of the US has worldwide ramifications, too. Living in the Seattle area the best I can hope for is that I'm individually prepared enough and will have the fortitude to help others around me as best I can.
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  When I lived in Vancouver in the 80s, they had earthquake drills because scientists said "It was too long, we're due for a Big One!" Everyone took them seriously. 30 years later, no significant earthquake, and earthquake drills are nothing but a distant memory. I think humans are really terrible judges of what "long overdue" means, especially related to geological events. Yes, at some point there will be an earthquake. Yes, some people will die. But overreacting and worrying about it when humans have no ability to predict it is worse. The best way is just do what we have been doing, which is increase building standards, have once-a-year drills, and stop trying to predict when disaster is going to strike, because humans can't.
  - knz 10y ago
    Having basic supplies on hand is just as important as building standards and drills. As I mentioned in another comment my family and friends lived through the Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 that destroyed much of the largest city on the South Island. Water, food, and shelter were all important concerns especially during the first 48 hours in some parts of the city. Even if help arrives quickly it can take several days for basic services to be restored.
- athenot 10y ago
  Here in the South-East, the same thing happens with hurricanes every time there are a handful of consecutive years with no major storm. Then a large one hits and everyone gets surprised. If this happens with hurricanes, I can only imagine how the perception of saftety/danger gets skewed with earthquakes—which occur way less frequently than hurricanes.
- kilroy123 10y ago
  To be fair, we act this way about _all_ disasters.
- nradov 10y ago
  One of the biggest risks is older "soft story" apartment buildings which tend to collapse in earthquakes. Some Bay Area city governments are aggressively working to retrofit them. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/housing/softstory/ http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/housing/softstory/
jefurii 10y ago
Time to check/update the earthquake supplies again...
- deftnerd 10y ago
  If this article is right and there is a risk of a large earthquake that will release a century of pressure buildup, it might be good to keep a week or two worth of supplies, including a bucket with attachable toilet seat lid, bag of saw dust, and a shovel to bury the waste. If you're in a home, you might want to make sure that your supplies are more easily accessible from the perimeter of your structure in case enough damage is done that your home is not able to be entered. Ideally, a backyard shed or storage box would be the best place to store your supplies. If that's not available, in a garage near the rolling door or by a back door of the house. If as much damage occurs to water and waste water infrastructure as they fear, and if your home becomes inaccessible, it might be prudent to make sure that you also have several changes of clothes and a pair of boots in your kit. Basically, pretend that you're preparing for a week-long camping trip in the middle of nowhere and pack accordingly. Tent, sleeping bag, clothing, supplies, small solar panel to charge a phone, etc. It'll take a lot more space but it will make the (potential) experience a lot more tolerable.
matheweis 10y ago
The incredible thing is that the cascadia subduction zone is also locked, and past the average interval for moving. How unfortunate would it be if the entire west coast unlocked at the same time?
- deskamess 10y ago
  Have there been any studies done on how one may affect/trigger the other?
  - mjevans 10y ago
    What type of study are you proposing exactly? The best data we have at the moment would be records of geologic events that have a strong correlation to earth quakes and seeing how they line up between the two different areas. My gut tells me to expect, usually not co-incidence, but as they are part of the same larger system, possible co-incidence (and likely at a much more catastrophic level when something THAT LARGE does happen).
    - deskamess 10y ago
      Not knowledgeable enough about quakes to propose a study. As you and a sibling comment have stated I was just wondering if the 'they are geographically close enough and could affect each other' intuition may have merit.
  - jballanc 10y ago
    I believe the fact that seismic events can trigger other seismic events along the same fault system is well known. What is still up for debate is how soon, how far away, and how large. I've heard it said that the only way you can tell if an earthquake is a fore-shock or the main event is to wait. For example, I've always loved this visualization of the seismic events leading up to the major Japanese earthquake of 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSBjEvPH2j4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSBjEvPH2j4 . See if you can identify the main quake when it happens. I bet you're wrong!
  - cossatot 10y ago
wrsh07 10y ago
Earthquakes are serious. But we're no good at predicting when they'll happen: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-still-cant-predict-earthquakes/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-still-cant-predict-ea... This means there is elevated risk, but we can't say much more than that.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
There's this idea of simulating earthquakes with explosions (possibly nuclear subterranean) in order to relieve plate movement. This should be causing mild earthquakes as opposed to catastrophical ones. Should be tested somewhere, tho.
- stouset 10y ago
  The numbers don't work out because the scale is logarithmic, and no serious seismologists appear to recommend such a thing. To avert a magnitude 8 earthquake every 100 years, you'd roughly need a magnitude 6 every year, or a magnitude 5 every three and a half days.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    I wonder how many would advocate trying to have a /planned/ earthquake each 100 years? Surely one planned in advance which everyone is prepared for is better than the unknown.
    - brooklyndavs 10y ago
      If the infrastructure is up to the task and it would actually be doable (say release fault pressure with a magnitude 5 earthquake every 3 years via some sort of method) it might not be such a bad idea. Way easier to build for a planned magnitude 5.x quake every few years vs a 7 or 8 at unknown time intervals. Heck it could even be fun. Make it a holiday, tell people the time its going to happen and let them ride it out. Personally, I'd be at a bar. :)
      - stouset 10y ago
        Reread my comment. A magnitude 5 every 3.5 days, not years. And that's assuming 100% efficiency at converting the energy of a centennial 8.0.
    - deftnerd 10y ago
      The general concept of prescribed forest fires has been considered good forestry practice for a long time now. As for the actual method, nuclear bombs every few years for a large magnitude doesn't seem like it's mild enough. We've seen that fracking often has the side effect of causing faults to get lubricated and slip more easily causing earthquakes. Maybe research into the ideal chemical cocktail to most effectively lubricate and hook up injection stations along the length of the fault line, when there aren't aquifers in the nearby vicinity. Bonus for some kind of lubricant that degrades into non carcinogenic materials. You wouldn't want to just start pumping fault lubricant into the system while it's so full of energy, but after the next "big" earthquake you could have a window where the pumping would trigger small size 3 or 4 earthquakes similar to aftershocks in perpetuity.
Sarkie 10y ago
I thought "The Rock" had already sorted this?
- kdamken 10y ago
  Right? So long as he's in the area and has access to a helicopter I think everything will be fine.
  - sxates 10y ago
    Only if you're in his family - he doesn't seem to care much about helping anyone else.
masklinn 10y ago
On the bright side, this will probably simplify and unlock the current urban planning issues.
- knz 10y ago
  Good luck with that. My family lived through the Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 (and the 12,000+ aftershocks). Most of the CBD has been cleared and rebuilding is underway but there was/is a huge political fight over what the rebuild will look like. I can only imagine how difficult that process would be in the context of the US political landscape.
myegorov 10y ago
I wonder how many here realize that the only social contract (between building engineers and the rest of us in North America) is that for the absolute majority of buildings (> 99.9% of building stock) under the scenario known as the maximum considered earthquake a building shall not collapse. Meaning that any damage beyond repair or any failure of structurally non-critical components that can possibly entail lives lost is acceptable.
- codingdave 10y ago
  Do you disagree with that approach? I live about 3 miles from a large fault line, and am OK with it - my concern is that my family does not get crushed when/if the predicted big earthquake hits. As long as that is true, I do accept that I will have a lot of repair work to do, and will lose some objects. I am not going to live my life pouring money into preserving material goods, or preserving all of my home, when I can spend that same money rebuilding, when/if that day comes.
  - myegorov 10y ago
    Consider if the recovery might be thwarted by airports unable to accept arriving crews, hospitals and shelters without power and water, the fallout from a high tech hub taken out of operations for months etc. There's also the conundrum that -- because there's no metric in place to differentiate between structures that would perform vastly differently under a seismic event -- there's no rational way to estimate the damage. You may be at once overpaying and overvaluing your earthquake insurance. Your insurance has no way of reliably estimating its risks, which undermines its solvency, which unwittingly reduces its worth to the consumer. One might not be in a position to rebuild. The issue is that our society at present does not single out life-critical operations and provide for them accordingly. The cost-benefit analysis has not been done.
dmix 10y ago
Relevant article about the Cascadia subduction zone which is arguably a much bigger threat: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-... with 612 points w/ 275 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160 Although, I don't wish to downplay the risks of the San Andreas faultline. It seems the west-coast should be investing a hell of a lot of money in preparation for this stuff. British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon included. If I lived in a high risk area I would invest in a 'go' bag, a mountain bike, and a plan to get to high ground as quickly as possible. You'll have about 15 minutes after the earthquake before the wave hits. Cars will be useless in the traffic. The hardest part will be ignoring the initial destruction and focusing on getting out of the area.
- athenot 10y ago
  More information about the 'go' bag can be found at the Homeland Security's site ready.org https://www.ready.gov/earthquakes https://www.ready.gov/earthquakes
  - evanmoran 10y ago
    Checklist for go bag for those interested: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1390846764394-dc08e309debe561d866b05ac84daf1ee/checklist_2014.pdf https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1390846764394-dc08e3...
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      That's more of a list of things to have in the house. For instance, 3 gallons of water isn't something you put in a go bag.
      - dhimes 10y ago
        Yeah if you are going to "go" in your car it's ok. May not be practical if you are downtown when it hits, though.
shostack 10y ago
As someone who lives near the fault in Redwood City and has an older single story wood frame ranch,Mehta are my best options for protecting my asset and life? Is earthquake insurance worth it? What about retrofitting for earthquakes? I've read some pretty scary stuff that even retrofits done with permits don't have much consistency between them and no guarantees. Not even sure how to find a reputable retrofit contractor because I'm not sure how to judge the quality of their work since we haven't had a big one recently. What should my priorities be for solving for all of this?
- dan_quixote 10y ago
  The best guide I've managed to find was by Simpson Strongtie. They manufacture loads of structural bracketry used in building construction and seismic retofits. As far as I could tell, the most important components are to make sure your sill plates are firmly attached to the foundation (with big washers on the bolts going through the sill plates or the Simpson UFP or some other plate), shear walls, and post caps. I talked to a Simpson field engineer (they actually answer the phone) that essentially confirmed this. http://www.strongtie.com/resources/literature/seismic-retrofit-guide http://www.strongtie.com/resources/literature/seismic-retrof...
  - shostack 10y ago
    This is super helpful, thanks for sharing. Do you know how to go about finding a qualified person to install this stuff? I really don't know how to judge their work or what questions to ask a contractor beyond asking if they install the things you mentioned above.
    - dan_quixote 10y ago
      No, sorry. I started down that path, got frustrated, and eventually just did it myself.
- nradov 10y ago
  Earthquake insurance is probably a waste for most homeowners because the deductible is so high. You would probably be better off putting that money into structural renovation to make the house better able to handle an earthquake. Make sure the frame is properly anchored to the foundation. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/residents/planset/ http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/residents/planset/
xkcd-sucks 10y ago
Maybe a massive earthquake and subsequent reconstruction could be an opportunity to fix the Bay Area's housing situation

159 points by smaili 10y ago

I wish people would take the California earthquake situation more seriously. We've had decades of warning yet are still minimally prepared for disaster. The sad thing is, the only way we'll see real change is after a major earthquake where thousands of people are killed/injured. Then people will fight/sue/vote for change. It's just like in the city I live in, where we have multiple known-to-be unsafe traffic intersections. Only after there's a serious accident and someone sues the traffic lights get built. It's unfortunate that even today, the cost of change is priced in human lives.

Retric 10y ago
If you compare similar earthquakes California might see 1,000 deaths to a quake which would kill 100,000 people in less prepared areas. IMO, they simply hit diminishing returns where an extra million can save more lives dealing with other problems.
dvdcxn 10y ago
Humanity as a collective is comparable to cockroaches. Purely reactive to their environment, completely oblivious to the information that could make it proactive.
maaku 10y ago
What action have you taken to have a new traffic light installed?
masterleep 10y ago
Given that seismic upgrades have been underway for decades, I'm not sure what you mean by "minimally prepared."
- tristanj 10y ago
  The rules apply to all new construction, yes. But there are thousands of unsafe buildings built in the 60s and 70s that are grandfathered into the seismic safety rules. Some cities have made an effort to retrofit these buildings (Napa and Los Angeles come to mind) but there isn't a state driven effort to do so.
MrMullen 10y ago
Which California are you in? My part, Southern California, we take it very seriously and so does the local government. There are earthquake drills, the building codes reflect the environment and CalTrans has reinforced the freeways over the last 20 years. Will Southern California come out unscath in a large earthquake? No, but our death and injury rate will be lower than similar quakes in other parts of the world.
dasil003 10y ago
I'd be more concerned about Seattle.
- vvanders 10y ago
  Yup, throw in Rainier there for good measure and you've got yourself a proper natural disaster.
  - xyience 10y ago
    There's also long been talk about a big earthquake due in central Utah. Really there are so many "big ones" due it'd be thematically disappointing if they didn't all happen at once and then set off Yellowstone as a finale. But in the real world, it's scary thinking about how many people will die and how poorly it will be handled. Anything that could cripple a large part of the US has worldwide ramifications, too. Living in the Seattle area the best I can hope for is that I'm individually prepared enough and will have the fortitude to help others around me as best I can.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
When I lived in Vancouver in the 80s, they had earthquake drills because scientists said "It was too long, we're due for a Big One!" Everyone took them seriously. 30 years later, no significant earthquake, and earthquake drills are nothing but a distant memory. I think humans are really terrible judges of what "long overdue" means, especially related to geological events. Yes, at some point there will be an earthquake. Yes, some people will die. But overreacting and worrying about it when humans have no ability to predict it is worse. The best way is just do what we have been doing, which is increase building standards, have once-a-year drills, and stop trying to predict when disaster is going to strike, because humans can't.
- knz 10y ago
  Having basic supplies on hand is just as important as building standards and drills. As I mentioned in another comment my family and friends lived through the Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 that destroyed much of the largest city on the South Island. Water, food, and shelter were all important concerns especially during the first 48 hours in some parts of the city. Even if help arrives quickly it can take several days for basic services to be restored.
athenot 10y ago
Here in the South-East, the same thing happens with hurricanes every time there are a handful of consecutive years with no major storm. Then a large one hits and everyone gets surprised. If this happens with hurricanes, I can only imagine how the perception of saftety/danger gets skewed with earthquakes—which occur way less frequently than hurricanes.
kilroy123 10y ago
To be fair, we act this way about _all_ disasters.
nradov 10y ago
One of the biggest risks is older "soft story" apartment buildings which tend to collapse in earthquakes. Some Bay Area city governments are aggressively working to retrofit them. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/housing/softstory/ http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/housing/softstory/

jefurii 10y ago

Time to check/update the earthquake supplies again...

deftnerd 10y ago
If this article is right and there is a risk of a large earthquake that will release a century of pressure buildup, it might be good to keep a week or two worth of supplies, including a bucket with attachable toilet seat lid, bag of saw dust, and a shovel to bury the waste. If you're in a home, you might want to make sure that your supplies are more easily accessible from the perimeter of your structure in case enough damage is done that your home is not able to be entered. Ideally, a backyard shed or storage box would be the best place to store your supplies. If that's not available, in a garage near the rolling door or by a back door of the house. If as much damage occurs to water and waste water infrastructure as they fear, and if your home becomes inaccessible, it might be prudent to make sure that you also have several changes of clothes and a pair of boots in your kit. Basically, pretend that you're preparing for a week-long camping trip in the middle of nowhere and pack accordingly. Tent, sleeping bag, clothing, supplies, small solar panel to charge a phone, etc. It'll take a lot more space but it will make the (potential) experience a lot more tolerable.

matheweis 10y ago

The incredible thing is that the cascadia subduction zone is also locked, and past the average interval for moving. How unfortunate would it be if the entire west coast unlocked at the same time?

deskamess 10y ago
Have there been any studies done on how one may affect/trigger the other?
- mjevans 10y ago
  What type of study are you proposing exactly? The best data we have at the moment would be records of geologic events that have a strong correlation to earth quakes and seeing how they line up between the two different areas. My gut tells me to expect, usually not co-incidence, but as they are part of the same larger system, possible co-incidence (and likely at a much more catastrophic level when something THAT LARGE does happen).
  - deskamess 10y ago
    Not knowledgeable enough about quakes to propose a study. As you and a sibling comment have stated I was just wondering if the 'they are geographically close enough and could affect each other' intuition may have merit.
- jballanc 10y ago
  I believe the fact that seismic events can trigger other seismic events along the same fault system is well known. What is still up for debate is how soon, how far away, and how large. I've heard it said that the only way you can tell if an earthquake is a fore-shock or the main event is to wait. For example, I've always loved this visualization of the seismic events leading up to the major Japanese earthquake of 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSBjEvPH2j4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSBjEvPH2j4 . See if you can identify the main quake when it happens. I bet you're wrong!
- cossatot 10y ago

wrsh07 10y ago

Earthquakes are serious. But we're no good at predicting when they'll happen: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-still-cant-predict-earthquakes/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-still-cant-predict-ea... This means there is elevated risk, but we can't say much more than that.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

There's this idea of simulating earthquakes with explosions (possibly nuclear subterranean) in order to relieve plate movement. This should be causing mild earthquakes as opposed to catastrophical ones. Should be tested somewhere, tho.

stouset 10y ago
The numbers don't work out because the scale is logarithmic, and no serious seismologists appear to recommend such a thing. To avert a magnitude 8 earthquake every 100 years, you'd roughly need a magnitude 6 every year, or a magnitude 5 every three and a half days.
- mjevans 10y ago
  I wonder how many would advocate trying to have a /planned/ earthquake each 100 years? Surely one planned in advance which everyone is prepared for is better than the unknown.
  - brooklyndavs 10y ago
    If the infrastructure is up to the task and it would actually be doable (say release fault pressure with a magnitude 5 earthquake every 3 years via some sort of method) it might not be such a bad idea. Way easier to build for a planned magnitude 5.x quake every few years vs a 7 or 8 at unknown time intervals. Heck it could even be fun. Make it a holiday, tell people the time its going to happen and let them ride it out. Personally, I'd be at a bar. :)
    - stouset 10y ago
      Reread my comment. A magnitude 5 every 3.5 days, not years. And that's assuming 100% efficiency at converting the energy of a centennial 8.0.
  - deftnerd 10y ago
    The general concept of prescribed forest fires has been considered good forestry practice for a long time now. As for the actual method, nuclear bombs every few years for a large magnitude doesn't seem like it's mild enough. We've seen that fracking often has the side effect of causing faults to get lubricated and slip more easily causing earthquakes. Maybe research into the ideal chemical cocktail to most effectively lubricate and hook up injection stations along the length of the fault line, when there aren't aquifers in the nearby vicinity. Bonus for some kind of lubricant that degrades into non carcinogenic materials. You wouldn't want to just start pumping fault lubricant into the system while it's so full of energy, but after the next "big" earthquake you could have a window where the pumping would trigger small size 3 or 4 earthquakes similar to aftershocks in perpetuity.

Sarkie 10y ago

I thought "The Rock" had already sorted this?

kdamken 10y ago
Right? So long as he's in the area and has access to a helicopter I think everything will be fine.
- sxates 10y ago
  Only if you're in his family - he doesn't seem to care much about helping anyone else.

masklinn 10y ago

On the bright side, this will probably simplify and unlock the current urban planning issues.

knz 10y ago
Good luck with that. My family lived through the Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 (and the 12,000+ aftershocks). Most of the CBD has been cleared and rebuilding is underway but there was/is a huge political fight over what the rebuild will look like. I can only imagine how difficult that process would be in the context of the US political landscape.

myegorov 10y ago

I wonder how many here realize that the only social contract (between building engineers and the rest of us in North America) is that for the absolute majority of buildings (> 99.9% of building stock) under the scenario known as the maximum considered earthquake a building shall not collapse. Meaning that any damage beyond repair or any failure of structurally non-critical components that can possibly entail lives lost is acceptable.

codingdave 10y ago
Do you disagree with that approach? I live about 3 miles from a large fault line, and am OK with it - my concern is that my family does not get crushed when/if the predicted big earthquake hits. As long as that is true, I do accept that I will have a lot of repair work to do, and will lose some objects. I am not going to live my life pouring money into preserving material goods, or preserving all of my home, when I can spend that same money rebuilding, when/if that day comes.
- myegorov 10y ago
  Consider if the recovery might be thwarted by airports unable to accept arriving crews, hospitals and shelters without power and water, the fallout from a high tech hub taken out of operations for months etc. There's also the conundrum that -- because there's no metric in place to differentiate between structures that would perform vastly differently under a seismic event -- there's no rational way to estimate the damage. You may be at once overpaying and overvaluing your earthquake insurance. Your insurance has no way of reliably estimating its risks, which undermines its solvency, which unwittingly reduces its worth to the consumer. One might not be in a position to rebuild. The issue is that our society at present does not single out life-critical operations and provide for them accordingly. The cost-benefit analysis has not been done.

dmix 10y ago

Relevant article about the Cascadia subduction zone which is arguably a much bigger threat: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-... with 612 points w/ 275 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160 Although, I don't wish to downplay the risks of the San Andreas faultline. It seems the west-coast should be investing a hell of a lot of money in preparation for this stuff. British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon included. If I lived in a high risk area I would invest in a 'go' bag, a mountain bike, and a plan to get to high ground as quickly as possible. You'll have about 15 minutes after the earthquake before the wave hits. Cars will be useless in the traffic. The hardest part will be ignoring the initial destruction and focusing on getting out of the area.

athenot 10y ago
More information about the 'go' bag can be found at the Homeland Security's site ready.org https://www.ready.gov/earthquakes https://www.ready.gov/earthquakes
- evanmoran 10y ago
  Checklist for go bag for those interested: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1390846764394-dc08e309debe561d866b05ac84daf1ee/checklist_2014.pdf https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1390846764394-dc08e3...
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    That's more of a list of things to have in the house. For instance, 3 gallons of water isn't something you put in a go bag.
    - dhimes 10y ago
      Yeah if you are going to "go" in your car it's ok. May not be practical if you are downtown when it hits, though.

shostack 10y ago

As someone who lives near the fault in Redwood City and has an older single story wood frame ranch,Mehta are my best options for protecting my asset and life? Is earthquake insurance worth it? What about retrofitting for earthquakes? I've read some pretty scary stuff that even retrofits done with permits don't have much consistency between them and no guarantees. Not even sure how to find a reputable retrofit contractor because I'm not sure how to judge the quality of their work since we haven't had a big one recently. What should my priorities be for solving for all of this?

dan_quixote 10y ago
The best guide I've managed to find was by Simpson Strongtie. They manufacture loads of structural bracketry used in building construction and seismic retofits. As far as I could tell, the most important components are to make sure your sill plates are firmly attached to the foundation (with big washers on the bolts going through the sill plates or the Simpson UFP or some other plate), shear walls, and post caps. I talked to a Simpson field engineer (they actually answer the phone) that essentially confirmed this. http://www.strongtie.com/resources/literature/seismic-retrofit-guide http://www.strongtie.com/resources/literature/seismic-retrof...
- shostack 10y ago
  This is super helpful, thanks for sharing. Do you know how to go about finding a qualified person to install this stuff? I really don't know how to judge their work or what questions to ask a contractor beyond asking if they install the things you mentioned above.
  - dan_quixote 10y ago
    No, sorry. I started down that path, got frustrated, and eventually just did it myself.
nradov 10y ago
Earthquake insurance is probably a waste for most homeowners because the deductible is so high. You would probably be better off putting that money into structural renovation to make the house better able to handle an earthquake. Make sure the frame is properly anchored to the foundation. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/residents/planset/ http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/residents/planset/

xkcd-sucks 10y ago

Maybe a massive earthquake and subsequent reconstruction could be an opportunity to fix the Bay Area's housing situation