3 ms·
I mean, things aren't really that different from when the Loma Prieta hit. Most of the people who died in that earthquake were on the bridge when it happened. I
by brian-armstrong 8y ago
I mean, things aren't really that different from when the Loma Prieta hit. Most of the people who died in that earthquake were on the bridge when it happened. It caused a lot of property damage and injuries but not many fatalities.
- godot 8y agoThat was a magnitude 6.9 earthquake. For context, it has been speculated (source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big... ) that the next "really big one" could be in the range of 9.0. > If the entire zone gives way at once, an event that seismologists call a full-margin rupture, the magnitude will be somewhere between 8.7 and 9.2. That’s the very big one. I'm not well-versed in earthquakes, but from what I know the Richter magnitude is logarithmic in scale, I can't really even imagine in my head what a 9.0 quake is like. I'm glad OP / someone is asking these questions, I often wonder about this myself, being a tech worker in San Francisco.
- icodestuff 8y agoThis is for the PNW. The Bay Area is south of that. We won't be hit by one that big. "The big one" here will be an 8, not a 9.
- brian-armstrong 8y agoThere are geological reasons (stiffness of dirt I think) that a big one near the California coast isn't likely to be that significant. The next earthquake will probably be another Loma Prieta. The ground just isn't very likely to transmit the energy far from the epicenter. Also it's the Hayward fault that's likely to go next.