6 ms·
As bad as it sounds for the coast, if/when the big one hits, a tsunami will be the least of the region's problems. That's because a magnitude 9 earthquake alon
by PhantomGremlin 7y ago
As bad as it sounds for the coast, if/when the big one hits, a tsunami will be the least of the region's problems.
That's because a magnitude 9 earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone is predicted to have effects well inland. E.g. most of Portland's bridges won't survive. The recently constructed Tilikum Crossing is up to modern earthquake standards, probably the new Sellwood Bridge, but the older bridges aren't. Those older bridges include all the interstate highway bridges.
How long can the Portland Metro area survive without electricity and without water and with much of the road infrastructure unusable because of damaged bridges?
A strong earthquake along the subduction zone can also affect the entire Washington Coast and Seattle. It could also affect Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia.
Does anyone believe that FEMA could cope with a disaster like that? I don't. If and when the big one hits, a lot of people will be in for a lot of hurt.
This is generally known in the area. E.g. my daughter learned about it in a high school geology class. The high risk area is "anything west of I-5". But, as the article points out, the politicians have opted for Gollum's "I'm not listening" attitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone
- xrd 7y agoI live in the Portland area and so I'm interested in the impact. A 8.0 earthquake just happened inland in Peru. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Peru_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Peru_earthquake 2 people died. From what I understand subduction zone earthquakes can be terrible, but it depends on the depth in the ocean at which they occur. If they are the right distance from shore and depth, devastating. But, further out and deep enough, they can often result in no tsunami. Does anyone know if that's supported by evidence? I also keep seeing the author's quote about a 1 in 3 chance within 50 years that the big one hits. But in other places I've seen it say 5%. I'm a little confused by that number and what's correct. It's scary either way. But, it does seem like the biggest death tolls occur where massive populations are spread near the coast, like in Indonesia.
- geoka9 7y agoThe scale is logarithmic (9.0 is ~32 times stronger than 8.0 in terms of energy release).
- Gibbon1 7y agoIn California is because our earthquakes come from strike/slip faults the largest earthquakes we can expect are around 8.0 like the 1906 earthquake. The Pacific Northwest has megathrust earthquakes that can reach 9.0 similar to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. That terrifies me because California isn't really prepared for what we're due. And the PNW is less prepared than California.
- iamtheworstdev 7y agoIt wouldn't be on FEMA at that point. You would have the nearest Carrier group and the Army/national guard moving in to provide support. And, as disappointing as this is to say, because you're an actual US state it would not be anything like how we treated Puerto Rico.