4 ms·

I remember in early 2001, reading an article in the NYTimes or Seattle Times about the quake risk in Seattle, showing an easterly view of downtown from Puget So

by rconti 6y ago

I remember in early 2001, reading an article in the NYTimes or Seattle Times about the quake risk in Seattle, showing an easterly view of downtown from Puget Sound. In it, a line was drawn, showing a fault line, just about 4 blocks south of the Kingdome/Safeco Field area, along with the usual panic about how bad an earthquake could be in the region. This article and that image flashed through my mind when not more than a few weeks later, I found myself sitting on the 4th and uppermost floor of a 100+ year old brick building, precisely where that fault line was drawn, as the floor started bouncing, then swaying, then the ceiling lamps were swinging back and forth so violently that they were hitting the ceiling on either side, and interior brick walls started to give way. I worked in that building for another year and a half after that February 2001 6.8 magnitude Nisqually Quake[1], and every time a truck bounced down the potholes of 1st Avenue South, and the office floor bounced, my palms would sweat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Nisqually_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Nisqually_earthquake

bombcar 6y ago
California gets hit with earthquakes quite often, and so has been made more resilient. When a big one hits Seattle or the Midwest is when you’ll see untold damage. Just compare bridge pillars in various parts of the country.
- shkkmo 6y ago
  When the "big one" hits the pacific NW, bridge design is not going to save significant areas from complete destruction. I am talking about the Cascadian Subduction Zone letting go which happens every 200 to 1200 years (41 times in the last 10000 years). The last time this happened, in 1700, there was a 9.0 earthquake, a 100 foot tsunami and the coastline dropped several feet. There is about a ~10% chance this will happen again in the next 50 years. If it does, large areas will be completely unprepared and a very large number of people will die.
  - geocrasher 6y ago
    Not to mention that a very large number of homes in Western Washington are at least 80 years old. The house I live in was built in 1919. It's wood construction and has been gutted/remodeled, but it's also been added onto at least once and has no real foundation, but I think it might be a pier and beam type. An earthquake of large size, 7.0+ will probably cause major damage. For reference, I live near Chehalis, WA.
    - cvdub 6y ago
      Post and pier foundations aren't ideal for earthquakes. In general though, wood performs better than masonry as a quake resistant building material because it can flex.
      - geocrasher 6y ago
        That is quite true. Unfortunately, most of the communities here still have a large number of brick buildings since they were founded at least 100 years ago, if not much longer.
- ac29 6y ago
  The pacific northwest gets hit by earthquakes quite often too: https://pnsn.org/ https://pnsn.org/
- rconti 6y ago
  Funny thing is, I moved to the bay area shortly after the Nisqually quake, and still haven't been in a "real" quake. I guess the closest was the Napa quake which was a 6.0 and ~80 miles away from my house on the peninsula. My home was built in 1947 so I'm sort of living under the "it's lasted this long.." premise w/r/t construction. Couple other quakes happened since I moved here, but I was out of town for one reason or another. I even was in eastern France when they got hit by an extremely rare earthquake in ~2004.
casefields 6y ago
I was right on top of the Northridge quake which was a 6.7 magnitude but more interesting is the horizontal acceleration: Nisqually: .3g Northridge: 1.82g At the time we were told to head for the door frames which was like trying to run in a bounce house.
goodcanadian 6y ago
My wife was a student working at the Geological Survey of Canada on the 13th(I think?) floor of a building in down town Vancouver. She tells me that the building got swaying pretty good and the geologists were running around cheering "geology in action" and such. There was a memo on the following Monday about appropriate behaviour in an emergency. :-) (For myself, best I can figure, I was on a bus and didn't notice a thing.)

by rconti 6y ago

bombcar 6y ago

California gets hit with earthquakes quite often, and so has been made more resilient. When a big one hits Seattle or the Midwest is when you’ll see untold damage. Just compare bridge pillars in various parts of the country.

shkkmo 6y ago
When the "big one" hits the pacific NW, bridge design is not going to save significant areas from complete destruction. I am talking about the Cascadian Subduction Zone letting go which happens every 200 to 1200 years (41 times in the last 10000 years). The last time this happened, in 1700, there was a 9.0 earthquake, a 100 foot tsunami and the coastline dropped several feet. There is about a ~10% chance this will happen again in the next 50 years. If it does, large areas will be completely unprepared and a very large number of people will die.
- geocrasher 6y ago
  Not to mention that a very large number of homes in Western Washington are at least 80 years old. The house I live in was built in 1919. It's wood construction and has been gutted/remodeled, but it's also been added onto at least once and has no real foundation, but I think it might be a pier and beam type. An earthquake of large size, 7.0+ will probably cause major damage. For reference, I live near Chehalis, WA.
  - cvdub 6y ago
    Post and pier foundations aren't ideal for earthquakes. In general though, wood performs better than masonry as a quake resistant building material because it can flex.
    - geocrasher 6y ago
      That is quite true. Unfortunately, most of the communities here still have a large number of brick buildings since they were founded at least 100 years ago, if not much longer.
ac29 6y ago
The pacific northwest gets hit by earthquakes quite often too: https://pnsn.org/ https://pnsn.org/
rconti 6y ago
Funny thing is, I moved to the bay area shortly after the Nisqually quake, and still haven't been in a "real" quake. I guess the closest was the Napa quake which was a 6.0 and ~80 miles away from my house on the peninsula. My home was built in 1947 so I'm sort of living under the "it's lasted this long.." premise w/r/t construction. Couple other quakes happened since I moved here, but I was out of town for one reason or another. I even was in eastern France when they got hit by an extremely rare earthquake in ~2004.

casefields 6y ago

I was right on top of the Northridge quake which was a 6.7 magnitude but more interesting is the horizontal acceleration: Nisqually: .3g Northridge: 1.82g At the time we were told to head for the door frames which was like trying to run in a bounce house.

goodcanadian 6y ago

My wife was a student working at the Geological Survey of Canada on the 13th(I think?) floor of a building in down town Vancouver. She tells me that the building got swaying pretty good and the geologists were running around cheering "geology in action" and such. There was a memo on the following Monday about appropriate behaviour in an emergency. :-) (For myself, best I can figure, I was on a bus and didn't notice a thing.)