2 ms·
"The fault is at least 150 miles from Seattle proper," Looking at my geological units map of Washington, Seattle is surrounded by a lot of faults, much like pa
by lightedman 3y ago
"The fault is at least 150 miles from Seattle proper,"
Looking at my geological units map of Washington, Seattle is surrounded by a lot of faults, much like parts of Southern California. Some of those much, MUCH closer than 150 miles, and devastating if they go. I can see one going from Port Angeles, crossing the 101, and going into Port Gamble. It likely continues to run either directly under Seattle or just south of it, in fact that might be the continuation of that reverse thrust fault dead south of Seattle which is shown in the map for the story article. If that one goes, Seattle's not having a good time.
- 01100011 3y agoAs I understand it, the entire region is on a flat(well, tilted), planar fault because of the way the crust subducts. So you can have earthquakes anywhere in the western PNW from that. But remember, the bay area is also home to many, many faults, and we don't even know the locations of them all. For instance, the next big bay area quake is likely to come from the Hayward Fault in the E. Bay.
- jandrewrogers 3y agoThe Seattle fault is a significantly bigger threat to Seattle than the Cascadia Subduction Zone and it doesn’t get nearly as much attention. Parts of the city’s shorelines could subside up to 10-20 feet, and the tsunamis are substantial.