> Estimates vary but a 1 in 4 chance in the next 50 years of a cascadia event is not a ridiculous estimate. I won't ridicule it. It's a good example. But I'd f

> Estimates vary but a 1 in 4 chance in the next 50 years of a cascadia event is not a ridiculous estimate. I won't ridicule it. It's a good example. But I'd follow up immediately with a non-rhetorical question of whether or not this is a risk too low to act on, or one too expensive to act on. If things are as bad as you say, then the only action that might truly be reasonable to mitigate it would be to just move far away. But that's also one of the most expensive actions to take... not to mention the crazy sunk cost fallacy holding over the tops of everyone's heads that will only ever get worse. Certainly spending an extra $200,000 building a new house (on top of whatever the general cost of building new), so that if you happen to be home and not at the strip mall or work or anywhere else, you only have a slightly better chance of surviving uninjured seems a little absurd. Probably better off to just take the hit to your career and the kids' school performance and move to the midwest at that point. The threshold for many of these people is just set to a different point than yours. They have some understanding of the risk, but think that they merely have to endure that risk and hope to remain lucky.