Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday July 14 2015, @01:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the have-a-packed-suitcase-handy dept.

For your apocalyptic pleasure, the New Yorker runs as story on "the next big one" Earthquake - the one which will happen in the 700 miles long Cascadia subduction zone:

Every fault line has an upper limit to its potency, determined by its length and width, and by how far it can slip. For the San Andreas, one of the most extensively studied and best understood fault lines in the world, that upper limit is roughly an 8.2—a powerful earthquake, but, because the Richter scale is logarithmic, only six per cent as strong as the 2011 event in Japan.

In fact, the science is robust, and one of the chief scientists behind it is Chris Goldfinger. Thanks to work done by him and his colleagues, we now know that the odds of the big Cascadia earthquake happening in the next fifty years are roughly one in three. The odds of the very big one are roughly one in ten. Even those numbers do not fully reflect the danger—or, more to the point, how unprepared the Pacific Northwest is to face it. The truly worrisome figures in this story are these: Thirty years ago, no one knew that the Cascadia subduction zone had ever produced a major earthquake. Forty-five years ago, no one even knew it existed.

...Thanks to that work, we now know that the Pacific Northwest has experienced forty-one subduction-zone earthquakes in the past ten thousand years. If you divide ten thousand by forty-one, you get two hundred and forty-three, which is Cascadia’s recurrence interval: the average amount of time that elapses between earthquakes. That timespan is dangerous both because it is too long—long enough for us to unwittingly build an entire civilization on top of our continent’s worst fault line—and because it is not long enough. Counting from the earthquake of 1700, we are now three hundred and fifteen years into a two-hundred-and-forty-three-year cycle.

In regards with preparedness: the TL/DR version is "pants down and properly bent"

...estimates that seventy-five per cent of all structures in the state are not designed to withstand a major Cascadia quake. FEMA calculates that, across the region, something on the order of a million buildings—more than three thousand of them schools—will collapse or be compromised in the earthquake. So will half of all highway bridges, fifteen of the seventeen bridges spanning Portland’s two rivers, and two-thirds of railways and airports; also, one-third of all fire stations, half of all police stations, and two-thirds of all hospitals.

...Fifteen per cent of Seattle is built on liquefiable land, including seventeen day-care centers and the homes of some thirty-four thousand five hundred people. So is Oregon’s critical energy-infrastructure hub, a six-mile stretch of Portland through which flows ninety per cent of the state’s liquid fuel and which houses everything from electrical substations to natural-gas terminals.

...For the seventy-one thousand people who live in Cascadia’s inundation zone, that will mean evacuating in the narrow window after one disaster ends and before another begins. ... Depending on location, they will have between ten and thirty minutes to get out. That time line does not allow for finding a flashlight, tending to an earthquake injury, hesitating amid the ruins of a home, searching for loved ones, or being a Good Samaritan. “When that tsunami is coming, you run,” Jay Wilson, the chair of the Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC), says. “You protect yourself, you don’t turn around, you don’t go back to save anybody. You run for your life.”

So... if you live in Seattle, better move to Chicago?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2015, @02:27PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 14 2015, @02:27PM (#208899) Journal

    Seems to me (as someone having only a passing familiarity with the science involved) another question is whether such a quake could destabilize the Yellowstone supervolcano. If I understand correctly, a significant seismic event in its vicinity could have at least some effect on it, but I don't have a clue how close "its vicinity" is, or what kinds of (un)certainty we have about that kind of chain reaction.

    The Yellowstone area experiences frequent fairly large earthquakes. For example, the 1959 Hebgen Lake earthquake [wikipedia.org] was Richter magnitude 7.3-7.5. That happened about 30 miles away from the western edge of the last caldera eruption and perhaps 50-70 miles away from the two primary areas of current magma activity. Even more powerful earthquakes are thought to be possible on the fault at the base of the Grand Tetons to the south of the Yellowstone hotspot which would be a bit further away. Meanwhile a western coast earthquake would probably be 700 miles away at the closest with the intervening land greatly fractured by faulting. IMHO that would absorb most of the shaking energy and deformation from the earthquake (despite it being up to two orders of magnitude greater than a nearby earthquake) and it would be substantially weaker than a nearby earthquake. In any case, the caldera area has probably experienced thousands to tens of thousands of major earthquakes since the last caldera eruption 640k years ago.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by danaris on Wednesday July 22 2015, @12:01PM

    by danaris (3853) on Wednesday July 22 2015, @12:01PM (#212272)

    Thanks, that's quite informative. (And sorry for taking a week to respond; I don't yet have a regular schedule set up for SoylentNews the way I did for Slashdot...)

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 23 2015, @01:16AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 23 2015, @01:16AM (#212535) Journal
      You're welcome. I will say though that if you're worried about volcanoes, Mount Rainier is a more serious danger since it is showing some degree of internal volcanic activity and any lahar coming off of it would quickly end up in the Seattle-Tacoma area.