Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh. That's interesting. I'll have to look into that. I always assumed Seattle is very vulnerable.
How about Portland? Isn't Portland susceptible to a really devastating quake?
Portland, like Seattle would likely react to a great subduction quake (think Japan 2011), with some damage, but probably not devastating. The coast of Oregon is more vulnerable, as it is much more populated.
However, smaller quakes 6.0-7.0 are more likely inland, and both cities are vulnerable to these.
And if you read the article, it says the danger isn't in the extremes, but the more moderate heat and cold temps, when people aren't as alarmed. I guess places with moderate weather are now very dangerous? Strange study....not sure I buy into it yet.
Portland, like Seattle would likely react to a great subduction quake (think Japan 2011), with some damage, but probably not devastating. The coast of Oregon is more vulnerable, as it is much more populated.
However, smaller quakes 6.0-7.0 are more likely inland, and both cities are vulnerable to these.
I have visited Seattle, Vancouver BC and Victoria, and there was talk of this when visiting local venues. I didn't start these conversations, as it wasn't something that was on my mind. Since then, I've read numerous articles on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and I wonder if you're downplaying this a little. Some articles are quite descriptive of what one could expect, and it certainly sounds like Seattle could incur some fairly devastating damage. These articles were written by scientists, and published, so I'm not going to believe that none of them know what they're talking about. People can take the time to research this themselves, rather than take your word, or my word.
I think Japan 2011 is a good indicator. While we can't re-create this exactly, we can see some comparisons. Most of the damage there was along the immediate coast. A similar quake would likely (but not positively) effect the coastal areas more than inland. I will again say that this is not to say the inland areas would not suffer damage. But you are correct, nobody can make an exact conclusion, we just go by stats and history.
The northern half of the Upper Midwest states. If you draw a line halfway through Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and all of North Dakota you will be in an area that is often too far north to get a lot of tornado activity, very little earthquake risk, zero risk from tropical systems and a moderate risk for forest fires. The largest natural disasters in the history of this region are forest fires in the 1800s, however those were made much worse by over logging and left over deadfall burning quickly. This is still a wet part of America so forest fires in modern times have been controllable and rarely threaten towns and peoples lives in a large scale California kind of way. I can think of nowhere else that seems to be as safe as the far Upper Midwest, however if you consider extreme cold a natural disaster then it might not be for you. It does have a very brutal cold climate by US standards.
There is a misunderstanding about Seattle. The great subduction quake, which is in the window of happening, would most greatly effect the coast. Seattle is not on the coast. Not to say there would no damage, but it has been greatly exaggerated by many media sources including the NY Times, which was retracted. The Volcano issue is also very "overblown", excuse the pun, but even if Mt. Rainier erupted, (very unlikely in our lifetimes), it would not come close to damaging Seattle.
While it's true that parts of Seattle are mostly shielded from tsunami waves, in the event of a Cascadia Subduction Zone tsunami, the entire southern/southeastern coast of Elliott Bay is exposed to waves of up to 5 meters (~17 ft). This is also true of the extreme northerly coast of Elliott Bay. Luckily these are mostly industrial areas around the harbor, but there is still a degree of risk to some populated areas including parts of downtown.
Also there is risk of widespread damage from the quake itself. This is really the biggest threat the subduction zone poses to Seattle, more so than the tsunami. While most of downtown Seattle has buildings that are made to withstand the strongest of earthquakes, there are many older and historic homes and brick buildings that are not built to seismic code and haven't been retrofitted. And as I'm sure you know, there are other faults up there besides the subduction zone. The subduction zone is just the most notorious because it's offshore and capable of producing a tsunami.
Maybe it's because I'm from the Midwest, but neigher myself nor any other natives I've talked to have ever really been worried about tornados personally. They're an after thought to most people 99% of the time.
It's SO rare that one would ever impact you directly. I think an average point on earth in tornado alley gets hit by a tornado around once every 12,000 years.
Also even if one hits, at least it strikes a very specific area, and normally the other 95% of the city and all other surrounding towns are fully functional and can come to the rescue right away.
I would be way more worried about earthquakes or hurricanes. They strike points far more often than any tornadoes would, and devestate huge areas.
When people say "I would never live in the Midwest because I'm terrified about tornadoes" or "Is it safe to drive through Kansas in April, I'm worried about tornadoes" most people will just scrunch their face and go "..huh.....seriously?"
^To be fair though, it still could happen. I remember last year driving through some downright scary weather in Kansas City. The first time I actually saw a funnel cloud in real life was while I was driving on the freeway and it developed out of nowhere. You do sort of feel at its mercy if you do cross its path. I agree though that damage from tornadoes is highly localized for the most part and they are quite incapable of bringing entire cities to their knees the way a hurricane or earthquake or tsunami could.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
