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.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "America's Most Dangerous Fault" is actually a system of faults that makeup the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The common catchphrase today is to call these "Mega-thrust Faults." The last to occur in the Cascadia region was between a 8.8 and a 9.3 (it occurred in 1700.) When an earthquake occurs at a convergent plate boundary, the resulting motion has a serious vertical component, which displaces far more water than is typical in a transform (strike-slip) fault.
Due to it's location near population centers, a Cascadia 'mega-thrust' earthquake would be far more deadly then a similarly-sized Alaskan quake, and the threat from tsunami far out ways the threat from shaking. Many parts of the Pacific rim would be at serious risk of damage. The 'great' Cascadia earthquake of 1700 caused Tsunami's as far away Japan.
I think by most dangerous, the suggestion is not so much the magnitude, but the potential loss of life and property damage.
I mean, the damage from Katrina is around $100 Billion, but a rupture on the Hayward Fault is projected to be 10 times more costly. That's an insane prospect.
Widowmaker
Would the resulting tidal wave\ tsunami be worst for California or out in the Pacific [ie. Hawaii\ Alaska\ Japan]?
Well, to nitpick just a little, a tsunami is technically not a tidal wave. A tidal wave is, as per its name, related to normal tidal forces caused primarily by the pull of the moon's gravity on earth, while a tsunami is a non-standard wave that can be likened to ripples in a pond when you drop in a rock.
But, the tsunami could have grave effects on California as well as the Pacific at large. In the ensuing tsunami after the Good Friday Alaskan quake of 1964, 12 people were killed in Crescent City CA, and harbors as far as South Los Angeles saw damage. Southern California is partially protected by the natural curvature of the state's coastline, but with an earthquake on that scale, located so close, I think it's safe to say 'all bets are off'. Any coastal cities in Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Southern B.C. would see significant damage, on a par with what was experienced in the Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004. Undoubtedly, thousands would be killed.
While major cities in the Pacific Northwest are inland (at least not in the open ocean), they would likely not suffer from massive tsunamis, but would be effected by the shaking itself, which could last in excess of five minutes. Most buildings are not designed to withstand a magnitude 9 earthquake, even here in earthquake country, and thus hundreds could be killed from the initial quake itself.
I'm much more concerned about the potential for a major earthquake to hit Seattle at some point in the not-so-distant future. Is that city really prepared for "The Big One?"
I have a question about the fault lines in California: since many millions of people live in this region, and the loss of life would be catastrophic when the "big one" happens, why don't you hear anything about people moving to safer areas? Are all these millions of people just gambling that nothing will happen in their lifetime?
I have a question about the fault lines in California: since many millions of people live in this region, and the loss of life would be catastrophic when the "big one" happens, why don't you hear anything about people moving to safer areas? Are all these millions of people just gambling that nothing will happen in their lifetime?
Where are people going to move? Where are they going to work? That is a lot easier said than done. The vast majority of the nation lives under the threat of natural disasters. The entire east coast and gulf coast are prone to hurricanes. NYC is well overdue for a Cat 3 hurricane that could heavily damage the region. Midwest has tornadoes and severe weather. An F5 through the heart of Dallas would be catastrophic. Floods occur anywhere. You can't just move millions of people away like that, it's just not remotely feasible.
I have a question about the fault lines in California: since many millions of people live in this region, and the loss of life would be catastrophic when the "big one" happens, why don't you hear anything about people moving to safer areas? Are all these millions of people just gambling that nothing will happen in their lifetime?
It's a lot to bank on chance. We don't know when it will come or how strong it will be. When it does, we might be in a vulnerable spot or we might not. You're not going to die while walking down the street. A candlestick might fall off a high shelf and impale you, but that's not going to happen to us all.
Seattle has a HUGE fault lying right beneath downtown that was only recently discovered. It is long overdue for a major quake.
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.
