U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-22-2008, 12:23 AM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,547 posts, read 17,543,470 times
Reputation: 16771

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Everyone who lives here is quite aware of what could happen, but its something in the back of peoples minds most of the time. I rarely think about quakes but the news was so frightening it got me thinking.
I moved out of Riverside ca around two months or so ago but was there when the small quake hit. It did the usual jerk and roll, then KEPT on ROLLING. It didn't do much damage, but was a really good wakeup call. Lots of people must have shared the feeling, when it didn't stop, of wondering if this was the Big One.

I doubt most people have done anything since.

Quakes are just there in your mind sitting waiting to be thought of, usually when the emergency services people are doing drills or when the earth shakes. But I think since Katrina people know that when it comes, they will be on their own. That makes the quake less scary because what comes after takes a lot longer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2008, 11:50 AM
 
Location: yeah
5,716 posts, read 14,571,047 times
Reputation: 2829
Everyone knows it's coming. It's not something with which you preoccupy yourself, though. I think living through '89 has desensitized many people, even though a quake on the Hayward fault is supposed to greatly eclipse Loma Prieta. It will also be much, much closer to the areas that were most impacted then. Those details, I think, fall by the wayside.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 11:59 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,470 posts, read 25,413,703 times
Reputation: 8936
Whenever I hear stories like this I kind of worry about my family and friends in the Bay Area. Most of them live east of the Caldecott Tunnel so they aren't in the most high risk areas but still...... Being so far away it worries me that I probably won't be able to contact them for a little while after a big quake hits. Even though the periodic wildfires in San Diego suck, I am glad we don't really have to worry about a big quake here as we are pretty far from the San Andreas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,354 posts, read 55,157,123 times
Reputation: 15428
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Whenever I hear stories like this I kind of worry about my family and friends in the Bay Area. Most of them live east of the Caldecott Tunnel so they aren't in the most high risk areas but still...... Being so far away it worries me that I probably won't be able to contact them for a little while after a big quake hits. Even though the periodic wildfires in San Diego suck, I am glad we don't really have to worry about a big quake here as we are pretty far from the San Andreas.
Communication would definitely be a major problem at first. But I think your family is okay in Walnut Creek but there is the Calaveras Fault out there but there was a 6.2 there in 1989 and a 5.6 last year so there isnt as much pent up tension.


more maps of the hayward fault





Here's a timeline of Bay Area Earthquakes...



Here are all the known faultlines that run through The Bay Area.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Flat_eq_map_anotated.png/800px-Flat_eq_map_anotated.png (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 12:38 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,470 posts, read 25,413,703 times
Reputation: 8936
^That timeline picture of the quakes is really interesting and kind of frightening too. I wonder what is with all of those sizable quakes between 1850 - 1900, there seems to a be ton of quakes between 5.0 and 6.5. I really hope the Bay Area doesn't get into a similar pattern like that in the future.

It's been almost 15 years since Northridge and 19 years since the Loma Prieta and people might have become a little forgetful. I completely forgot the anniversary of the LP quake was just a few days ago. Did they talk about it on the news up there at all? I still get chills when I see old footage from that disaster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 05:37 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 10,068,314 times
Reputation: 1836
Hey, we live with earthquakes and volcanoes up here, too. They don't sit at the forefront of every day life, and like any other natural disaster, if Mother Nature decides to take a hand, it's fate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 05:38 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 10,068,314 times
Reputation: 1836
And in answer to the question posed - America's most dangerous fault?


Complacency, like my attitude toward the next big one here in Alaska!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 07:49 PM
 
Location: NYC
190 posts, read 830,595 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaPhil View Post
And in answer to the question posed - America's most dangerous fault?


Complacency, like my attitude toward the next big one here in Alaska!
Talk about dangerous you guys got it good. Here in NY we are in for some trouble. Last year scientist had just found a fault under the state of new york that they never knew existed. They said that the shallower the fault the more dangerous it can be. A scale 2 in california would be nothing but with the fault we have a scale 2 could be damaging. Plus our infrastructure is not made to withstand earthquakes even though we had earthquakes for years not as much as california and not as bad. ours was do by now. We are suppose to have a scale from 5 up to 7 by now but it hasnt happened and it could happen any time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Rural Northern California
1,019 posts, read 2,484,493 times
Reputation: 824
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.

Edit: BBC Documentary "
The Next Megaquake" on Youtube.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 08:59 PM
 
Location: los angeles
5,031 posts, read 11,308,660 times
Reputation: 1490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Widowmaker2k View Post
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.

Edit: BBC Documentary "
The Next Megaquake" on Youtube.
18Montclair
Thanks for introducing this fascinating discussion though I must admit to feeling a little uncomfortable contemplating a massive earthquake in the Bay Area

Widowmaker
Would the resulting tidal wave\ tsunami be worst for California or out in the Pacific [ie. Hawaii\ Alaska\ Japan]?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top