Earthquake Prone Areas (home, university, living in)

[Nivalis]

Do you live in an earthquake prone area? If so, does the threat of earthquakes mean anything to you? If not, would you mind living in one?

I really would like to move to the Puget Sound area, but the threat of earthquakes has the potential of being a deal breaker. I'll have to sort out my priorities and get different perspectives before I make a decision. However, I assume that being in a 7.0 earthquake in parts of Seattle would have less of an effect on the number and severity of casualties than a 7.0 in Memphis because of the architecture and sense of awareness.

[415_810]

Los Angeles
SF Bay Area
St. Louis and Memphis
Alaska

Those are the ones I know to be prone to a major earthquake. I live in the Bay Area and we are overdue for a catastrophic earthquake. One will happen within the next 30 years or so. It's chiling to think about, but I want to be here when it happens..this is my home.

[Smtchll]

I've heard recently that the New Madrid Fault, (the one near Memphis) may be shutting down. I hope so

[happ]

Originally Posted by 415_810

Los Angeles
SF Bay Area
St. Louis and Memphis
Alaska

Those are the ones I know to be prone to a major earthquake. I live in the Bay Area and we are overdue for a catastrophic earthquake. One will happen within the next 30 years or so. It's chiling to think about, but I want to be here when it happens..this is my home.

Sadly, you are right but like you, I want to be home when the "Big One" hits [good or bad

[Widowmaker2k]

Originally Posted by Smtchll

I've heard recently that the New Madrid Fault, (the one near Memphis) may be shutting down. I hope so

The New Madrid Seismic Zone is actually a failed rift that formed some 750 million years ago as Rodinia broke up. 200 million years ago, rifting began again as the Atlantic Ocean was rapidly forming, but failed that time as well. It remains as an area of severe continental weakness. To say that it's shutting down could very well be correct, but I think you have to examine that phrase with the perspective of a geologic timescale. 'Shutting down' most likely means that activity will peter out over a period of millions of years, with several 'big ones' still likely before it completely stops. No matter what happens though, the crust is relatively thin there, and there is a fault system already in place, so as the tectonic plates re-arrange themselves relative to each other, it's not out of the question that the New Madrid Seismic Zone will re-activate itself (as it has done in the past) to absorb tensions within the North American plate, should they develop.

Back on point, I live in California, and as there is not any part of California that is seismically inactive, I do live in a potential earthquake area (though the maximum likely magnitude here is in the fives). You are correct to assume that building codes and architectural standards are much more earthquake-friendly in Seattle than they are in Memphis. However, as Seattle lies on the the coast of the Pacific Northwest, it is near the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a major oceanic-continental tectonic boundary (a so called 'megathrust fault') that can produce seismic events in excess of 9.0 (on the moment magnitude scale) as well as devastating tsunamis. Buildings are generally not designed to stand shaking of that magnitude, even on the West Coast. The statistical probability of a devastating earthquake in any given year is extremely low, but the potential does always exist, and it is estimated that 'great earthquakes' (those with magnitudes of ~9.0) occur along the Cascadia Subduction Zone every 300-600 years, with the last striking in the year 1700 (the year can be precisely known because Japan received an 'orphan tsunami' in 1700).

[backdrifter]

These are some interesting articles. It looks like even a smaller earthquake back east would be way more devastating than a similarly sized one out west. When the New York City earthquake hits it will be reallllly bad.

Central U.S. Warned of Larger Earthquakes to Come | LiveScience

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2235

[SikCense]

I live in Indiana and I have been in two, one in near Evansville during the early part of this decade, and another I dont know where but I was living in Indy and I still felt it.

[miamiman]

Western Arizona, around Yuma, and the Seattle area are prone to pretty large earthquakes, as well.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by SikCense

I live in Indiana and I have been in two, one in near Evansville during the early part of this decade, and another I dont know where but I was living in Indy and I still felt it.

There was one last year, centered in Illinois, close to Vincennes. It struck in the in pre-dawn hours and was felt up here in Indy.

Magnitude 5.4 - ILLINOIS

[Nivalis]

Originally Posted by backdrifter

These are some interesting articles. It looks like even a smaller earthquake back east would be way more devastating than a similarly sized one out west. When the New York City earthquake hits it will be reallllly bad.

Central U.S. Warned of Larger Earthquakes to Come | LiveScience

Earthquakes May Endanger New York More Than Thought, Says Study - The Earth Institute at Columbia University

I didn't even know about the risk for earthquakes in South Carolina until recently. I found out about the risk in New York and Montreal through your links! I guess that finding a place with architecture built for earthquakes is more important than finding a place that isn't earthquake prone.