Husband wants to move after coming across the "mega earthquake" article (contractors, money)

[carolochs]

Well-known and documented evidence and history isn't an issue you *agree, or not agree with*.
A decision to include or not include that evidence when you're writing an article that is designed for, and that you know people will look to and be influenced by, seems incomplete at best, negligent at worst, and then by default makes all other info they've included suspect.

But by all means......believe what you wish and whatever makes you feel safest.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by carolochs

Well-known and documented evidence and history isn't an issue you *agree, or not agree with*.
A decision to include or not include that evidence when you're writing an article that is designed for, and that you know people will look to and be influenced by, seems incomplete at best, negligent at worst, and then by default makes all other info they've included suspect.

But by all means......believe what you wish and whatever makes you feel safest.

You're...going to have to explain that point.

OR/WA have had less property damage and loss of life due to natural disaster than other parts of the country because there are many natural disasters we just don't see (hurricanes), others we experience infrequently (floods, tornadoes, blizzards), and because even back when we did have major events there just weren't that many people here to be killed, or property to be damaged.

If you're ordering based on past property damage, or lives lost to a wide range of natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, etc.) then OR/WA are going to look better because you've measured the past, regardless of future risk.

[carolochs]

Must be why the coastal town of Seaside OR, for example, finally moved/rebuilt it's schools out of the projected tsunami inundation zone. The low death rate of the past, right? Or could it possibly be they believe in and embrace the potential threat of the future?

You're right, the article's stated parameters DID NOT include threats of the past or future....just stats. And hopefully anyone reading or relying on the info provided in that article have the common sense to not rely on it solely, will look further than just that in their decision to choose a place to live.

If nothing else, and if they frequent places like this forum, at least this thread might give them a heads-up on more to research. Hard to find fault with people educating themselves beyond the limited parameters of an article such as that. And thankfully most people are more curious than that.....

[bler144]

Originally Posted by carolochs

Must be why the coastal town of Seaside OR, for example, finally moved/rebuilt it's schools out of the projected tsunami inundation zone. The low death rate of the past, right? Or could it possibly be they believe in and embrace the potential threat of the future?

You're right, the article's stated parameters DID NOT include threats of the past or future....just stats. And hopefully anyone reading or relying on the info provided in that article have the common sense to not rely on it solely, will look further than just that in their decision to choose a place to live.

If nothing else, and if they frequent places like this forum, at least this thread might give them a heads-up on more to research. Hard to find fault with people educating themselves beyond the limited parameters of an article such as that. And thankfully most people are more curious than that.....

So...you're agreeing with me?

[bler144]

Just for kicks, I went in and compiled 3 years of NOAA data (though I'd suspect anyone doing a study would use a longer window).

OR didn't come in last, though if I'd gone back 5 to include Hurricane Sandy it would have been closer to last, but here's the aggregate data [for 2013-2015 - should probably edit to per year but have to run]:

OR
18 Deaths
25 Injuries
36.01 PropDmg
0.1 CropDmg
36.11 TotalDmg

U.S. Median
16.5 Deaths
43 Injuries
102.775 PropDmg
1.48 CropDmg
119.9 TotalDmg

U.S. Mean
25.4 Deaths
140.66 Injuries
368.8292 PropDmg
143.6644 CropDmg
512.491 TotalDmg

[carolochs]

Is that your point, to have people AGREE with you?

Um, I'd rather people choose to move someplace knowing full-well the inherent risks. I'd hardly call OR "one of the safest places to live", and I'd not endorse an article or writers who pull up stats on their computer, write an article on-the-fly to meet a deadline, and try to pass it off as accurate, informative, complete, or reliable.

But I'm one of those weird birds who pursues the science data of issues like The Big One and the subsequent tsunami and take it seriously.

Many take comfort in "hoping for the best", or only worrying about things after they happen. Human nature, I guess. And as I said before....good luck with that.

[jjpop]

I think that after the mega earthquake and it's aftershocks Oregon will be one of the safest places to live because the 350-year clock will start over again

But seriously, I liken it to the area in Italy that was just devastated by the recent earthquake. Everyone must have thought that region of central Italy was immune from earthquake devastation... after all, some of those buildings were centuries old. Same issue here. With the exception of the Klamath Falls area and parts of the south coast, we don't have noticeable monthly, or quarterly, or annual, or even decadal earthquakes to remind us that we live in a seismically-active region. Complacency is the result. I wish we did get a few earthquakes a year to remind us (and our lawmakers in Salem and DC) that we need to be more proactive.

Professor Goldfinger at OSU is sounding a bell, and some of us are choosing to listen.

[carolochs]

Originally Posted by jjpop

I think that after the mega earthquake and it's aftershocks Oregon will be one of the safest places to live because the 350-year clock will start over again

Haha....I have thought the same thing! We may just wait till AFTER The Big One hits to move, and re-set that disaster expectancy clock! Property will be REALLY cheap then, too! As well as the population significantly thinned-out.

Originally Posted by jjpop

But seriously, I liken it to the area in Italy that was just devastated by the recent earthquake. Everyone must have thought that region of central Italy was immune from earthquake devastation... after all, some of those buildings were centuries old. Same issue here. With the exception of the Klamath Falls area and parts of the south coast, we don't have noticeable monthly, or quarterly, or annual, or even decadal earthquakes to remind us that we live in a seismically-active region. Complacency is the result. I wish we did get a few earthquakes a year to remind us (and our lawmakers in Salem and DC) that we need to be more proactive.

Professor Goldfinger at OSU is sounding a bell, and some of us are choosing to listen.

YES! Key word = "choosing" Goldfinger has been a major pioneer in his field, as are so many others. Problem is, ...and even THEY will say so, is getting people to listen and prepare!

For many, it's just so overwhelming to anticipate. And without reliable or pinpoint forewarnings, it all becomes so obscure - in 50 years? in 150 years? TONIGHT? Easier to write it off as "if it happens, it happens". Unfortunately, many are equating it with what they've seen happen in CA, and our earthquakes here (<-bad enough) are a whole helluva lotta different than what a subduction zone 9.0 or greater will do.

Books like:
Cascadia's Fault
The Orphan Tsunami of 1700
and
Full Rip 9.0

Honestly, I can't figure how any human being in range of the Cascadia subduction zone (and beyond) can read this compelling history, geology & science and not pay attention or feel launched into full-on preparation-mode. I could not put any of these books down - it was like an Agatha Christie mystery as the timeline of evidence unfolds and discoveries are made. And that's also the amazing part...how most this most important info was only really discovered in the last 30 years.

[carolochs]

It's super-easy to set yourself up with Google Alerts with whatever keywords you want, like "PNW earthquakes", "tsunami", "Cascadia subduction zone", "NOAA", "USGS", and names of significant scientists and paleo-seismologists in this field like "Christopher Goldfinger", "David Yamaguchi", and "Brian Atwater" (just to name a few), so when articles they write or contribute to come out, you'll get an up-to-date notice of it. Also, the "University of WA" and "Oregon State University" geology and seismology studies are coming out with some really interesting studies/papers that continue the advancement of research in the areas of the subduction zone and tsunami evidence. Another good one to tag is: "John Schelling at the Washington State Emergency Management Division" and whomever the director is for OR, for latest updates on funding and retro-fitting projects, updated emergency plans.

Christopher Goldfinger quote: "It doesn't have to be such a disaster. It's only a disaster if we don't do something."

[bler144]

Originally Posted by carolochs

Is that your point, to have people AGREE with you?

Um, I'd rather people choose to move someplace knowing full-well the inherent risks. I'd hardly call OR "one of the safest places to live", and I'd not endorse an article or writers who pull up stats on their computer, write an article on-the-fly to meet a deadline, and try to pass it off as accurate, informative, complete, or reliable.

But I'm one of those weird birds who pursues the science data of issues like The Big One and the subsequent tsunami and take it seriously.

I'm mostly wondering why you're approaching the issue this way, by making assumptions that the authors are "clueless" as you initially stated, or "wrote an on-the-fly-to-meet-a-deadline" article.

Might be true, might not.

The problem with what you're proposing and modeling off future risk is that it's insanely complicated. Sure, you can fairly easily adapt Oregon's historical data to include some risk of "The Big One" based on some assumptions about how big, or how likely, etc.

But what do you do for other parts of the country? The New Madrid fault is as big or bigger, and sits under vastly more people and property. Louisiana is sinking into the gulf. Another major hurricane could swamp FL or most of the Atlantic seaboard, yada yada. Relatively few states move up if you start modeling all the things that <could> happen. South Dakota, perhaps.

If your point is simply that historical data understates future risk because of the potential for a singular massive event, then sure, I totally agree with that.

But what you said was that the authors were clueless idiots without even digging into what they did or didn't look at. So again, I'm mostly wondering why you're inclined to insult and dismiss people who disagree with even specific points of what you seem to be suggesting.

"But by all means......believe what you wish and whatever makes you feel safest."