POLL: Do You Feel as if Seattle is Adequately Prepared to Handle "The Big One?"

[509]

Originally Posted by ColoWeb

I do not think that most people or even the state gov is ready to handle and respond to massive earthquake, if one was to happen. I spoke to a few people about it and I got the feeling that they thought I was crazy.

I made the same example that Hurricanes/tornados will have at least some sort of a warning. Earthquakes, on the other hand, have no sufficient warring. Earthquakes also tend to effect more people.

Actually, the state of Washington is probably fairly well prepared. They are well intergrated into the Federal Emergency response system primarily through their Department of Natural Resources. Most parts of eastern Washington have fairly effective emergency response organizations.

Unfortunately, the city of Seattle was brought to its knees with just three weeks of minor snowfall. Garbage was not picked up for the entire period of time. Emergency vehicles could not make it to hospitals. Buses quit running. The streets were a mess. The solution according to the "Green" Seattle city council was for residents to buy 4-wd SUV's.

As in New Orleans without an effective local government to lead the emergency response there is not much the federal government can do.

A major earthquake in Seattle will be a disaster that will be further compounded by ineffective and just plan stupid city government.

Homeland Security recommends being self-sufficient for three days. In Seattle, as recent experience shows that you need to be self-sufficient for at least a month.

[victorianpunk]

Well, I'm moving to Seattle this November, and it is a concern. Not a crippling concern, but a concern none the less. As long as I have a sound house I should be okay. Trust me, if I am unlucky enough to be on the Alaskan viaduct when the quake hits, than it's just my time.

Still, look at it this way: Seattle has Earthquakes all the time, and the ground is pretty fractured and there are enforced earthquake codes: What about a city that has an Earthquake every one-thousand years and no earthquake codes and everything is made out of brick...a city like NEW YORK! Large Earthquake Could Strike New York City | LiveScience

A magnitude 5 in Seattle would be bad, but not the Apocalypse...in NYC, with about half the buildings made out of brick with no reinforcements and all those L-trains and a populace who have no idea it can happen...it would be very, VERY bad.

In Seattle, some older houses are not reinforced...in NYC, the Brooklyn Bridge and half the TWENTY STORY BUILDINGS are unreinforced...

An Earthquake can happen anywhere. At least in Seattle, you get a heads up and people expect it. Hey, if the Japanese go on with life and manage just fine with earthquakes a part of their civilization, why can't we?

Disaster strikes, things change, and then you go on.

One of my favorite songs, VNV Nation's "Solitary" has a great line: "And if rain brings winds of change, let it rain on us forever" Disaters happens, but so does the human spirit.

[509]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Well, I'm moving to Seattle this November, and it is a concern. Not a crippling concern, but a concern none the less. As long as I have a sound house I should be okay. Trust me, if I am unlucky enough to be on the Alaskan viaduct when the quake hits, than it's just my time.

An Earthquake can happen anywhere. At least in Seattle, you get a heads up and people expect it. Hey, if the Japanese go on with life and manage just fine with earthquakes a part of their civilization, why can't we?

Every area has risks and hazards. You just need to be prepared.

The earthquake in Seattle will be bad, but if the quake is a 7.0 or greater it will be the aftermath that will be hell. Think it through before it happens. Establish your communication net. Do you want to stay in place or leave, ETC. and you will be fine if it happens.

The Japanese do fine because they do not have the Mayor and City Council that runs Seattle. They have grown-ups running their governments.

[goldengrain]

The Japanese manage because they have been exposed to these things for so long that they have learned to build safer buildings.

Seattle's soil around the waterways is considered among the most dangerous.

Here is an excerpt from the US Geological Survey and others concerning soil classification and seismic activity:

"If an earthquake is strong enough and close enough to cause damage, the damage will usually be more severe on soft soils."
Soil Type and Shaking Hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area

"''Many moist soils, especially those rich in clay, lose their cohesion completely in an earthquake and are transformed from a solid state to a churning liquid. In this form, a building can actually capsize. "
Sand and Clay Prove Treacherous Accomplices of Earthquakes - The New York Times

Here is a map of areas of soil liquifaction in Seattle:
Department of Planning & Development - DPD GIS

Re: Critical area for possible soil liquefaction - Seattle - Redfin Real Estate Forums
this is just a real estate forum, but - a person who identifies as a geologist made the following comment:
"Saturated soils are only part of the issue. The second component is when an earthquake occurs when the soils are saturated, the strength of the soil is reduced and it behaves similar to quicksand. If there is not an adequate foundation the home will sink."

[waltlantz]

The Japanese also have a great warning system in the Kishocho or Metoroligical Agency who delivers warnings to the NHK (Japan's ver of BBC) showing right before quakes will occur.

[crayonofpink]

To me earthquakes in Seattle aren't a big deal most of the time. We had a big one in 1949 but the tea set still had most of the pieces unbroken, I just sent it to my aunt last week for her granddaughter. My house was built in 1948 and no problems from any quakes yet and it is brick. The 65 quake damaged a few little things like the walls at school and a few chimneys. Nothing where I lived was hurt at all, the ones since 65 haven't been memerable to me. One of them I was on the phone with my mom and she asked if I was having an earth quake, I was and she was but we didn't get off the phone or talk about it, my aquarium water was wiggling but didn't break or spill. I was in LA for the Feb 71 quake and the swimming pool lost some water, one hospital fell 9 people died. I moved to a building with aftershocks that kept breaking walls but nothing really bad happened.

I worry more about the volcanoes than a quake. When Mt Rainier goes we won't have enough roads out of town to get everyone out. I would love to buy a home in the shadow of Mt Rainier but it is too risky.

[pw72]

Originally Posted by 509

Every area has risks and hazards. You just need to be prepared.

The earthquake in Seattle will be bad, but if the quake is a 7.0 or greater it will be the aftermath that will be hell. Think it through before it happens. Establish your communication net. Do you want to stay in place or leave, ETC. and you will be fine if it happens.

The Japanese do fine because they do not have the Mayor and City Council that runs Seattle. They have grown-ups running their governments.

The earthquake of Feb. 2001 was close to a 7.0, I think it was originally classified as a 7.1, then downgraded to a 6.9. The point is, while it did cause some significant damage, I don't believe there were any fatalities. (Somebody correct me if I am wrong). So "hell" is not quite the right word to describe that 7.0, even though its location was closer to Olympia.

The problem obviously would be much different if a 7.5 or 8.5 subduction quake occurs off the WA coast. And the real scary part, is major coastal subductional quakes occur every 300-500 years in this region. The last one...1700.

[JDTD]

Seattle couldn't even handle a snow storm. What do you think?

[green_mariner]

In addition to earthquakes, the West Coast also has the threat of a tsunami. Seattle can take an earthquake. The last earthquake that occured, well, Seattle handled it relatively well considering the night before there were riots during Mardi Gras. If New Orleans had riots one night and then an earthquake the next day, it would cripple the city. Seattle got things done. Seattle can handle the big one. Yes, there will be some hard times, but Seattle can handle it. It is a tsunami that people should be concerned about. An earthquake, well, you wait it out and rebuild. No evacuation possible or necessary. A tsunami, well, that is scarier than a hurricane and less predictable. Those on the coasts won't have enough time to flee and the destruction will probably be much worse than an earthquake.