Earthquake insurance or not?

[andrew61987]

We live 30 miles from the San Andreas fault and we don't even have earthquake insurance. Our house received precisely $0 in damage during Loma Prieta which was a 6.9. In fact I don't know ANYBODY with a suburban house that was damaged during that quake beyond superficial cracks in the drywall or stucko. Perhaps homes here are built drastically different structurally than over there, but anything in the 2.x range is a joke and like has been said, is usually not even felt. Hell anything less than 5 is a joke.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by andrew61987

We live 30 miles from the San Andreas fault and we don't even have earthquake insurance. Our house received precisely $0 in damage during Loma Prieta which was a 6.9. In fact I don't know ANYBODY with a suburban house that was damaged during that quake beyond superficial cracks in the drywall or stucko. Perhaps homes here are built drastically different structurally than over there, but anything in the 2.x range is a joke and like has been said, is usually not even felt. Hell anything less than 5 is a joke.

If I remember right when we lived in So Ca it was either impossible to get earthquake insurance or the price was so out of line, we choose not to invest in it. We lived in Altadena during the 1971 earthquake. We did get some damage, but nothing that set us back thousands of $$s. Our neighbors lost their chimney.

Nita

[SwinerBock]

Not to be an alarmist or anything, but you cannot compare earthquakes in California with earthquakes in Arkansas (or anywhere east of the Rockies). Because of the nature of the earth's crust east of the Rockies, earthquakes can be felt for far greater distances here than they would in California.

Central Arkansas had a 4.5 (?) earlier this year. Not only was it felt throughout Arkansas, but also well into Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri (all the way up to St Louis), Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. I doubt a 4.5 on a fault in California would even register an hour's drive away. A substantial quake (7.0 range) on the New Madrid fault in NE Arkansas would most definitely cause some damage as far away as NW Arkansas.

That being said, it's a crap shoot. The last substantial quake in Arkansas was back around the early 1800's (rang church bells in Philadelphia). Some would say we are due, but odds are that it won't happen.

And yes, building codes are quite different here than they are in California. 3's have been causing some drywall cracking, plaster damage, etc, to a few homes in central Arkansas.

[DC at the Ridge]

I didn't feel the 4.? earthquake from Guy this year. I know some who think they felt it, in the way of a momentary jolt, but it caused very little damage. As for the New Madrid fault, the damage in Northwest Arkansas would probably be minimal. An earthquake on the New Madrid, like other faults, does not send its energy out in regular concentric circles. The geology and geography of the land has a lot to do with it, which is why folks in Tennessee and Ohio have more to be concerned about an earthquake on the New Madrid than people in Northwest Arkansas.

Google Image Result for http://www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/22/earthquakegroundmotionmap_2.jpg