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.
Coos Bay and North Bend have lots of natural beauty- its a great area with some historic buildings. Its quite isolated and that stopped me from moving there for summers. I finally decided on SW Washington an hour and 10 min away from Portland. Skamokawa. Both great places -not too touristy and not too expensive.
That is definitely just a personal opinion, quite a bit short of fact. Just google "Cascadia Subduction Zone" and you'll find tons of links to professional papers and scientific opinion that detail the hazards and potential scenarios involving a large LOCAL earthquake and resultant tsunami and the hazards to roads, bridges, houses, utilities, etc.
You can, after reading the accumulated info, decide that you are willing to gamble on the timing of a large event, but please at least look through the info and make the decision on your own. I am actually at the coast, in Yachats, about 25' above sea level at the moment. While I know there is a serious risk of a massive tsunami, I also know that the odds of it happening the 10 days I am here are not high. I do have a "go bag" in the truck, I know the tsunami route, I keep my wallet and my laptop in a bag by the door at night.
But visiting the coast for a set period and deciding to live inside the tsunami zone are two different things.
Most posts on here are sensible. As I posted sometime last year, there was a warning recently and chaos ensued. I think the Oregon Coast is very vulnerable, only because there is about 5X the population of the Washington Coast. (That has a lot to do with geography, as the Oregon Coast is much more popular than their neighbors to the north).
I lived in Newport for a short time in 2005. I would not ever move back due to this potential hazard. That said, I understand most Oregon Coast residents are willing to choose risk over possible loss. That's fine. Just not me.
Again, the best scientific predictions show that the PNW coast is overdue for a mega-thrust quake. As I posted earlier, these happen every 300-500 years. Last one 1700. You can do the math.
Most posts on here are sensible. As I posted sometime last year, there was a warning recently and chaos ensued. I think the Oregon Coast is very vulnerable, only because there is about 5X the population of the Washington Coast. (That has a lot to do with geography, as the Oregon Coast is much more popular than their neighbors to the north).
I lived in Newport for a short time in 2005. I would not ever move back due to this potential hazard. That said, I understand most Oregon Coast residents are willing to choose risk over possible loss. That's fine. Just not me.
Again, the best scientific predictions show that the PNW coast is overdue for a mega-thrust quake. As I posted earlier, these happen every 300-500 years. Last one 1700. You can do the math.
Hi, I didn't disagree with you at all. I've been saying the same thing in past threads. This isn't the first thread that I've disagreed with Cloudy Dayz about the idea of a 9.0 quake on the Cascadia Fault. So, no need for me to post all of my previous sources again since I've done it before.
When I agree with a poster, if I can't rep someone again so soon I sometimes try to say something positive. That's what I did with the gal I responded to. You I was able to rep. I do what I can. But there is no need for me to tell every poster I agree with that they are sensible too.
The following is for those that don't know much about this subject, and may be curious about it. We do live in a volatile area. The heat from the friction of the offshore plates is generating the lava for the lava pool that feeds the volcanoes. God forbid if Mt Rainier wakes up. The lahars from it will be the real killer as the river valleys they came down in the past to the sound have been built up with homes, and businesses. The USGS has a great page on the Rainier lahars. That is my source for that bit.
One of the YT videos I posted in the past was about the Ghost Forest found on the coast. The land next to the coast rises a number of feet over time as pressure builds up, and when the big quake goes off the land sinks suddenly a number of feet, and the seawater rushes in, and kills the trees. The remains of that forest are still found from the last time this happened, ghostly white.
People most likely don't know how close the Cascadia Fault actually is off the coast. The Japanese Tsunami traveling over 500 mph took less than one day to travel across the ocean giving people more time to react, and get out of the way. With the Cascadia Fault it will take mere minutes to get to the coast here. Consider downed bridges, landslides, impassable roads, and damaged homes to escape from, then finding your way to high ground, maybe at night with no lights because of the quake. Perhaps with children, elderly, pets, or the injured. They will most likely have to leave while on foot, not car as the roads may be damaged, and impassable. Remember that you only have 30 mins max from when the quake starts to when the first of the tsunami waves gets there. There will be a number of waves. Japan, Indonesia, and Chile are some of our examples of the same type of quake with tsunami that we can get.
"As the estimated time of the tsunami waves to reach the coast is 30 minutes after the earthquake, the community should go to the vertical or horizontal evacuation in less than 30 minutes."
The link below says 15 to 20 mins.
Anyway, I'm always glad to see when people speak of the reality of that type of quake. The most quake prepared nation on earth, Japan, was devastated by a subduction zone quake like the one that has happened before off of our coast. The Cascadia runs from BC down to northern California. It hits more often in the southern portion. We are not prepared like Japan was. Not even close. If they were devastated, what will happen to us? Peace.
Hi, I didn't disagree with you at all. I've been saying the same thing in past threads. This isn't the first thread that I've disagreed with Cloudy Dayz about the idea of a 9.0 quake on the Cascadia Fault. So, no need for me to post all of my previous sources again since I've done it before.
When I agree with a poster, if I can't rep someone again so soon I sometimes try to say something positive. That's what I did with the gal I responded to. You I was able to rep. I do what I can. But there is no need for me to tell every poster I agree with that they are sensible too.
The following is for those that don't know much about this subject, and may be curious about it. We do live in a volatile area. The heat from the friction of the offshore plates is generating the lava for the lava pool that feeds the volcanoes. God forbid if Mt Rainier wakes up. The lahars from it will be the real killer as the river valleys they came down in the past to the sound have been built up with homes, and businesses. The USGS has a great page on the Rainier lahars. That is my source for that bit.
One of the YT videos I posted in the past was about the Ghost Forest found on the coast. The land next to the coast rises a number of feet over time as pressure builds up, and when the big quake goes off the land sinks suddenly a number of feet, and the seawater rushes in, and kills the trees. The remains of that forest are still found from the last time this happened, ghostly white.
People most likely don't know how close the Cascadia Fault actually is off the coast. The Japanese Tsunami traveling over 500 mph took less than one day to travel across the ocean giving people more time to react, and get out of the way. With the Cascadia Fault it will take mere minutes to get to the coast here. Consider downed bridges, landslides, impassable roads, and damaged homes to escape from, then finding your way to high ground, maybe at night with no lights because of the quake. Perhaps with children, elderly, pets, or the injured. They will most likely have to leave while on foot, not car as the roads may be damaged, and impassable. Remember that you only have 30 mins max from when the quake starts to when the first of the tsunami waves gets there. There will be a number of waves. Japan, Indonesia, and Chile are some of our examples of the same type of quake with tsunami that we can get.
"As the estimated time of the tsunami waves to reach the coast is 30 minutes after the earthquake, the community should go to the vertical or horizontal evacuation in less than 30 minutes."
The link below says 15 to 20 mins.
Anyway, I'm always glad to see when people speak of the reality of that type of quake. The most quake prepared nation on earth, Japan, was devastated by a subduction zone quake like the one that has happened before off of our coast. The Cascadia runs from BC down to northern California. It hits more often in the southern portion. We are not prepared like Japan was. Not even close. If they were devastated, what will happen to us? Peace.
Yes, and thank you for recognizing others posts here. The most fascinating thing about all this is how some are willing to live with the risk, and others not. I would guess most understand the risk, but choose to live there anyway. Perhaps somewhat fatalistic, or perhaps somewhat prepared, who knows. There may be a population that doesn't even know the risk. An interesting psychological makeup of perhaps different attitudes comparing risk to reward. This is something that can't really be measured, or controlled. We all have to make decisions based on our values, our willing to risk, etc. Such is the human condition. And I am in no way empowered to judge others. I can only speak for myself. I love the Oregon Coast, but would not live there.
Most posts on here are sensible. As I posted sometime last year, there was a warning recently and chaos ensued. I think the Oregon Coast is very vulnerable, only because there is about 5X the population of the Washington Coast. (That has a lot to do with geography, as the Oregon Coast is much more popular than their neighbors to the north).
I lived in Newport for a short time in 2005. I would not ever move back due to this potential hazard. That said, I understand most Oregon Coast residents are willing to choose risk over possible loss. That's fine. Just not me.
Again, the best scientific predictions show that the PNW coast is overdue for a mega-thrust quake. As I posted earlier, these happen every 300-500 years. Last one 1700. You can do the math.
There are plenty of places you can live on the OR coast that are outside the Tsunami zone. In fact, nearly all of the populated areas of Newport are outside the Tsunami Zone. It's only the South Beach neighborhoods south of the bridge that are in the bullseye.
But yes, If I was buying property on the Oregon Coast I would do it outside the tsunami zone. Earthquakes don't happen at convenient times. It might well be 3 am and take out all the power in the first wave. You don't want to be living anywhere that requires tsunami evacuation in your pajamas at 3 am with no streetlights or power with your garage caved in or garage door twisted from a quake so you can't get your car out and are stuck on foot.
All it will take is one minor quake and minor tsunami to wake everyone up and make property in the tsunami zone nearly worthless or impossible to insure, just like homes in the path of hurricanes and storm surge on the Gulf Coast.
^Right; we're not all in the tsumani zone over here. Nonetheless, a big quake would make life pretty unpleasant for those of us who didn't get washed away by a tidal wave for months or maybe even years. I'll probably be moving back to Baker City after the plague settles down some.
Yes, and thank you for recognizing others posts here. The most fascinating thing about all this is how some are willing to live with the risk, and others not. I would guess most understand the risk, but choose to live there anyway. Perhaps somewhat fatalistic, or perhaps somewhat prepared, who knows. There may be a population that doesn't even know the risk. An interesting psychological makeup of perhaps different attitudes comparing risk to reward. This is something that can't really be measured, or controlled. We all have to make decisions based on our values, our willing to risk, etc. Such is the human condition. And I am in no way empowered to judge others. I can only speak for myself. I love the Oregon Coast, but would not live there.
Virtual rep. I would be on the coast too in a heartbeat if it weren't for the distinct possibility of a nasty mega disaster. This makes me sad as the oceanic climate suits me to a T. As it is, I'm in eastern Oregon, and I'm not happy with the climate here.
The earth acts like a big machine with some things coming as a surprise while other things are more predictable. But we can learn from other's nightmares. There was an interesting article a while back concerning Japan. They were in the hills near the ocean there looking at some old homes. There were some ancient stone markers with the warning "Do not build below this marker", as that is where the waves stopped. Way back when, the town below had been wiped out from a tsunami, and the old ones were trying to warn future generations to save them from sorrow. We have no such markers here. Here I found the article for you.
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.
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.
