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.
I cannot count how many times I have read similar posts to this on CD:
Quote:
Instead of a 7.0 earthquake in Haiti which is a very poor nation in which most people probably wish they could afford anything with tires, couldn't there be a big one in CA that dumps uber-liberal, nanny government proponents into the ocean, never to be seen or heard from again?
Haiti and California are almost incomparable in terms of earthquake risks. When earthquakes close to 7.0 hit San Francisco and Los Angeles in the 1980s and 1990s, the death tolls have been around 50 or 60 people. The infrastructure here is radically different than what it is in Haiti or other poor countries.
Haiti and California are almost incomparable in terms of earthquake risks. When earthquakes close to 7.0 hit San Francisco and Los Angeles in the 1980s and 1990s, the death tolls have been around 50 or 60 people. The infrastructure here is radically different than what it is in Haiti or other poor countries.
You know that is not the question...I am talking about devastation.
I think people often say things they don't mean. 9/11 happened in NYC, which is probably just as liberal, if not more than California, and there was not a shortage of sympathy, even among conservatives.
I think people often say things they don't mean. 9/11 happened in NYC, which is probably just as liberal, if not more than California, and there was not a shortage of sympathy, even among conservatives.
Haiti and California are almost incomparable in terms of earthquake risks. When earthquakes close to 7.0 hit San Francisco and Los Angeles in the 1980s and 1990s, the death tolls have been around 50 or 60 people. The infrastructure here is radically different than what it is in Haiti or other poor countries.
Actually it depends a great deal on where the quake is and how deep or shallow it is.
A 7.0 that is shallow is a real ball buster. Lots of people could die in a major city in a shallow 7.0 quake.
The 3 types...
Shallow fault earthquakes
A fault is a break in the rock beneath our feet. Shallow fault quakes occur very close to the surface. Only recently, we’ve discovered a fault beneath Seattle and right across Puget Sound. There was a major quake on this Seattle fault about 1,100 years ago. Because shallow fault earthquakes are so near the surface, even small ones cause a lot of damage from shaking.
Subduction zone earthquakes
The largest earthquakes ever recorded are subduction zone earthquakes. They can last several minutes. Subduction zone shaking can occur along the whole subduction zone. In the Pacific Northwest, these major quakes seem to occur every few hundred years. The last known subduction zone earthquake along the Oregon and Washington coast was January 26, 1700. In addition to causing huge shifts in land level here, this quake sent huge waves— tsunamis— racing across the Pacific.
Deep earthquakes
Deep earthquakes occur in the subducting ocean slab, deep beneath the continental crust. In the Pacific Northwest, deep quakes start about 50 km (30 mi) beneath the surface. Large ones have shaken the Pacific Northwest in 1949, 1965, and 2001—about every 30 years. The last big deep quake—the 2001 Nisqually earthquake—occurred under the southern end of Puget Sound.
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.