Oakland & Alameda Most Vulnerable to Tsunami Within SF Bay (San Jose: earthquake, live)

[18Montclair]

Can't we ever get an effin' break?

That's because Oakland sits at the end of the Golden Gate's deep channel, which would deliver the waves from the ocean, through the strait, and directly to its shores.

"The shipping channel is a pretty efficient transmitter of tsunami energy through the Golden Gate and towards Oakland," said the U.S. Geological Survey's Eric Geist, an expert in the probability of tsunami generation.


http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...ytsunami90.jpg

Oakland, Alameda most vulnerable to tsunami within San Francisco Bay - San Jose Mercury News

[sliverbox]

I've been thinking about this for the past few days. The events in Japan I think have brought back a sense of reality to coastal Californians. The old saying goes that around here the issue isn't whether an earthquake will happen here- but when.

[jade408]

I didn't know google, facebook and oracle were cities.

[DMenscha]

Pretty much assumes a tsunami at high tide too. A 7' wave at low tide would just bring the water up to high tide levels. It would be pretty awesome to see the wave forms on an ebb tide at the Golden Gate.

[mayorhaggar]

Interesting to read that the fault lines in the Bay Area are supposedly not the kind that would cause tsunamis. The San Andreas runs off shore around Pacifica and then north underwater--if there was a quake just west of the Golden Gate I had thought it might cause a tsunami into the bay but I guess not.

So I guess all we have to worry about is 7.0-8.0 quakes happening right under our feet.

[ssmaster]

i believe those areas of oakland are minimally inhabited.
does anyone have any poplulation data on the blue areas

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by jade408

i didn't know google, facebook and oracle were cities.

lol

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by DMenscha

Pretty much assumes a tsunami at high tide too. A 7' wave at low tide would just bring the water up to high tide levels. It would be pretty awesome to see the wave forms on an ebb tide at the Golden Gate.

Not necessarily. A 7 foot tsunami is actually pretty significant. A tsunami isn't just a wave, it's the entire water column moving over the land and shallow areas. I watched the last tsunami at low tide bring the water to high tide levels and there was no way it was 7 feet. And where I am, there is no direct way to the ocean as the water had to make 2 90 degree turns to get where I am. I wonder if the effect on the east shore of the bay has actually been underestimated a bit.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Interesting to read that the fault lines in the Bay Area are supposedly not the kind that would cause tsunamis. The San Andreas runs off shore around Pacifica and then north underwater--if there was a quake just west of the Golden Gate I had thought it might cause a tsunami into the bay but I guess not.

So I guess all we have to worry about is 7.0-8.0 quakes happening right under our feet.

The bay area faults would only cause one if they triggered an underwater landslide.

[gravooms]

Assuming the tsunami begins in the ocean (and not in the bay) how is it that the coastline along the Pacific ocean isn't blue?