Stupid to live in liquefaction zone?

[Kafkaesque]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

Right, so in what part of the USA would you say is a good place to make that biggest investment? Pick the location and there is a calamity waiting.

Do not get in a door jam or under a sturdy table. Those have already been proved to be the best place to get killed in an earthquake. People who survived? The people next to sturdy objects but not under them.

Yellowstone is about to destroy everything from Montana to Iowa before doing in every place else. Hurricanes on the East coast. Tornadoes in the midwest, north east, south east and south, tusunami's from Alaska to San Diego, floods from Illinois to Louisiana, any place near the Great Lakes? Tornadoes and wall winds not to mention blizzards to stop entire tri state areas.

Oh no, liquefaction. For that try not the SF Bay Area but back east because they had more of it.

Really, another thread about where to live and earthquakes and related?

I will happily go with the US governments recommendation for surviving an earthquake, thank you.

Locate safe spots in each room under a sturdy table or against an inside wall.
Reinforce this information by moving to these places during each drill.

http://www.ready.gov/earthquakes

The safest place in my home is a doorway in an sheltered hallway with no glass windows and no loose objects which could shake off the walls and fall on me. Other peoples homes will certainly have different safe places.

Where to buy would of course be up to the individual, and their individual toleration of risk. Since you can generally buy Homeowner's insurance and earthquake and flood insurance in most places, the easier way to put it is don't buy anywhere that someone won't insure you. Which would be smack dab on an active volcano, for instance.

I'd be happy to purchase in the Bay area, just not on the reclaimed bay areas actually. To each their own evaluation of risk.

When in tornado alley a sturdy storm cellar is recommended for survivals sake.

Apparently that an evaluation of the overall risk presented was taking place went right over your head. /zoom

This was the hint:

Originally Posted by Kafkaesque

If you consult your gut, and that's to much risk for you, then don't buy or rent in a liquification zone.

[capoeira]

Here is some additional info from previous posts.

Originally Posted by capoeira

Good questions! For an in depth study of what might happen I suggest checking out Marc Reisner's book "A Dangerous Place". It includes a hypothetical scenario of what might happen with a 7.2 on the Hayward Fault.
He identifies the lack of water and collapse of the water system as a huge problem after a big earthquake.

A shaky situation in California | BookPage



The three big ones were a 6.8 in 1868 on the Hayward Fault,a 7.9 in 1906 on the San Andreas Fault and a 6.9 in 1989 on the San Andreas.

October 21, 1868 Hayward Fault Earthquake

The Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake

October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

The problem is that scientists think the Hayward fault repeats a big event every 150 years and the last one was in 1868.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3019/fs2008-3019.pdf

Hayward Fault is our deadliest - a 'tectonic time bomb'

The buildings to avoid living in are the soft story apartment buildings with a parking structure underneath the living area. Most have not been retrofitted. Concrete buildings are also a danger.

Fewer participating in San Francisco's soft-story retrofit program

S.F.'s concrete buildings also a quake danger

These are good in depth studies of the earthquake potential in the SF area.

http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/indep...atc-report.pdf

Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002–2031 | USGS Open-File Report 03-214

These are the shaking maps with selections for different faults.

Earthquake Shaking Maps and Information « ABAG Earthquake and Hazards Program

The worse case scenario is an earthquake similar to 1906.

Disaster is coming to San Francisco ... the question is when

Originally Posted by capoeira

How often tremors are felt is not important. What is significant is when the next big earthquake will hit. The last big event on the Hayward fault was in 1868. Scientists think 7.0 magnitude events occur about every 140 years on this fault.

USGS Release: The 1868 Hayward Earthquake: 139 years and counting

+++ BAY QUAKE +++ Earthquake Safety Preparation - San Francisco Bay Area +++ Hayward Fault Facts (+++ BAY QUAKE +++ Earthquake Safety Preparation - San Francisco Bay Area +++ Hayward Fault Facts - broken link)

The book "A Dangerous Place" by Marc Reisner gives a potential scenario for a 7.2M event on the Hayward fault.

A Dangerous Place: California's Unsettling Fate

A shaky situation in California | BookPage


"there is a 0.62 probability (i.e., a 62% probability)
of a strong earthquake striking the greater San Francisco Bay Region (SFBR) over
the next 30 years" (2003–2032)

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/...WG_summary.pdf


These are the links to the complete USGS report on the SF Bay area earthquake probabilities.

Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002–2031 | USGS Open-File Report 03-214

Great map here on page 34 with the estimated probablities for each of the SF Bay area major faults.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-21...4_Chapter6.pdf


Here is an excerpt from an interview with Marc Reisner:

"The [projected] Hayward fault earthquake will be the worst disaster on American soil since the Civil War. There won't be as many casualties as there were in the earthquake in Turkey [last August] but the property damage and the paralysis will be unbelievable. The property damage estimates vary wildly from a low of about $20 billion to a high of $240 billion. "


California Wild Winter 2000 - Marc Reisner

[Mack Knife]

People spend their lives worrying about natural disasters then get hit by cars. Prepare in some way yes. Worry? Be my guest.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Those zones will definitely experience greater ground motion intensity in a shaker. Of course that will stress any construction more than similar constructions in other areas. The land fill areas tend to be newer and I know some people really obsess about being in a newer place.

Everything is a trade off.