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.
Let me just say that I wouldn't move anywhere near the coast of Northern California to the Olympic Pensisula for this reason alone. And no place along a roughly thousand-mile stretch of coastline is really immune to the danger.
Is it an extremely pretty place? Yes. But you risk bumping into the next Cascadia Megathrust Earthquake (scroll down to 'future threats'), which would produce tsunamis on-par or bigger than were seen recently in Japan. The region is due for one of these essentially right now, and the danger only rises with each passing year. (The only bit of good news is that, unlike the immediate coastline of Japan where the tsunami hit, the coasts of California/Oregon/Washington are generally [with a few notable exceptions] not lowland areas. However, most of the settled places are. So, were you buying a house, you'd want to make damned sure that it was someplace high... and this might go for where you work, too. People have lived and worked and died in this area for hundreds of years without ever so much as feeling a significant jolt... but the quake is coming -- that's irrefutable. You're rolling the dice).
Also, to the people saying that Seattle is not immune to quakes, that's definitely true. However, you're talking about a much more localized event, likely being spawned from one of the numerous faults running under Puget Sound. While a large quake generated from these would do a fine job of ruining Seattle for a while, they likely wouldn't spawn a tsunami of any great size. Thus, the real big killer in the event would be collapsing buildings, and not onrushing water. The former is far, faaaaar less dangerous than the latter.
OP, have you considered the coast of New England? It's just as pretty, is highly populated, have far more work opportunities, and experiences no earthquakes/tsunamis.
Last edited by ShrikeArghast; 05-23-2012 at 03:07 AM..
Also, to the people saying that Seattle is not immune to quakes, that's definitely true. However, you're talking about a much more localized event, likely being spawned from one of the numerous faults running under Puget Sound. While a large quake generated from these would do a fine job of ruining Seattle for a while, they likely wouldn't spawn a tsunami of any great size. Thus, the real big killer in the event would be collapsing buildings, and not onrushing water. The former is far, faaaaar less dangerous than the latter.
OP, have you considered the coast of New England? It's just as pretty, is highly populated, have far more work opportunities, and experiences no earthquakes/tsunamis.
Honestly... any earthquake could possibly set off a tsunami and it's not realistic to sit there and say: "they likely wouldn't spawn a tsunami of any great size". Its bad enough that people think tsunami = 30ft wall of wave that crashes and consumes a town in its wake. As we've seen recently in Japan, it wasn't like that at all.
New England isn't without natural disasters, so I don't know how you've determined that since it doesn't have earthquakes/tsunamis that the OP would be better off.
Honestly... any earthquake could possibly set off a tsunami and it's not realistic to sit there and say: "they likely wouldn't spawn a tsunami of any great size". Its bad enough that people think tsunami = 30ft wall of wave that crashes and consumes a town in its wake. As we've seen recently in Japan, it wasn't like that at all.
It's not realistic to say that a Puget Sound quake would produce a large tsunami -- I'm sorry. If you advocate to the contrary, you are unaware of the particular geological processes that spawn the big waves.
To create a good-sized tsunami, you need a quake that thrusts the seafloor (a megathrust quake) -- IE, the ground literally buckles like a door, forcing the land upwards along a great stretch. You're talking about verticle motion rather than lateral (which is the same reasons why the San Andreas fault hasn't spawned major tsunamis -- shaking alone doesn't do the trick). There have been isolated, small-scale tsunamis in the sound, but they've been extremely rare, and nothing compared to what a large megathrust quake would generate. Current models simulating a tsunami striking Seattle require a whole bunch of simultaneous 'freak' geologic events, not the least being that entirety of the peninsula to 'slump' downwards towards the Sound in order to invite the waves in.
The only other processes that create big waves are A) landslides, and B) meteors. Those generate mega tsunamis, something that's totally different from your average, run-of-the-mill tsunami.
There is very, very little danger of Seattle being hit by a tsunami wave. Every time a big wave 'turns a corner,' it loses a significant amount of power. Any tsunami generated by a Cascadia Quake would have to turn 2 corners, then move its way down much of the sound to strike the city (did you ever stop and wonder why Tokyo wasn't wiped out by the recent wave? It's the EXACT same reason Seattle is safe). It would also, due to downtown Seattle's westward-facing shoreline, have to take an abrupt left turn to do the maximum damage. It isn't happening.
If you're going to worry people over disasters for Seattle, worry them about the downtown infrastructure collapsing during a Sound-based quake. There have been recent studies that show that downtown is basically built on a submerged, 'crater' shape of land, that would dramatically enhance the effects of even a moderately sized 6.8 quake.
Or, if you want to go even more obscure, Rainier could potentially erupt and generate a large enough lahar to reach Seattle. The Osceola Mudflow of approximately 5,000 years ago lopped off the top 2,000 feet of the mountain and sent it hurtling down multiple area rivers in a titanic lahar. That would most assuredly kill a lot of people, provided there wasn't a decent amount of warning beforehand (like, for example, months and months of volcano slowly 'waking up').
Quote:
New England isn't without natural disasters, so I don't know how you've determined that since it doesn't have earthquakes/tsunamis that the OP would be better off.
Please go ahead and list off the major disasters, equivalent in magnitude to an earthquake, that have struck New England recently. Yes, they can get hurricanes, but it's highly infrequent AND you get days and days of warning that one is coming. They get the VERY occasional small earthquake. Hell, I'll play devil's advocate and list off the most severe disasters that could occur in New England:
A) There's some thought that the Adirondack Mountains in upstate New York may actually be a hotspot caused by a mantle plume. There is the obscure, outside chance this could erupt (although if any supervolcano the world over goes off, we're in big trouble period).
B) There's a remote chance that a large volcano in the Canary Islands across the Atlantic could rupture, causing one half of the island it's on to slide into the ocean. At that point, all of the east coast would be struck by a wave hundreds of feet high. That'd make any Cascadia-generated tsunami seem like a joke. At the moment, however, scientists are highly divided over whether or not such a slide is possible, yet alone pending.
But, really, stop getting defensive about stuff. Seattle should stand or fall based on the realities of the place. It's a beautiful place with probably the most striking scenery in the U.S. -- but you pay a price for the scenery with the associated risk. Thems the breaks. Yes, there are disasters everywhere, but you're more likely to run into one in the Pacific Northwest than you are in New England -- unless, of course, you could a nor'easter as a 'major disaster,' in which case your belief in what merits a significant disaster is extremely skewed.
Last edited by ShrikeArghast; 05-23-2012 at 10:12 PM..
There is thought that a large portion of the Kitsap Peninsula could slide if a quake jolted it loose. Supposedly on the eastern side of the peninsula. It, theoretically, would generate a wave that could make it to Lake Washington.
It's not realistic to say that a Puget Sound quake would produce a large tsunami -- I'm sorry. If you advocate to the contrary, you are unaware of the particular geological processes that spawn the big waves.
To create a good-sized tsunami, you need a quake that thrusts the seafloor (a megathrust quake) -- IE, the ground literally buckles like a door, forcing the land upwards along a great stretch. You're talking about verticle motion rather than lateral (which is the same reasons why the San Andreas fault hasn't spawned major tsunamis -- shaking alone doesn't do the trick). There have been isolated, small-scale tsunamis in the sound, but they've been extremely rare, and nothing compared to what a large megathrust quake would generate. Current models simulating a tsunami striking Seattle require a whole bunch of simultaneous 'freak' geologic events, not the least being that entirety of the peninsula to 'slump' downwards towards the Sound in order to invite the waves in.
The only other processes that create big waves are A) landslides, and B) meteors. Those generate mega tsunamis, something that's totally different from your average, run-of-the-mill tsunami.
There is very, very little danger of Seattle being hit by a tsunami wave. Every time a big wave 'turns a corner,' it loses a significant amount of power. Any tsunami generated by a Cascadia Quake would have to turn 2 corners, then move its way down much of the sound to strike the city (did you ever stop and wonder why Tokyo wasn't wiped out by the recent wave? It's the EXACT same reason Seattle is safe). It would also, due to downtown Seattle's westward-facing shoreline, have to take an abrupt left turn to do the maximum damage. It isn't happening.
I didn't say "would"... I said "could".
I live here... I grew up here... I've been exposed to more information, hypotheticals and theories that pertain to our local reality than you. I have to hear every time when there's an earthquake, it is *always* in the news about What if/Could it happen in Seattle.... Its been discussed to death... and yes, it is possible that that a Puget Sound could trigger a tsunami, why? Because there are faults within the Puget Sound area... there are some we can't even study because of topography and many more that's yet to be discovered. Seattle Fault is generally considered the more dangerous one here. And a tsunami would most definitely cause a lot of damage given that we do have lowlands. The Port of Seattle sits on that lowland-- Seattle is very dependent on PoS and would be very economically harmed.
You want to talk about obscure, it has been done before. There are tsunami deposits around Seattle and the Puget Sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShrikeArghast
If you're going to worry people over disasters for Seattle, worry them about the downtown infrastructure collapsing during a Sound-based quake. There have been recent studies that show that downtown is basically built on a submerged, 'crater' shape of land, that would dramatically enhance the effects of even a moderately sized 6.8 quake.
I'm not worrying everyone, I'm simply disputing your comment. People here do not actually worry too much about these sort of things-- If and when it happens, it happens and we'll do what we can. That is the way of life here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShrikeArghast
Or, if you want to go even more obscure, Rainier could potentially erupt and generate a large enough lahar to reach Seattle. The Osceola Mudflow of approximately 5,000 years ago lopped off the top 2,000 feet of the mountain and sent it hurtling down multiple area rivers in a titanic lahar. That would most assuredly kill a lot of people, provided there wasn't a decent amount of warning beforehand (like, for example, months and months of volcano slowly 'waking up').
Not new information, but thanks for playing. I've myself brought this information in another thread a long time ago.
All I did was pointed out just because New England doesn't get earthquakes/tsunamis, doesn't mean it does not have its own kind of natural disasters and set of realities. If anyone is being utterly defensive, its 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.
