Pros and cons to living in Washington state (Vancouver, North Bonneville: best cities, health insurance)

[west seattle gal]

Con: There is a major fault line under downtown Seattle, "the big one" (earthquake) is statistically expected to occur in the next 50 years with lives lost (per our own city govt website), and there is absolutely no warning system for quakes (unlike volcanos).

[i_love_autumn]

Originally Posted by Creature of the Wheel

A major negative right now is dealing with all of the sudden Seahawks "fans" who have come out of the woodwork. Where were they in the previous seasons? Oh, that's right, they were rooting for one of their other "favorite" winning teams. *rolls eyes* The biggest crock of crap a Seahawks "fan" says is how they've been a fan since childhood. Yeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, right!

OMG, you need to move to Cleveland,Ohio. You would be right at home with all the 'fans' of the three sorriest pro sports teams in America,who start chanting "Superbowl,Superbowl,Superbowl" with the first touchdown in the first preseason game! What kind of dimwit wants to root for losers that have never even made it to the Superbowl?

My son and I detest Cleveland fans,and would have far more respect for those who join in the celebrating if they ever make it to a championship,than those who root for non-deserving teams for no other reason than because they live here!

Maybe if they stop cheering... these sorry a** teams would work harder to make it happen,ya think?

[TravelingAndSettling]

Pros:
Cost of living is manageable
Lots of amazing nature to enjoy

Cons:
People tend to be anti-social
Property taxes are ridiculous for many people

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by west seattle gal

Con: There is a major fault line under downtown Seattle, "the big one" (earthquake) is statistically expected to occur in the next 50 years with lives lost (per our own city govt website), and there is absolutely no warning system for quakes (unlike volcanos).

What does "statistically expected" even mean? Sounds nonsensical to me.

The real facts differ significantly from what you present. According to Nature there is a 37% chance of a magnitude 8+ in the next 50 years somewhere between Vancouver BC and Sacramento, CA. Other predictions put the likelihood between 10-14%.

It would be bad if it happened, but a 1 in 3 chance somewhere in WA, OR, CA or BC is very different from 'statistically expected' in Seattle.

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by fishbrains

What does "statistically expected" even mean? Sounds nonsensical to me.

The real facts differ significantly from what you present. According to Nature there is a 37% chance of a magnitude 8+ in the next 50 years somewhere between Vancouver BC and Sacramento, CA. Other predictions put the likelihood between 10-14%.

It would be bad if it happened, but a 1 in 3 chance somewhere in WA, OR, CA or BC is very different from 'statistically expected' in Seattle.

I believe the real risk is from a Cascadia Subduction Zone, mega thrust earthquake. The fault is 680 miles long, from Northern California up past Vancouver island BC.
Cascadia Subduction Zone | Pacific Northwest Seismic Network

I understand frequently it ruptures it's entire length. Effecting the entire region and giving places like Seattle very long (5 min) very strong (9.0) earth quakes, and giving coastal regions Tsunami's that hit in less than 1/2 hour after the earthquake.

We know the real killer in big mega thrust quakes is Tsunami's, like in the Japan's quake.. Or how about the 2004 Sumatra mega thrust, that killed 230,000 people!!!!

Subduction zone quakes are nothing like the small isolated stuff California frequently gets.... Subduction zone quakes are big effecting entire regions, with Tsunami's that cross the ocean.

No they do not happen often but when the do one can count on a substantial loss of life.

So? When is it?

It last went off in 1700. It has a history of going off every 200 to 900 years, its been 300.
Cascadia subduction zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

I believe the real risk is from a Cascadia Subduction Zone, mega thrust earthquake. The fault is 680 miles long, from Northern California up past Vancouver island BC.
Cascadia Subduction Zone | Pacific Northwest Seismic Network

I understand that we are discussing Cascadia. If you follow the link I included it clearly dearly discusses Cascadia.

My point is twofold. One, that the phrase 'statistically expected' is nonsense, without a commonly understood meaning or definition. Two, the poster I quote is fearmongering. Likely in Seattle is different from possible somewhere in the PNW.

[Pretzelogik]

Earthquakes and exploding volcanoes..."the big one" of each of these will come one of these days.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by fishbrains

I understand that we are discussing Cascadia. If you follow the link I included it clearly dearly discusses Cascadia.

My point is twofold. One, that the phrase 'statistically expected' is nonsense, without a commonly understood meaning or definition. Two, the poster I quote is fearmongering. Likely in Seattle is different from possible somewhere in the PNW.

What's your point? The OP asked for pros and cons. The poster you are citing gave a con.

So what if it's "fearmongering"? It is still scientifically possible to have a large earthquake in the Seattle area. Might happen, might not. But it still certainly could be considered a "con" about living there.

It's also a con about Joplin, MO to possibly have a really bad tornado happen. Unlikely, and it could happen anywhere in the Midwest, but it's still something to consider if you move there. Oh, wait...

[bler144]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

.

We know the real killer in big mega thrust quakes is Tsunami's, like in the Japan's quake.. Or how about the 2004 Sumatra mega thrust, that killed 230,000 people!!!!

Subduction zone quakes are nothing like the small isolated stuff California frequently gets.... Subduction zone quakes are big effecting entire regions, with Tsunami's that cross the ocean.

Cascadia subduction zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Japan's coast faces open ocean and is heavily populated. That's not the same pattern as Seattle. Hard to picture a tsunami squeezing up and through the Strait to populated areas. With just the wrong wave vector, I suppose Victoria or particularly Oak Harbor could be exposed.

Could tsunami size waves form in the Sound? With an average depth of 450 feet, it's possible, but I'd want to see it tested. There's not really a lot of width in the channel across which a wave would build up energy.

The heaviest waves in a typical scenario would strike the west coast of the peninsula and Vanc. Island, which are more sparsely populated - though the small towns there could certainly take a pretty good wallop.

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by PS90

What's your point? The OP asked for pros and cons. The poster you are citing gave a con.

So what if it's "fearmongering"?

Presumably the OP wants facts in order to assist in decision making. I am simply providing some accuracy.