Did anyone else read this piece? It's absolutely one of the better reads on the Cascadia Subduction zone, in the Pacific NW USA. Unlike the Yellowstone supercaldera, whose eruptions are measured in epochs of hundreds of thousands of years, this is something that has a 243 year cycle, and, according to the article, we're 315 years into what was the last cycle. In other words, overdue, geologically speaking. And the subduction zone is much different from a standard faultline. Article goes into fantastic detail on this.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one

Quote: In the Pacific Northwest, everything west of Interstate 5 covers some hundred and forty thousand square miles, including Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, Eugene, Salem (the capital city of Oregon), Olympia (the capital of Washington), and some seven million people. When the next full-margin rupture happens, that region will suffer the worst natural disaster in the history of North America.

Wow. This would be staggering. And it's not fear mongering to be urgently and fervently concerned about this.

I'm moving to Portland in September, but since I'm coming from SF I guess it's just more of the same fear.

Anyway, what a way to go man. Death by supercaldera!

Did that article mention a magnitude?

Usually if it's over mag. 6, it gets reported on Japanese earthquake maps for some reason.

Great piece by the way, a very interesting read. And yet the conclusion is the same as ever..there's not a single thing you can do about it except evacuate and relocate some 600MM people from the Pacific coastal areas to Northern Ireland. I'll take my chances.

Quoting Slider (Thread starter): And it's not fear mongering to be urgently and fervently concerned about this

It's also not exactly a giant reveal of some previously unknown threat.

The Cascadia subduction zone threat to the Pacific Northwest is pretty well-known, so much so that Seattle is routinely ranked as one of the most likely places to suffer a natural disaster.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2): Did that article mention a magnitude?

Yes. >>>>"If, on that occasion, only the southern part of the Cascadia subduction zone gives way—your first two fingers, say—the magnitude of the resulting quake will be somewhere between 8.0 and 8.6. That’s the big one. If the entire zone gives way at once, an event that seismologists call a full-margin rupture, the magnitude will be somewhere between 8.7 and 9.2. That’s the very big one."

Quoting us330 (Reply 4): It's also not exactly a giant reveal of some previously unknown threat. The Cascadia subduction zone threat to the Pacific Northwest is pretty well-known, so much so that Seattle is routinely ranked as one of the most likely places to suffer a natural disaster.

But the science on this IS relatively new, in fact. The grasp of the magnitude of this and the geology behind it is less than a generation old. I found it fascinating that they connected the dots and the timeline with commensurate events in Japan. The problem, as the article so aptly states, is that there is little in the way of readiness that's taking place. This is not a far flung, thousands of years "maybe" proposition...this is quite a legitimate threat and perhaps in our lifetimes.

Anyone who lives on the Pacific Rim of Fire who doesn't have even a basic emergency backpack in their homes/vehicle at all times is unwise.

Quoting Slider (Thread starter): this is something that has a 243 year cycle, and, according to the article, we're 315 years into what was the last cycle. In other words, overdue, geologically speaking

Is it actually a cycle or is that the average amount of time between each event? If it's the former, then we are not "overdue." Pet peeve of mine. It's kind of like saying that if you flip a coin and get heads 10 times in a row, you're "overdue for tails." Nope. You have a 50% chance of getting tails after 10 heads and 50% chance of tails after 10 tails

What is the news to this? It would be news of it were in the Atlantic northwest. Sorry, one of my shake the head phrases is "Pacific Northwest". As opposed to what other northwest US?

But really, this is not a great surprise to anyone that has ever paid attention the geological history.

Quoting Slider (Thread starter): Wow. This would be staggering. And it's not fear mongering to be urgently and fervently concerned about this.

Exactly what can you (we) do about it? Nothing, except to move away from the area.

I'd rather work towards mitigating the effects of climate change. Like preparing for the next mini-ice age...or not.

I guess we could legislate that everyone abandon the area and let it return to the wild...

IMHO, to be "urgently and fervently concerned about this" is to fritter away perfectly good "concerned" time on something that you have zero control over.

  

[Edited 2015-07-14 17:56:23]

I knew about this and a Tsunami also scares me as well. Its in a dangerous spot and unlike CA I don't think they have the same earthquake codes either. I love Seattle but I think from San Diego to Seattle you've got at least one city that might get hit hard in our life times.

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 8): What is the news to this? It would be news of it were in the Atlantic northwest. Sorry, one of my shake the head phrases is "Pacific Northwest". As opposed to what other northwest US?

In coomon useage I bleive the Pacific Northwest generally refers to the western halves of Oregon and Washington. Northwest US could include OR,WA, ID, and MT.

I also read this article via Longform.com website.
Throw in too if Mt. Rainer ever pops - it isn't far from Mt. St. Helens with did about 35 years ago with devastating damage, already occurring mudslides, and the Pac NW could be a memory very quickly.
Consider too that most of Boeing's plants in Washington state are within the Tsunami zone, if the 'really big one' were to hit, it could destroy the company.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): Is it actually a cycle or is that the average amount of time between each event? If it's the former, then we are not "overdue." Pet peeve of mine. It's kind of like saying that if you flip a coin and get heads 10 times in a row, you're "overdue for tails." Nope. You have a 50% chance of getting tails after 10 heads and 50% chance of tails after 10 tails

Over 10,000 years, the fault has popped 41 times. Here is the wiki print out on it.
"[I]

The last known great earthquake in the northwest was the 1700 Cascadia earthquake. Geological evidence indicates that great earthquakes may have occurred at least seven times in the last 3,500 years, suggesting a return time of 300 to 600 years. Seafloor core evidence indicates that there have been forty-one subduction zone earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone in the past 10,000 years, suggesting a general average earthquake recurrence interval of only 243 years.[14]

There is also evidence of accompanying tsunamis with every earthquake. One strong line of evidence for these earthquakes is convergent timings for fossil damage from tsunamis in the Pacific Northwest and historical Japanese records of tsunamis.[I]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone


Every time you flip a coin it has a 50% chance of being heads or tails, but over time your ability to consecutively flip what you call gets less and less. The big one could be hundreds of years, or microseconds away, but the average tells us that the farther you get from the average, the more danger there is if conditions don't change. No one has stated that the subduction has stopped, so until it does, the spring is till being loaded for the big one.

Quoting Slider (Thread starter): Unlike the Yellowstone supercaldera, whose eruptions are measured in epochs of hundreds of thousands of years, this is something that has a 243 year cycle, and, according to the article, we're 315 years into what was the last cycle. In other words, overdue, geologically speaking. And the subduction zone is much different from a standard faultline. Article goes into fantastic detail on this.

Still very hard to predict geologically. They might have an average but that still means perhaps a thousand years or more between activity and 1000 years (heck even 10,000 years) is peanuts geologically, 250 years is a peanut scraping to be literal.

Quote: If the entire zone gives way at once, an event that seismologists call a full-margin rupture, the magnitude will be somewhere between 8.7 and 9.2. That’s the very big one.[quote] I don't think that the entire fault would go at once. Yes it is possible but the likely thing to happen is there will be local earthquakes that could perhaps be foreshocks to a bigger quake 10, 100, or 1000 years down the road. [quote]” Yet not once in recorded history has it caused a major earthquake—or, for that matter, any quake to speak of. By contrast, other subduction zones produce major earthquakes occasionally and minor ones all the time: magnitude 5.0, magnitude 4.0, magnitude why are the neighbors moving their sofa at midnight.

It caused a 6.8 in 2001 in the Seattle area, furthermore the area has been quite active in terms of volcanic.

Quote: Thanks to that work, we now know that the Pacific Northwest has experienced forty-one subduction-zone earthquakes in the past ten thousand years. If you divide ten thousand by forty-one, you get two hundred and forty-three, which is Cascadia’s recurrence interval: the average amount of time that elapses between earthquakes. That timespan is dangerous both because it is too long—long enough for us to unwittingly build an entire civilization on top of our continent’s worst fault line—and because it is not long enough. Counting from the earthquake of 1700, we are now three hundred and fifteen years into a two-hundred-and-forty-three-year cycle.

It is too long but is there evidence to suggest that this subduction zone is moving well along the plate boundary and thus not creating the stresses that would cause a massive earthquake.

There is actually evidence to suggest that this might be the case in that the cascades has experiences regular volcanic activity that means the plate is moving smoothly and melting into the mantle at a constant rate. Earthquakes occur when the stress builds to the point of breaking. The consistent rate of volcanism means constant melting so perhaps little stress built up along the boundary and associated fault lines.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9): Exactly what can you (we) do about it? Nothing, except to move away from the area.

Build like Japan does going forward (they have the strictest building codes for earthquakes). Retrofit buildings and infrastructure to withstand an earthquake. Have contingency plans on hand to be able to put out fires that will happen from ruptures gas lines and water-mains (lesson learned from the 1906 San Francisco quake).

An earthquake is harmless if you are in an open field, in fact it is probably pretty awesome. What does the damage is what humans have built and we can change that in a heartbeat.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14): Build like Japan does going forward (they have the strictest building codes for earthquakes). Retrofit buildings and infrastructure to withstand an earthquake. Have contingency plans on hand to be able to put out fires that will happen from ruptures gas lines and water-mains (lesson learned from the 1906 San Francisco quake).

Yes, but if this massive earthquake occurs in the scale they "expect", there will be wide-spread devastation.

You know what, as humans beings living in the most advanced age ever have to accept: that we have to accept that there are some things we can not change.

We may need to abandon cities or entire regions due to normal geologic/environmental cycles.

But, quite simply and to be honest, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek because of the melodramatic way the OP made his post.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15): Yes, but if this massive earthquake occurs in the scale they "expect", there will be wide-spread devastation.

The 9+ earthquake is entirely possible and would destroy any city. However that is the rare event, what is likely going to hit with realtive frequency is the 6.5- 8 earthquake which a proper builing code. The Seattle area had a 6.8 earthquake in 2001 IIRC so those are the ones to look out for and do something about.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12): Consider too that most of Boeing's plants in Washington state are within the Tsunami zone,

No they are not. The Everett plant sits up on top of a hill a good 400 feet above the level of Puget Sound. The Renton plant is on the shores of Lake Washington, not Puget Sound - there's a large hill separating the Sound and Renton - zero chance of a tsunami hitting either one.
They are both very much in an earthquake zone however, perhaps that is what you meant?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 13): Over 10,000 years, the fault has popped 41 times.

That's what I thought. It's not as if it has happened, without fail, every 200-400 years never skipping a beat. Maybe half of those times were in the first 3000 years and the second half was in the last 7000 years, indicating that is was more volatile in the past. My point is it's not necessarily clockwork. Some things might be but I don't think this is. Seems to me as if it's like most geologically active areas, you may have periods where you have 10 bad earthquakes in 200 years and then the next 5 are spread out a few centuries apart

Quoting casinterest (Reply 13): but the average tells us that the farther you get from the average, the more danger there is if conditions don't change.

No, that's not how averages work. Yes it's hard to get 10 tails in a row but even if you get 10000 tails in a row, that very next flip is just as likely to be tails as if you flipped 10000 heads. Now, some events can become more likely as time moves forward, but that is a different case, and I'm not sure if this is the case.

Mathematically, we could go 485 years without a major quake and then get 2 major quakes a year apart and the average is 243 years. I doubt this is rigid clockwork

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18): No, that's not how averages work. Yes it's hard to get 10 tails in a row but even if you get 10000 tails in a row, that very next flip is just as likely to be tails as if you flipped 10000 heads. Now, some events can become more likely as time moves forward, but that is a different case, and I'm not sure if this is the case.

A coin flip itself is 50/50. An Earthquake is not a matter of 50/50 flip. It will happen.

An Average tells you approximately how often one can expect an earthquake to occur . if you were alive for 250 years on an event that happens an average of once every 250 years, you would have a high chance of seeing one event. you might see 0,2 or 3 as well, but the chance of that is much less than seeing one.


Every second that ticks by brings us closer to the next oEarthquake, as the plates are still sliding, and at some point, they will either slip, fracture, thrust, or some other incident. It may be a minor, or major quake depending on the extent of that action, but it will happen. Once you go past the Average, your chances are astronomically higher that the earthquake is closer. It may still take another thousand years, but chances are that it will happen in the next 200 years.

From the wiki above.

"

In 2009, some geologists predicted a 10% to 14% probability that the Cascadia Subduction Zone will produce an event of magnitude 9 or higher in the next 50 years;[21] In 2010, studies suggested that the risk could be as high as 37% for earthquakes of magnitude 8 or higher.[22][23]
"

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): Is it actually a cycle or is that the average amount of time between each event? If it's the former, then we are not "overdue." Pet peeve of mine. It's kind of like saying that if you flip a coin and get heads 10 times in a row, you're "overdue for tails." Nope. You have a 50% chance of getting tails after 10 heads and 50% chance of tails after 10 tails

Already responded to above, but per the article, the author addresses that:

Quote: It is possible to quibble with that number. Recurrence intervals are averages, and averages are tricky: ten is the average of nine and eleven, but also of eighteen and two. It is not possible, however, to dispute the scale of the problem.

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 8): But really, this is not a great surprise to anyone that has ever paid attention the geological history.

That's part of my point, however: the science of the Cascadia subduction zone, at least the detailed comprehension of it, it's history, and such, is fairly new. There's a lot of geological history, but there isn't a lot of human understanding of it. As the article cites, the settling of this area of the Pac NW by non-native Americans happened well after the last major event and is now in the sweet spot, time-wise, of the next one. I think that's the reason why this still sort of is a surprise.

Quoting doug_or (Reply 11): In coomon useage I bleive the Pacific Northwest generally refers to the western halves of Oregon and Washington. Northwest US could include OR,WA, ID, and MT.

Well said. I specifically said Pac NW because MT, for instance, would be unaffected by this, generally speaking. Folks in Pocatello wouldn't have the same fate as those in Portland.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14): Build like Japan does going forward (they have the strictest building codes for earthquakes). Retrofit buildings and infrastructure to withstand an earthquake. Have contingency plans on hand to be able to put out fires that will happen from ruptures gas lines and water-mains (lesson learned from the 1906 San Francisco quake). An earthquake is harmless if you are in an open field, in fact it is probably pretty awesome. What does the damage is what humans have built and we can change that in a heartbeat.

^^^^ THIS. This is why I started the thread, because my assertion is that, candidly, we are grossly unprepared. There simply is not the robust mitigation approach in WA and OR that Japan has. That's problematic.

It is one thing to take calculated risks living and having major cities and civilization in an area where known and certain natural disasters occur. It's quite another to do so and not do even a modicum of legitimate planning, preparation and construction to help hedge against the worst case scenario.

I've lived in earthquake prone areas and hurricane areas. The former you can't tactically always plan for, the latter you generally can. So why would you plan MORE intensively for the latter and not the former? If you have hurricane evac plans but not earthquake evac or response plans, that's problematic.

By not doing the things that japan does now, as just an example, the Pac NW is exacberating the consequences of an event even before it happens. That's hardly alamist, that's the truth.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15): But, quite simply and to be honest, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek because of the melodramatic way the OP made his post.

Melodramatic? Really? If you consider the line "This would be staggering. And it's not fear mongering to be urgently and fervently concerned about this." to be melodramatic, you don't know the definition of it. This is a forum for open discussion, is it not? Is that not the goal here? Or is it to continue to insult people and take little potshots?

I REALLY wish some of you folks reading these "gloom and doom" stories should actually look up the geography of this place....the Pacific Ocean is 120 miles west of the Puget Sound, and while tsunami might fuck up the coastal regions..and they DO have test protocols for that, I find it hard to imagine Plant 2 or Renton getting inundated by a tsunami after traveling allll the waaaay down the Straight of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, Elliot Bay and up 5 miles of the Duwamish river...now we might rock and roll, but during the Nisqually quake which is ALOT closer, the liquefaction never occurred. Granted, it was a short and sharp quake, but there is alot of planet Earth between us and the fault....

Quoting bhill (Reply 21): the Pacific Ocean is 120 miles west of the Puget Sound, and while tsunami might fuck up the coastal regions..and they DO have test protocols for that, I find it hard to imagine Plant 2 or Renton getting inundated by a tsunami after traveling allll the waaaay down the Straight of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, Elliot Bay and up 5 miles of the Duwamish river.

Bingo!
While I sure wouldn't want to be in Forks or Ocean Shores when it happens, a tsunami in greater Seattle or Portland, at least one that causes any real damage, is a non-factor. The shaking on the other hand.......that could be bad for the locals (of which I am one). Got the camp stove, water filter, tent and canned goods all stocked up just in case.

As for those that say this is long overdue.....in geologic time frames, the time since the last one is an eye blink. If it doesn't happen for another 50 (or even 500) years it still isn't "long overdue." That being said, there's no question that it could happen tonight - we just don't know and I sure don't lose sleep worrying about it.

Quoting bhill (Reply 21): I REALLY wish some of you folks reading these "gloom and doom" stories should actually look up the geography of this place....

I think I'll give the estimates made by experts more credence than a simple dismissal of merely looking at a map and saying it won't happen.

Quoting slider (Reply 20): Or is it to continue to insult people and take little potshots?

Actually, I neither insulted you nor took potshots. I stated an opinion, which is all part of:

Quoting slider (Reply 20): This is a forum for open discussion, is it not? Is that not the goal here?

I apologize my opinion insulted you.

Quoting slider (Reply 20): you don't know the definition of it.

mel·o·dra·mat·ic
ˌmelədrəˈmadik/
adjective
adjective: melodramatic

of or relating to melodrama.
characteristic of melodrama, especially in being exaggerated, sensationalized, or overemotional.

So, yes, I do believe that your statement: " urgently and fervently concerned" meets the definition.

Just because you say it's not "fear-mongering" doesn't mean it isn't.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 22): As for those that say this is long overdue.....in geologic time frames, the time since the last one is an eye blink. If it doesn't happen for another 50 (or even 500) years it still isn't "long overdue." That being said, there's no question that it could happen tonight - we just don't know and I sure don't lose sleep worrying about it.

And, that is pretty much my point. This is something that we can't really do anything about. Yes, we can engineer and build to withstand certain disasters, including earthquakes. But, reading this article, and others, since it's been picked up by the MSM, I get the sense that they're expecting the BIG one. A 9+ earthquake, with accompanying tsunami. I really don't care what preparations you put in place, the whole region will be flattened and the geography changed.

Should the building code be more robust? I've no idea. I've not researched it, nor really care to. If the area is prone to earthquakes, the building code should be adjusted to reflect that.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 19): Once you go past the Average, your chances are astronomically higher that the earthquake is closer.

Err I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You don't hit some point and have the odds instantly go up

Quoting casinterest (Reply 19): It may still take another thousand years, but chances are that it will happen in the next 200 years.

Exactly. We may very well be in a 1000 year period of no quakes. Saying we are overdue implies there is structure to it all that gets worse and worse past 243 years. Yes, geological events happen, but there isn't some uniform pattern the plates are set up in. The plates may be in such a pattern that we'll go a while without a major quake. Without knowing how the plates are arranged, we can only go by a ballpark to expect an average of one per 243 years over an extended period of time but to simply extrapolate one every 243 years isn't how it works

I think we're actually closer in agreement than we think but I think we're just repeating ourselves at this point

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 25): Yes, geological events happen, but there isn't some uniform pattern the plates are set up in.

In fact, the last geologic event may have upset the "pattern". Some level of equilibrium may have been reached that blows the average out.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 25): You don't hit some point and have the odds instantly go up

The odds always go up when you are heading towards an event that will happen. There will be an earthquake. Every second that goes by brings you closer. Thus the odds are higher on each given day than they were the day before, even if it micro/nano percentages.

If you flip a coin, the odds go away once it leaves your fingertips. it's final state has been assured by the momentum and forces present at that moment. You just don't know how to calculate the variables at that point fast enough to see the end result, so you wait to see. That is all we are doing with this next earthquake.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 25): I think we're actually closer in agreement than we think but I think we're just repeating ourselves at this point

Possibly.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14): There is actually evidence to suggest that this might be the case in that the cascades has experiences regular volcanic activity that means the plate is moving smoothly and melting into the mantle at a constant rate. Earthquakes occur when the stress builds to the point of breaking. The consistent rate of volcanism means constant melting so perhaps little stress built up along the boundary and associated fault lines.

As I'm about to enter the supercaldera zone I will take solace from this post and sleep soundly at night by believing ardently in it's supposition. Otherwise I'll just fret for the next 20 years. Thank you Star17.

Quoting slider (Reply 23): I think I'll give the estimates made by experts more credence than a simple dismissal of merely looking at a map and saying it won't happen.

Right....I live in Lynnwood...about 15 miles from downtown Seattle..I have hiked BOTH the Olympics and Cascades, sailed and motored on Puget Sound and water skiied on Lake Washington...I HAVE read the EXPERT reports from the UNIVERSITY OF....WASHINGTON. Those EXPERTS are not telling the same story as this MELODRAMATIC "study"...

Now...go look at a USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL map and you will discover what the hell I am saying...

Quoting bhill (Reply 21): ...but during the Nisqually quake which is ALOT closer, the liquefaction never occurred. Granted, it was a short and sharp quake, but there is alot of planet Earth between us and the fault....

It's very hard to extrapolate from a known event to an unknown with an energy release that is some 3000 times larger, and that's the difference between 6.8 and 9.0. (Roughly. I didn't do the exact calculation, but it's in that ballpark.) Shake duration will be 5 minutes or more. It's a qualitatively different event, even if the origin is farther away.

I wonder how many schools are unreinforced masonry. If nothing is done about an earthquake warning system, and if it ends up hitting during school hours, the child fatalities could be massive. There's no real excuse to replay Sichuan 2008.

*yawn*

I grew up in Oregon. Every slow news day, we heard how the Northwest was due for "The Big One" or how Mt. Rainer/Hood/Baker/Shasta was going to blow any time now or some disaster.

This is old news and not worth freaking out over. We are ready but this is nothing new.

That idea of a form of regularity in earthquakes and that "we're overdue" is typical of disaster movies. It features in San Andreas for example.

It doesn't make much sense, though. Either there are indications of an earthquake, because of accumulated stress, or there aren't.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 32): That idea of a form of regularity in earthquakes and that "we're overdue" is typical of disaster movies.

It is not, it is based on previous earthquakes. It's the same with volcanoes.
Nobody is saying that it will happen every 300 years, just that the previous quakes/eruption
have happen at a certain average. So compared to that average the next big quake/eruption
is overdue but that is not the same as saying that it will happen soon or anything like that.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 17): Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):Consider too that most of Boeing's plants in Washington state are within the Tsunami zone, No they are not. The Everett plant sits up on top of a hill a good 400 feet above the level of Puget Sound. The Renton plant is on the shores of Lake Washington, not Puget Sound - there's a large hill separating the Sound and Renton - zero chance of a tsunami hitting either one. They are both very much in an earthquake zone however, perhaps that is what you meant?

Thank you for the correction, I have been to the Everett plant and forgot it is significantly above the shoreline, so likely to survive a Tsumami. Still a major earthquake/tsumani could ruin part of their facilities like at Boeing Field, supplier companies, employees, major roadways, train lines, utility services and likely significant structures at plants in that region.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 24): Just because you say it's not "fear-mongering" doesn't mean it isn't.

Whatever dude. Read as "you didn't read the article and just want to be needlessly argumentative." I get it, you don't like me, I may not like you, but if you want to make things personal, so be it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 31): We are ready but this is nothing new.

No, the region is NOT ready, that's my whole goddamn point. Did you not read the article? Why deliberately not have evac zones, school egress areas, construction standards, retrofitting, et al, ad infinitum.

it's one thing to think you're ready. It's another when something actually happens. To untrained, emotional, and panic-stricken civilians who aren't prepared.

Quoting wingman (Reply 28): As I'm about to enter the supercaldera zone I will take solace from this post and sleep soundly at night by believing ardently in it's supposition. Otherwise I'll just fret for the next 20 years. Thank you Star17.

If you heading to Yellowstone, the geological formation responsible for it is not the same one that created the volcanic and earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 31): I grew up in Oregon. Every slow news day, we heard how the Northwest was due for "The Big One" or how Mt. Rainer/Hood/Baker/Shasta was going to blow any time now or some disaster.

The average human lifespan is but a micron of geological time and I am being generous to the micron.

Quoting slider (Reply 35): No, the region is NOT ready, that's my whole goddamn point. Did you not read the article? Why deliberately not have evac zones, school egress areas, construction standards, retrofitting, et al, ad infinitum.

Volcanoes give warnings whether or not an eruption is going to happen but it is hard to predict when they are exactly going to happen. An evacuation from an impending eruption is doable but you do run into a "Boy who cried wolf" scenario if the USGS predicts impeding eruptions and they amount to nothing.

It would be good public investment to start retrofitting older buildings and updating gas lines and water-mains to ensure that they don't rupture in the event of an earthquake. The biggest damage and loss of life from earthquakes in cities as the 1906 San Francisco taught us was fire from ruptured gas lines and lack of water available from ruptured water-mains.

I am sure the Pacific Northwest is like most areas in the US where it's infrastructure is in dire need of replacing. Planning for an earthquake should be part of that but it is hard to convince short sighted taxpayers to pay for this and we tend to only learn after the disaster has happened.

As a Canadian, Vancouver is at the same risk as Seattle, Portland and other cities in the areas as well.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 36): I am sure the Pacific Northwest is like most areas in the US where it's infrastructure is in dire need of replacing. Planning for an earthquake should be part of that but it is hard to convince short sighted taxpayers to pay for this and we tend to only learn after the disaster has happened.

This..........it's endemic in all areas of the US, not just earthquake zones. How many bridges need to collapse, how many gas mains need to explode, how many water mains need to fail and flood many city blocks etc before we get proactive on fixing infrastructure?

Quoting slider (Reply 35): I get it, you don't like me,

What makes you think that? I don't even know you. Just because we have differing opinions on things doesn't mean can't like each other. You know, that's what's wrong with this place ( and, I believe it's a microcosm of the country); too many people think disagreement means dislike or hate.

I did read the article and it is well-written fear-mongering. I've lived close enough to the New Madrid Seismic Zone and even closer to the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone for, just about, my entire adult life, and not a year has gone by where "they" don't tell us we are due for the big one.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 37): This..........it's endemic in all areas of the US, not just earthquake zones. How many bridges need to collapse, how many gas mains need to explode, how many water mains need to fail and flood many city blocks etc before we get proactive on fixing infrastructure?

I agree here. We find money that is ear-marked for "infra-structure" and "shovel-ready" projects used for some politician or another's pet park project or some interstate beautification project or some such luxury.

Quoting slider (Reply 35): To untrained, emotional, and panic-stricken civilians who aren't prepared.

And, short of mandatory emergency evacuation and/or shelter drills, there is nothing you can do to prepare these citizens. The best you can ask for is PSA's reminding people to have an emergency kit (3 days for each person and animal) and a plan.

Now, I agree that there should be some evacuation plan that can be implemented to reverse the inbound interstates and set-up marshaling points to get as many folks out as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Do you know that the local EMA doesn't have those plans made up and ready to go? Do you know that the emergency agencies aren't running annual table-tops concerning natural and man-made disasters?

[Edited 2015-07-21 18:02:35]

[Edited 2015-07-21 18:04:10]