Earthquake coming? 8-9 in Pacific NW

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Why is it that all the really good climate areas in North America (to me, i.e., neither savagely hot nor bitterly cold) are located where natural disasters are likely to happen?


No one place has it all. California has a good climate (generally), but there are earthquakes. Back east, we don't have earthquakes (generally), but we've got more weather and things like tornadoes. When I was a kid in CA, we had earthquake drills. Our kids now have tornado drills. You can escape much of that by living in the northern tier, but then you have a longer winter. I guess you have to choose which is the best compromise for you.
 
It's scary, millions will be effected by the quake.

Quote:
Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA’s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”

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. Roughly three thousand people died in San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake. Almost two thousand died in Hurricane Katrina. Almost three hundred died in Hurricane Sandy. FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Another twenty-seven thousand will be injured, and the agency expects that it will need to provide shelter for a million displaced people, and food and water for another two and a half million. “This is one time that I’m hoping all the science is wrong, and it won’t happen for another thousand years,” Murphy says.
 
I don't mind the Michigan weather so much. I moved here in 2002 and only remember one summer that was too hot. The rest of them have been nice, with only a handful of 90+ degree days, and mostly in the mid-70' to mid-80's. And the evenings are cool.

In the winter it gets cold and stays below freezing for at least two months. So when the snow comes, you dig out from it in a couple of days, then you have a winter wonderland to look at for a couple of months. But it's very bad what winter does to our roads.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I don't mind the Michigan weather so much. I moved here in 2002 and only remember one summer that was too hot. The rest of them have been nice, with only a handful of 90+ degree days, and mostly in the mid-70' to mid-80's. And the evenings are cool.

In the winter it gets cold and stays below freezing for at least two months. So when the snow comes, you dig out from it in a couple of days, then you have a winter wonderland to look at for a couple of months. But it's very bad what winter does to our roads.

That doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as a tsunami or a hurricane.
 
Buffalo, New York
Oh sure we get the snow, some years more than others.
Edit: Some years alot less.

Summer time has NEVER been over 100 F.
Cools Summer evenings.
Lake Erie acts as a giant air conditioner.

We can stand at the Niagara River and watch all this FRESH WATER
go by. It's so much, we just let it go into the Atlantic.

Home is where the heart is.
 
Last edited:
I have lived in San Diego my whole life. Yeah I have been through a few Quakes but nothing that did any damage. LA area always gets hit harder.
 
Minnesota is nice. You want prairie we got it, farmland? We have that in spades. Backwoods? Yep its there. Lakes? It seems like all of em. Rugged terrain? The. North shore is a lot of fun.
Living In Duluth has milder summers and winters.
I just wish we had mountains.
Sure we get snow, but lately we have not getting much. Just cold and dry...
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Why is it that all the really good climate areas in North America (to me, i.e., neither savagely hot nor bitterly cold) are located where natural disasters are likely to happen?


No one place has it all. California has a good climate (generally), but there are earthquakes. Back east, we don't have earthquakes (generally), but we've got more weather and things like tornadoes. When I was a kid in CA, we had earthquake drills. Our kids now have tornado drills. You can escape much of that by living in the northern tier, but then you have a longer winter. I guess you have to choose which is the best compromise for you.


Even up here we're getting more and more tornadoes!
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
No one place has it all. California has a good climate (generally), but there are earthquakes. Back east, we don't have earthquakes (generally), but we've got more weather and things like tornadoes. When I was a kid in CA, we had earthquake drills. Our kids now have tornado drills. You can escape much of that by living in the northern tier, but then you have a longer winter. I guess you have to choose which is the best compromise for you.

California in general has fairly good climate. The best climate section is San Diego within few miles from the ocean. High in summer is rarely above 80F, low in winter is rarely below 55F. You don't need A/C for summer or Heating for winter. The only thing missing is rain.

If you go 20-30 miles inland you can get very hot summer and fairly cold winter.
 
I'll take an earthquake here in Southern California over a tornado or a hurricane any day.

A much bigger problem than an earthquake here is the problem of wild fires.
 
SE Missouri / NE Arkansas Ozarks area if you want rural. Several Corp of Engineers lakes in the area as well. If you want some civilization, Branson Missouri isn't too far nor is Mountain Home Arkansas. If you're a pilot, there is a smattering of air parks to live on that are less money than a lot of other air park areas around the country. It's a remote area by car but with an airplane hangared in your "garage" and a runway connected to your yard, everything just got closer.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
It's scary, millions will be effected by the quake.

Quote:
Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA’s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”

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. Roughly three thousand people died in San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake. Almost two thousand died in Hurricane Katrina. Almost three hundred died in Hurricane Sandy. FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Another twenty-seven thousand will be injured, and the agency expects that it will need to provide shelter for a million displaced people, and food and water for another two and a half million. “This is one time that I’m hoping all the science is wrong, and it won’t happen for another thousand years,” Murphy says.
And by the way we'd like a BIG budget increase for raises.
 
While I agree that a subduction quake and tsunami off the Northwest coast could be catastrophic to WA, OR and Northern CA, it sounds like our friend from FEMA has seen "San Andreas" a few too many times and might be looking for funding to match the fear mongering.

Everything west of I-5 being "toast" is a pretty tall order if taken literally. What constitutes "toast" if several of the larger towns in Oregon and Washington along I-5 are 50-100 miles inland?? A tsunami isn't going to travel 50-100 miles inland unless there's a shift in the earth's axis. Maybe that's why the forecast only projects 13,000 dead in this disaster versus the quarter million who died in the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia/Thailand. Somebody call Dwayne Johnson..
 
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
While I agree that a subduction quake and tsunami off the Northwest coast could be catastrophic to WA, OR and Northern CA, it sounds like our friend from FEMA has seen "San Andreas" a few too many times and might be looking for funding to match the fear mongering.

Everything west of I-5 being "toast" is a pretty tall order if taken literally. What constitutes "toast" if several of the larger towns in Oregon and Washington along I-5 are 50-100 miles inland?? A tsunami isn't going to travel 50-100 miles inland unless there's a shift in the earth's axis. Maybe that's why the forecast only projects 13,000 dead in this disaster versus the quarter million who died in the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia/Thailand. Somebody call Dwayne Johnson..

I think the idea that the land itself will have dropped quite a few feet is what contributes to their notion that the tsunami will travel a good ways inland. Anyway the tsunami doesn't have to reach even 50 miles inland to cause terrific destruction -- if power and emergency resources are out, on top of the havoc of the earthquake itself, that would be a good way to describe "toast."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
P-38 Lightning: The Best Plane From World War II?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
12K
IndyFan
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
Back
Top Bottom