Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Really Big One

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 286 posts

Re: The Really Big One

#51

Post by jsprogrammer »

civilian wrote: post #46
jsprogrammer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A MBA in my python night class said that one approach to the viaduct problem would be to: fund a "victims of the viaduct" fund, today, with a couple million. And then pass a law that the compensation for families of the victims is limited to what's in the fund. What exactly is the "viaduct problem"?

It's going to collapse in the next big earthquake. //edit: and here's a simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hos_uIKwC-c

That's what I assumed, but I didn't (and still don't) see how setting up a limited liability fund for future victims would prevent what is shown in that simulation.

Re: The Really Big One

#52

Post by cdsingh1001 »

the question I would be asking myself is Am I prepared for such a natural disaster ? Or What steps can I take on a personal level to be ready ? For eg: Always have an evac bag ready to take off Or live out of a suitcase so that I dont have to worry about stuff & data. Or distribute my personal resources (cards, cash) etc in PO boxes across the country. Ofcourse, in such a huge disaster these steps wont matter but in small events, there might be of help.

Re: The Really Big One

#53

Post by brock_r »

nkoren wrote: post #27

I used to live in Portland, and thought about this impending catastrophe a lot. Once -- under the influence of intoxicants, most likely -- I came up with a way of dramatically reducing its impact. It's a batshit crazy solution which will never actually happen -- but even when I'm sober, I still think it would work. Here's what I'm thinking: the major problem with a disaster like this is the uncertainty surrounding it…

Raise your hand if you think intentionally cracking the eggshell of our planet using synchronized nuclear bombs might be a bad idea...

Re: The Really Big One

#54

Post by soperj »

jameshart wrote: post #9
soperj wrote: post #5

"The Pacific Northwest sits squarely within the Ring of Fire. Off its coast, an oceanic plate is slipping beneath a continental one. Inland, the Cascade volcanoes mark the line where, far below, the Juan de Fuca plate is heating up and melting everything above it. In other words, the Cascadia subduction zone has, as Goldfinger put it, “all the right anatomical parts.” Yet not once in recorded history has it caused a…

They are contrasting what they describe as weekly small quakes in Japan with long periods of inactivity in the Pacific Northwest. A significant quake in one city in the region 14 years ago doesn't invalidate the claim that you could spend a significant time in the northwest without feeling a tremor.

It's certainly not the only earthquake I've felt in the 15 years that I've lived here, just the biggest. Which is definitely different from not feeling a quiver in many lifetimes.

Re: The Really Big One

#55

Post by soperj »

edgyswingset wrote: post #14
sharkweek wrote: post #10

Well this article at least justifies that perhaps we don't need to replace the viaduct after all if everything is going to get destroyed anyways! While my fear of "the big one" doesn't keep me up at night, Seattle is going to be a classic example of "we should have known this was going to happen!" after a sizable earthquake costs substantial life at some point in the future. But this article does seem to stretch itse…

I don't think a tsunami is going to flatten the city. A wave has a lot to go through (peninsulas, narrow straights, etc) before it could reach the city, all of which would likely lessen its impact significantly. Where the area will get hit hard, though, is liquifaction and landslides.

Narrow straights would actually increase the damage, as was the case in the '64 Port Alberni(vancouver island) tsunami.

Re: The Really Big One

#56

Post by someear »

I like to think about how I'd react in the 15 minutes I have between the earthquake and tsunami.

How tall would this tsunami be? Quick googling shows the tallest one ever is 524 meters. Assuming the tsunami is that tall, going into tall buildings might not work - tallest building in Seattle, Columbia Tower, is 287 meters (+50m in elevation increase), and is a few blocks from the waterfront . Best bet is to run/bike up the hill to Capitol Hill, which is 100m higher in elevation, and about 2 miles inland (and east of the I5).

Just need some science to figure out how far the wave will go given these hill angles and elevations in Seattle to find a precise safe spot (assuming the tallest tsunami ever, and assuming all other variables like me being able to react instantly and fallen buildings not blocking my path stay constant, which they of course won't).

Re: The Really Big One

#57

Post by idlewords »

alxv wrote: post #49
Locke1689 wrote: post #20

Hmm, in the spirit of thinking of worst-case scenarios, most of the engineering talent for Amazon and Microsoft is in Seattle and Redmond, respectively. There's even a sizable percentage of Google cloud platform in Fremont and Kirkland. Even if most of the employees live, it's likely basic infrastructure will be a disaster for quite a while. Maybe Google would be able to offload ops work to Mountain View, but it seem…

Google runs a company-wide disaster recovery testing event every year. Earthquakes are among the numerous scenarios simulated. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2371516

The problem is that you can't really simulate the systemic effects of a really major quake (like a scenario where Mountain View is out of power for weeks).

Re: The Really Big One

#59

Post by jsprogrammer »

nkoren wrote: post #27

I used to live in Portland, and thought about this impending catastrophe a lot. Once -- under the influence of intoxicants, most likely -- I came up with a way of dramatically reducing its impact. It's a batshit crazy solution which will never actually happen -- but even when I'm sober, I still think it would work. Here's what I'm thinking: the major problem with a disaster like this is the uncertainty surrounding it…

If you are now fully retrofitted to survive a 9.0, why do we absolutely have to set off this earthquake now using hundreds of nuclear bombs?

Re: The Really Big One

#60

Post by jasonshen »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #51
civilian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to collapse in the next big earthquake. //edit: and here's a simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hos_uIKwC-c

That's what I assumed, but I didn't (and still don't) see how setting up a limited liability fund for future victims would prevent what is shown in that simulation.

The more cynical/realistic problem is "dealing with the aftermath of the collapse", and the fund helps keep some of the costs from overrunning.
Post reply on HN