281–286 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live north east of Vancouver and have lived my whole life without even a shake. Most of my friends (from all over) have never felt one either. He didn't say "everywhere", just "many places".
Were you not there in 2001? Because that was pretty hard to miss.
I was in New Orleans in October 2002, and this guy was on the front page of the main newspaper predicting that within 20 years a category 5 hurricane was likely to whip around Florida and strike the city head on. He said the levies weren't high or strong enough, and that downtown New Orleans would be under 20 feet of water: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/predicting-katrina.html I remember reading it with interest…
I tend to look at the insurance company's take on these kind of things for a more clinical rational analysis. Compare rates and try to ferret out why they are what they are. Yes, its come to that..
I'm in a modern home, so I'm not making much of a claim if there's a smallish earthquake. But if there's a big one, I assume the insurance company will just go under, leaving me out the premiums and with no recourse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not only that, it's called "diabolo canyon". I mean talk about tempting fate.
At the end of the road through Montaña de Oro State Park there's a warning siren[1] that will go off if there's a problem at the Diablo Canyon facility. Every time I get out there and see it there's a part of me that expects it to start to blare... and I'm totally glad when I'm "disappointed" and it doesn't. [1] http://www.andremount.net/vanstravaganza_iii_2010/images/ful...
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…
... Bwahahaha ...Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the regularity of previous large quakes, and the fact that the described magnitude 6 quake takes place over a month, it would take longer to relieve the pressure via month-long magnitude 6 quakes than we have until the next large quake. Best case scenario - you could put it off for a few dozen years.
Even if you could relieve some of the pressure, you could theoretically make the big one less intense. It sounds like we're not even remotely close to being able to do it in practice though. (Although if we were, there's no reason why the described magnitude 6 over a month would be a limit.)