Live data from Hacker News

An earthquake could destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

newyorker.com

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: An earthquake could destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

#21
post #3

> 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.” I remember when this article came out, my mom called me and said "you'll be okay, you're east of I-5, right?" "Yeah mom." About 6 blocks east. Plenty of cushion.

And you never venture West of it, right?

Re: An earthquake could destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

#24
post #17

The last several years, every time I consider the idea of someday moving back to Portland, I always think of this "The Big One" article. (With my mixed luck, the PNW mega-shark-quake-nami is just waiting for me to move back, so that'd really be irresponsible of me.)

[deleted]

Re: An earthquake could destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

#25
post #3

> 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.” I remember when this article came out, my mom called me and said "you'll be okay, you're east of I-5, right?" "Yeah mom." About 6 blocks east. Plenty of cushion.

City blocks, or Minecraft blocks? :D

Aka metres x)

Re: An earthquake could destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha… it’s not like the earthquake will stop at I-5 like it’s a magic shield. If the quake knocks out utilities and services everywhere west of the cascades, this I-5 ‘line’ is meaningless.

I believe they are referring to the tsunami that follows the earthquake, based on evidence from before the Europeans colonized the continent.

While some sections of I-5 are probably within the tsunami zone, I think much of it is beyond it. IIRC (I have not read the article since its original publication) this rule-of-thumb encompasses all the posited earthquake's structural and infrastructural damage at a level calling for FEMA-level assistance.

The remark is clearly only intended to give an impression of the magnitude of the worst-case scenario.

Re: An earthquake could destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

#27
post #3

> 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.” I remember when this article came out, my mom called me and said "you'll be okay, you're east of I-5, right?" "Yeah mom." About 6 blocks east. Plenty of cushion.

Ha… it’s not like the earthquake will stop at I-5 like it’s a magic shield. If the quake knocks out utilities and services everywhere west of the cascades, this I-5 ‘line’ is meaningless.

That’s the joke.

Re: An earthquake could destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

#28
It’s actually closer to every 500 years at the latitude Seattle and Portland are at.

The 300 year figure only applies to the southern Oregon and Northern California portion of the fault, and is based on turbidities and controversial.

Still, this is an under-appreciated risk of living in the northwest. There’s plenty of societies living in subduction zones across the planet. But few with as little awareness of their fault.

I remember talking to transplants to Seattle, I’d say there’s a 50/50 percent chance they were aware the region could produce earthquakes.

On the bright side: while we can never predict this for certain, it doesn’t appear there’s enough energy stored in the northern portion of the fault to produce a mega-thrust earthquake right now.

Re: An earthquake could destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

#29
post #6

Don't get too comfortable if you're on the East Coast. Whatever survives sea level rise due to global heating, will be wiped out by the megatsunami caused by the ensuing landslide when La Palma erupts.

Isn't that theory from some total nutjob?

It is not exactly a volcanic eruption that is the threat, but the collapse of the flank of the island (which might cause or be triggered by an eruption.) I believe Hawai'i presents a similar risk, and undersea avalanches (such as the prehistoric Storegga slides in the Norwegian Sea) pose a tsunami threat in many parts of the world not noted for their earthquake risk.
Post reply on HN