1700 Cascadia Earthquake

The author hedged pretty strongly on that statement here: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-to-s...

> Perhaps no line in the entire six-thousand-word piece attracted as much attention as this declaration by Kenneth Murphy, head of the fema division responsible for Cascadia: “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.” The first important thing to note about that remark is that, needless to say, Murphy really said it, and stood by it in the fact-checking process—so, clearly, fema is anticipating that the region will be in very grave shape.

> That said, “toast” is not what you would call a precise description, so let me be more specific. What Murphy did not mean is that everyone west of I-5 will be injured or killed; fema’s casualty figures, while horrifying, amount to under one-half of one per cent of the population of the region. Nor did he mean that every structure west of the interstate will fail

Note that Washington deployed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system just yesterday--here's how to enable it on your phone: https://mil.wa.gov/alerts

It's very difficult to describe how bad this earthquake is expected to be for a large swath of the Pacific Northwest when it happens again (and it's when, not if). It will be similar to Fukushima except absolutely nothing in the region is designed for earthquakes of this magnitude, not to mention the expected tsunami. Given the massive investment required and lack of motivation to do it, there will be almost no preparation in advance. It is not unreasonable to predict it will be the biggest natural disaster in American history by orders of magnitude.

Here is the best attempt I've seen so far to novelize what will happen in Portland. While obviously speculative, it's all very much based on the evidence at the time and I think does a better job of describing what will happen than just reading the dry (and usually incorrect because they assume supporting infrastructure) reports from the utility companies on how long they think it will take to, for example, repair the transmission lines. If you live in Portland, I implore you to sit down for an evening and take the time to digest this:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/8q8gyx/first-five-minutes-bi...

Don't panic, but take this seriously, this is a scientifically verified thing that will happen. It is never too early to consider things like earthquake retrofitting your home (bolting the frame to the foundation) and preparing emergency supplies like properly stored food and water. If you're on the coast, memorize your escape route, you won't have time to look it up and your phone won't work anyways.

Correct. Operating assumptions help in planning disaster recovery operations. For instance, which are the areas that you have a very high degree of certainty will survive? These are the areas in which you want to muster your defenses so to speak.

I read that as, "we can use I-5 as a distribution backbone if we prioritize its repair because it is very unlikely to suffer too much damage." I also assume that simulations indicate it will not need much repair. Bonus points if we've already re-engineered the sections of I-5 most likely to need repair. It could save time later.

So now we can make a plan around what we're likely to have, and if we have more when the time comes it's gravy.

Basically, don't position all your recovery assets and facilities along the 101. Doesn't mean the 101 won't be there, it only means your plan has a smaller chance of falling apart if you position the facilities you'll need along I-5.