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

Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

earthquake.usgs.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

#31

Post by pests »

kstrauser wrote: post #26
nostrademons wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your commute happens about 250 days every year. A big earthquake happens maybe once ever 30 years. Buying a house takes 30 years to pay off. There's a limited supply of land; if all the houses in safe zones are taken, it may be worth it to some people to roll the dice on a house with natural hazards that's cheaper yet still close to everything. They're optimizing for the common case.

I’ve lived in blizzard territory and tornado alley. I have friends in hurricane zones. Parts of the US want to cook you alive. There’s nowhere in the country without something or another trying to kill you.

Michigan is pretty safe. We get tornados but that's about it. Not much poisonous or dangerous wildlife besides bears - just stay out of the wilderness.

Not to mention a huge supply of fresh water.

Re: Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

#32

Post by Exuma »

pests wrote: post #31
kstrauser wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve lived in blizzard territory and tornado alley. I have friends in hurricane zones. Parts of the US want to cook you alive. There’s nowhere in the country without something or another trying to kill you.

Michigan is pretty safe. We get tornados but that's about it. Not much poisonous or dangerous wildlife besides bears - just stay out of the wilderness. Not to mention a huge supply of fresh water.

Crippling boredom

Re: Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

#33

Post by pests »

atomicnumber3 wrote: post #21
ck2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really do not understand how creatures like humans who can understand and plan for things build cities in flood zones, wildfire zones, earthquake zones, below sealevel, etc. It's not like the death of the sun or heat death of universe where it's a billion years outside of your lifetime, it's going to happen in your lifetime. The "oh well what can you do" response leads me to believe we aren't going to do a damn thi…

Some humans do, at least. I've read about there being stones in lakes or rivers that basically say "btw if you see this stone, you're as fucked as we were in the year 300AD" or something. And in Japan there's those old stone marker monuments telling people not to build below them because of tsunamis or floods or something to that effect. But I mean I guess when it's as desirable property as the SF Bay Area, the fact…

It seems everyone in this thread is forgetting humans only live 100 years.

If an event happens every 250 years on average - thats 10 generations of humans.

There are stories told by old Indigenous peoples in Canada and the Western USA about the Cascadia Fault which will wreck the PNW west of Interstate 5, estimated to happen every 500 years, last happened in 1700s. But they are just that - vague stories. Who is listening to them?

If 10 generations of a family can live in one spot for 250 years with no issues - it might be pretty hard to convince them they have to leave.

Re: Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

#34

Post by Buttons840 »

shasheene wrote: post #6

The entirety of SoMa and Mission Bay are liquefaction zones [1], expected to face major damage during the next major earthquake. I wonder if "Drop, Cover, and Hold On" really is good advice for liquefaction zones for a very big earthquake. [1] https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd4749...

Question: An earthquake can be dangerous because it is long lasting or because it is short and especially violent. So my question is, are earthquakes usually a consistent intensity? Or can they be moderate intensity for 45 seconds and then flatten me with a pulse that makes me experience 3x my body weight?

Re: Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

#35

Post by aifooh7Keew6xoo »

ck2 wrote: post #16
shasheene wrote: post #6

The entirety of SoMa and Mission Bay are liquefaction zones [1], expected to face major damage during the next major earthquake. I wonder if "Drop, Cover, and Hold On" really is good advice for liquefaction zones for a very big earthquake. [1] https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd4749...

I really do not understand how creatures like humans who can understand and plan for things build cities in flood zones, wildfire zones, earthquake zones, below sealevel, etc. It's not like the death of the sun or heat death of universe where it's a billion years outside of your lifetime, it's going to happen in your lifetime. The "oh well what can you do" response leads me to believe we aren't going to do a damn thi…

Well, it usually beats homelessness or rent slavery.

Re: Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

#36

Post by mrexroad »

shasheene wrote: post #6

The entirety of SoMa and Mission Bay are liquefaction zones [1], expected to face major damage during the next major earthquake. I wonder if "Drop, Cover, and Hold On" really is good advice for liquefaction zones for a very big earthquake. [1] https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd4749...

Covering doesn’t do too much (in the moment) to stop a building coming down, but it def helps stop heavy objects from concussing or worse. For those in the Bay Area, Cal academy of sciences has a nifty simulator exhibit. For everyone else, just watch a few YouTube videos of how violently and abruptly everything not bolted down becomes a projectile.

It’s been so long since we’ve had strong seismic activity in the Bay Area that I’d wager most that have moved here in past two decades (hi!) don’t have all their bookshelves/etc bolted to the wall, breakables secured with quake-hold, shoes under bed, etc… not to mention proper supplies for significant infrastructure damage. I know I caught myself being complacent earlier this year after I reorganized all of our stemware and whisky/etc to a glass cabinet next one of our two exit paths. It would have been an a guaranteed 20-30 lbs of glass shards thoroughly blocking that path. But hey, I’ll admit I have cinema-induced-paranoia about two things: 1) being trapped barefoot with glass covered floors, and 2) potential for velociraptor ingress.

Re: Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

#37

Post by mrexroad »

opportune wrote: post #9
toast0 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the alternative? Drop cover and hold on at least avoids injury from attempting to move on an unexpectedly moving surface. When the ground stops moving, then you have a chance at purposeful motion.

One alternative might be “run as fast as you fucking can towards Potrero Hill” if you are close enough to be able to make progress towards it.

Great advice for those already outside, away from structures, and already at Potrero hill

Re: Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

#39

Post by vlovich123 »

opportune wrote: post #10
jandrewrogers wrote: post #2

That’s a pretty small earthquake for California. You’ll feel a 5.x but it doesn’t get much more than a passing blurb in the local news when it happens. Everything there is built for earthquakes, the damage doesn’t start until you get to the 6.x range.

It was so close to SF that it was much more apparent than other earthquakes. For me, this was the most noticeable earthquake in SF this year.

Yeah, it was longer and stronger than any other quake I recall feeling living in various parts of California for over 10 years. Felt stronger than the one that got an emergency alert sent out in the past week (2?).

Re: Yup, that was an earthquake outside SF

#40

Post by vtail »

Buttons840 wrote: post #34
shasheene wrote: post #6

The entirety of SoMa and Mission Bay are liquefaction zones [1], expected to face major damage during the next major earthquake. I wonder if "Drop, Cover, and Hold On" really is good advice for liquefaction zones for a very big earthquake. [1] https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd4749...

Question: An earthquake can be dangerous because it is long lasting or because it is short and especially violent. So my question is, are earthquakes usually a consistent intensity? Or can they be moderate intensity for 45 seconds and then flatten me with a pulse that makes me experience 3x my body weight?

Length of the earthquake is proportional to its strength.
Post reply on HN