Live data from Hacker News

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

newyorker.com

51–60 of 95 posts

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

#51
post #23

What is Microsoft's contingency plan for this? Or, in fact, the FAANG's and other west-coast tech companies? The effects of a Cascadia earthquake on the US and world economy would be "interesting".

I suppose it depends on data centre locations. Data centre on the west coast? I'd be wary, mostly central and east coast? Less of a worry.

Staffing would play a major role as well with their HQs on the west coast.

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

#52
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the clouds will go down at the same time. The control planes for all them are heavily managed in Seattle.

AWS has lots of engineers in Seattle, but control plane is distributed. I'd personally expect a long delay in getting any fixes to things, but that many sites would be just fine.

For some reason I had the impression that us-east-1 was kind of the flagship for AWS, although actually typing that out seems quite silly.

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

#53
I don't know how scientifically reliable this article is, but it gives me an idea. Could tsunami avoidance be an ideal use case for a jet pack? It doesn't need a lot of altitude or more than a few minutes of flight time, just easy rapid deployment without an airstrip. Some startup should be all over this. A combined package with an alarm triggered by an ultrasonic sensor would make a great sales pitch to well heeled customers living in that region. It might even lead to beneficial government policy changes by raising awareness of the danger when everybody who's not rich enough to afford one whinges about it on facebook.

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

#54

I don't know how scientifically reliable this article is, but it gives me an idea. Could tsunami avoidance be an ideal use case for a jet pack? It doesn't need a lot of altitude or more than a few minutes of flight time, just easy rapid deployment without an airstrip. Some startup should be all over this. A combined package with an alarm triggered by an ultrasonic sensor would make a great sales pitch to well heeled…

I'm not sure if this is satire? No, a jetpack is not an alternative for a tsunami. You'd have to: 1.) already be outside with it fueled and being worn. Tsunamis come quick if you're close enough to get seriously injured. If you're not then you just have time to get further inland.

2.) someone have a child-version (but what about infants?). Not sure about you but putting my nephews into a jet pack seems like a poor idea, they're fidgety in car seats.

3.) It's a jet pack, and you're flying. How is that possibly safe without regular maintenance and training for what would be a once in 1000 year event?

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

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At least in Oregon, I-5 is 50 miles away from the coast and separated from it by a small mountain range. I don't think we're too worried about tsunamis getting all the way to I-5. Definitely will get to Highway 101 in some spots, however. But a lot of the coastline is tall enough that you can usually find a safe place nearby if a tsunami warning sounds.

> But a lot of the coastline is tall enough that you can usually find a safe place nearby if a tsunami warning sounds.

I recall driving US-101 in Oregon some years back and kept seeing "Tsunami evacuation route" signs.

https://www.oregon.gov/oem/Documents/Tsunami_Evacuation_Sign...

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

#56

I think the year of publication of this article — 2015 — should be in the title, no?

By the standards, of course, although considering that the topic is about events on a geologic timescale, a half a decade plus or minus doesn't change the relevance much ;-)

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

#57
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the clouds will go down at the same time. The control planes for all them are heavily managed in Seattle.

AWS has lots of engineers in Seattle, but control plane is distributed. I'd personally expect a long delay in getting any fixes to things, but that many sites would be just fine.

But are all the buildings on the MS campus, for example, "built to code"? (that's the US phrase isn't it). Do we reasonably expect most, let's say, post-80s buildings to survive a magnitude 9+?

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

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

separately, there’s risk from lahars from mt. Baker and mt. Rainier. Catastrophic Baker lahars could potentially bury even Renton based on some estimates.

Don't forget Mt. Hood. The Sandy River is named as such because of a lahar from a decade prior.

Eruption-related lahars and sedimentation response downstream of Mount Hood: Field guide to volcaniclastic deposits along the Sandy River, Oregon -- https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-59/Pierson%20e...

> The Sandy River was originally named the Quicksand River by Lewis and Clark in 1805 (Moulton and Dunlay, 1990). Expedition members noted that the river (a) was ~275 m wide at its mouth and for several kilometers upstream on the delta (30-150 m wide there today); (b) had a number of mid Channel Islands; and (c) had flow which was turbid and very shallow (resembling the Platte River in Nebraska, they noted). It was given its name because "the bed of this stream is formed entirely of quick sand."

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/old.2000/fs060-00/fs060-00.pdf

> What happened? The answer lay 50 miles away at Mount Hood. An eruption in the 1790's caused a tremendous amount of volcanic rock and sand to enter the Sandy River drainage. That sediment was still being flushed downstream when Lewis and Clark saw and named the river. Since 1806, the river has removed the excess sediment from its channel.

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

#59
When that article was written, it was 29.6 percent past the average cycle time. Now it is more than 32 percent past. Time just keeps on marching forward. I didn't see any mention of what the distribution of intervals is, but 32 percent past average seems a lot even for a long-tailed distribution.

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

#60
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.

The volume of water displacement from a volcanic landslide is orders of magnitude less than that displaced by undersea fault quakes; while it could trigger a "local" tsunami that could impact the African or European coast, it would certainly not be in the same category as a "big one", nor very significant for North America.

Consider that the displaced water from this point event would radiate out in 360 degrees from the Canaries, dissipating with the square of distance traveled.

Post reply on HN