Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

Post by secabeen » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 11:03 PM UTC

indemnity wrote: post #40

TimTheTinker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear how a CEA policy makes financial sense for a standard single-family, owner-occupied house. The only affordable plans have massive deductibles and only partial cost coverage. If "the big one" hits, it's likely that: (a) CEA will quickly run out of money and I won't be covered anyway. (b) The whole community will be ruined so assuming all of my family is still alive we'd best move somewhere else anyway (a…

Different country, but for the Christchurch earthquake in 2011: - our equivalent of CEA (EQC) did indeed run out of money, although it’s mostly reinsurance and govt backed - insurance companies went under, because even for a small city (400k), costs ran to $40 billion - it’s now very very expensive to get earthquake coverage, in some parts of the country you are paying multiples of what less earthquake prone parts of…

Post by rjurney » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 7:10 AM UTC

FPGAhacker wrote: post #61

wwweston wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stress-relief model makes sense to me, but apparently it doesn't work that way: https://www.sfgate.com/earthquakes/article/do-minor-quakes-p...

It does, and the article affirms this. However it's a question of relative magnitude. The energy dissipated by the smaller quakes is dwarfed in comparison to larger quakes. The energy of a 5.5 quake is on the order of 1/1000th the energy of a mag 7 quake.