
An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015) - luu
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
======
cultus
This article is misleading and gives a sensationist look at the actual
earthquake risk in the NW. It was not well received among seismologists
working in the NW. It is not dangerous to live in the NW. Be prepared, yes,
but there's no reason to be fearful.

~~~
iongoatb
I disagree that it's not dangerous. The initial earthquake may only
immediately kill a few thousand but the aftermath would be absolutely
devastating. It would be the most catastrophic natural disaster and
humanitarian crisis in the history of the United States. We know that it is
coming and that it is overdue. It would be greater than 911, Katrina, and all
the other crises that have occurred that we are still dealing with the
aftermath of.

~~~
cultus
No, there's been plenty of worse disasters. The San Francisco 1906 earthquake,
the Galveston hurricane, etc. The cumulative earthquake risk around Seattle is
about 1/2 of California. I'm not a seismologist, but I was a geophysicist who
knew many seismologists working in the NW. They uniformly thought it was
sensationalist.

I'm not saying this isn't a major threat that must be prepared for, but it's
not an apocalyptic or existential threat like this article makes it out to be.

~~~
iongoatb
According to ALL the scientists I've come across in my research, including ALL
official statements from FEMA, the Cascadia Subduction zone M9+ earthquake
would cause the greatest natural disaster and humanitarian crisis in American
history. The New Yorker article is sensationalist but that doesn't mean that
FEMA is wrong about the catastrophic aftermath of this earthquake - they
aren't.

~~~
taborj
I don't mean to downplay your research or stance, but the poster above you
mentioned a bit about their credentials. Do you work professionally in a
related field that has caused you to talk to/read other scientists regarding
this issue?

Without context, "all the scientists I've come across" could be 1 or 200.

------
iongoatb
I work remotely and was planning on moving to Seattle next year. The more I
research about the Cascadia Subduction zone and the overdue M9 earthquake, the
more I am hesitant to want to live in Seattle. I honestly don't think it's
worth moving to somewhere that is anticipating the worst natural disaster in
the history of the USA. I think it's beautiful and a great city but it's not a
risk I'm willing to take. Especially since it seems the region is
extraodonarily underprepared.

~~~
Communitivity
Ken Murphy was the FEMA director at the time. He said that if the Cascadia
Fault quake hits "Our operating assumption is that everything west of
Interstate 5 will be toast." That's pretty much all you need to know.
Insurance probably won't cover quake damage without prohibitive additional
charges, so even if you get out you'll lose everything. I've not gone after
some Bay Area opportunities I had because of this, and because my wife is
terrified of the fires in California.

That said, if you still want to chance it I researched and it is possible to
commute into Seattle from east of I5, just not fun.

~~~
bluejekyll
It’s all some degree of trade-offs.

Extreme winters in the north and north east, hurricanes along the East and
Caribbean coasts, tornadoes in the middle of the US, extreme heat in the south
west.

The fires have always been seasonal, but combine that with old infrastructure
and poor maintenance, some of it is man made so can be corrected.

The earthquake potential, while could be hugely devastating, happens once
every 30 years for medium ones and once every 100 or so years for the big
ones. That’s very different from the risks the rest of the country deals with
every year.

~~~
Retric
Virginia seems to get a little of everything, but not enough to be an issue.

It gets snow but it’s a long way from the extreme winters you get in the north
east. Hurricanes turn into heavy rains when you leave the coast. Earthquake’s
are hardly a concern outside the risk of minor property damage.

------
yakshaving_jgt
Strange to see this marked as 2015. I watched a documentary in (I think) 2004
that predicted the same (or worse) outcome, but attributed it to the collapse
of a volcano on one of the Canary Islands because its structure contains
vertical panels of water and is thus unstable. Supposedly, half the volcano
will fall into the sea, creating a huge tidal wave which will destroy the
entire east coast of the US and 20km inland.

Hey, turns out I remembered correctly.
[https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/a...](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/aug/10/science.spain)

~~~
blacksmith_tb
The Grand Canary supervolcano would have a hard time destroying the
Northwestern US, which is on the other side of the continent.

~~~
yakshaving_jgt
Ah, yes, I misread. Interesting nonetheless.

------
JohnJamesRambo
I was surprised FEMA only estimates 13,000 deaths from this cataclysmic
earthquake. I wonder how accurate that is.

~~~
maxerickson
Earthquakes aren't necessarily highly lethal events:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_Uni...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_United_States)

Countries that are more exposed to Tsunamis have it worse.

~~~
mannykannot
To be clear, there will be tsunamis: this is potentially a Tohoku-magnitude
event closer to the coastline, but the Northwest ocean-front coastline is
relatively thinly populated.

