
Oregon’s Tsunami Risk - quickthrower2
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/oregons-tsunami-risk-between-the-devil-and-the-deep-blue-sea
======
PhantomGremlin
As bad as it sounds for the coast, if/when the big one hits, a tsunami will be
the least of the region's problems.

That's because a magnitude 9 earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone is
predicted to have effects well inland. E.g. most of Portland's bridges won't
survive. The recently constructed Tilikum Crossing is up to modern earthquake
standards, probably the new Sellwood Bridge, but the older bridges aren't.
Those older bridges include all the interstate highway bridges.

How long can the Portland Metro area survive without electricity and without
water and with much of the road infrastructure unusable because of damaged
bridges?

A strong earthquake along the subduction zone can also affect the entire
Washington Coast and Seattle. It could also affect Vancouver and Victoria,
British Columbia.

Does anyone believe that FEMA could cope with a disaster like that? I don't.
If and when the big one hits, a lot of people will be in for a lot of hurt.

This is generally known in the area. E.g. my daughter learned about it in a
high school geology class. The high risk area is "anything west of I-5". But,
as the article points out, the politicians have opted for Gollum's "I'm not
listening" attitude.

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

~~~
iamtheworstdev
It wouldn't be on FEMA at that point. You would have the nearest Carrier group
and the Army/national guard moving in to provide support. And, as
disappointing as this is to say, because you're an actual US state it would
not be anything like how we treated Puerto Rico.

~~~
glenneroo
> because you're an actual US state it would not be anything like how we
> treated Puerto Rico.

Tell that to New Orleans.

~~~
iron0013
Yep, it's not about statehood, it's about something else, something "skin
deep"

------
philshem
This is from the 2015 Pulitzer winning author of “The Next Big One”, about the
eventual mega-earthquake in the Pacific Northwest.

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-
big-...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one)

~~~
neilv
This new article is best read after reading the 2015 article.

------
EdwardDiego
Short term economic gains now, with deferred death-tolls later, sounds like
business as usual then when it comes to earthquake risks.

~~~
dgzl
What economic gains are to be had?

~~~
Fezzik
I imagine EdwardDiego is referencing the economic gains made by not spending
the funds to appropriately prepare for the disastor...

------
gdubs
Cannon Beach is the “Goonies” beach, and it’s spectacular.

This type of regulation feels ominously similar to the choices made in areas
like Paradise California, which burned last year. Too little respect for the
urban-wildland interface.

It’s hard to truly appreciate the scale of natural events until you’re in the
middle of one. Even a mild earthquake is a vivid reminder of the scale.

~~~
klyrs
My dad's family lived in Cannon Beach when the tsunami of '64 hit. It
innundated downtown, destroying some buildings, and tore others off their
foundations. My dad was home when the house floated away...

And that was caused by a quake in Alaska.

------
mrob
If building tsunami-resistant buildings is too expensive, are there
alternative options? E.g. mandate that everybody has easy access to an
enormous ball of expanded polypropylene, with a hollow center and a tunnel big
enough for entry. EPP is very tough and impact resistant, so it might save the
occupant while it's floating in the tsunami. I don't know if it would actually
work, but has anybody even studied this type of idea?

~~~
im_down_w_otp
Wouldn't good ol' fashioned fallout shelter technology suffice, save for a few
use case specific alterations?

You won't be underwater forever. How long does it take for a tsunami to
recede?

~~~
tracker1
There's material design, shape and reinforcements to consider, but a tube
would probably be a decent start. Requiring such a think, along with a alert
system (loud sirens/speakers) in the region should probably also be a
requirement.

------
tejtm
general background info
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone)

An important detail is:

``` forty-one subduction zone earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone in
the past 10,000 years, suggesting a general average earthquake recurrence
interval of only 243 years ```

With the last being in the year 1700 which puts the next firmly in the overdue
with respect to average interval but not beyond the range of observed
variance.

Infrastructure related folks in the area might want to look into
[https://www.shakealert.org/](https://www.shakealert.org/)

~~~
b_tterc_p
The average is surprisingly unimportant for rare event detection like this.
The San Andreas fault, for instance, is overdue by that logic. But it could
easily be decades away from another big one.

Coincidentally Wikipedia suggests the San Andreas daily erupted today?

------
matchagaucho
I've lived in Cannon Beach, OR. And while I respect the quality of this
Journalists work (she did win a Pulitzer), the perpetrated fear-mongering on
this topic is disappointing.

Millions of people live on or near fault lines, yet we don't see calls to
prevent building Fire/Police/Hospitals simply because "they would perish too."

The Oregon Coast is no exception. Those who live there, service personnel
included, do so because they love the region, despite being reminded daily
with all the "Tsunami Warning" signs up and down the PCH 101.

~~~
cheerlessbog
Isnt it a little different? The area threatened by tsunami maybe be less than
a mile from the coast. If there's a nearby hill, less. It should not be a
tremendous burden to keep your hospital a mile inland, or a hundred feet up
the hill. Those who choose to live in the area can make a plan to briskly walk
uphill when they feel tremors or hear sirens.

The area threatened by a major earthquake may extend for hundreds of miles and
elevation is no defense. We have no choice but to locate public facilities in
that area.

~~~
matchagaucho
Risk of forest fires are far more imminent. More people are prepared to run
_down_ the hill than up on any given day.

------
kolbe
The fact of the matter is that people, despite knowing the tsunami risks, have
decided to live in the tsunami-inundation zone. These people probably should
also have fair access to public services. I know some writers in some media
circles tend to think that government should be a heavy handed nanny. But even
when people make a supposedly bad decision, like living on the Oregon coast,
they are still tax paying citizens who deserve access to the services they pay
for.

~~~
rootusrootus
A lot of the inundation zone is fairly narrow, in many places the mountains
get fairly close to the ocean. I would bet that in most areas it is possible
to have public services within a reasonable distance while locating those
services on ground that is high enough to be [relatively] safe.

------
JetezLeLogin
For the curious here's a tsunami inundation/evac map of the Pacific Northwest
coast: [http://nvs.nanoos.org/TsunamiEvac](http://nvs.nanoos.org/TsunamiEvac)

------
mxcrossb
The good news is that Oregon, according to the article, also gave up on its
climate change bill. This means that many of those coastal buildings might
already be under water by time a tsunami strikes, avoiding the problem.

~~~
kayfox
"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership
fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum.

~~~
BeetleB
>"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership
fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum.

Umm... no. They returned in time to continue the session. It didn't pass
because there weren't enough _Democrats_ who supported the bill.

>The move seemingly ended a fight that has strained relationships in the
statehouse since the first days of the session. HB 2020 would create an
overall cap on Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions and would charge companies
for their pollution.

>But the bill saw backlash from industries that felt added costs would put
them at a competitive disadvantage, and from citizens who chafed at an
expected increase in gas and energy costs. _Ultimately the pushback was
apparently enough to convince three Democratic senators to oppose the bill_ ,
meaning it would likely not have enough votes to pass.

[https://www.opb.org/news/article/as-republicans-return-
senat...](https://www.opb.org/news/article/as-republicans-return-senate-moves-
at-blistering-pace/)

 _Edit:_ Probably violating HN guidelines, but: I provided a reliable source,
yet am being heavily downvoted without any counterpoint or counterreference.
What's the issue with my comment?

~~~
xrd
I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote?

~~~
BeetleB
>I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote?

It's not an either or. The bill may have been one of the motives to flee. The
reality in the end, though, was that their tactic didn't defeat the bill. They
came back before the end of the session. There was a quorum, but the Democrats
realized they didn't have enough votes.

My point is that claiming there wasn't a quorum, given how productive the end
of the session was[0], is simply false.

[0]They passed 100 bills in the last two days.

[https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-
session-...](https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-
concludes-final-day-sine-die-house-senate/)

~~~
rootusrootus
You're getting downvoted on both comments because you're being disingenuous
and partisan. The GOP senators absolutely refused to return to Salem until
they were positive the bill would not pass if they allowed quorum. They would
have stayed away indefinitely if necessary.

Does not bode well for the future of our democracy. I guess we will see what
the future holds.

~~~
JetezLeLogin
Defensively upvoted BeetleB because the comment is literally and factually
true and I see nothing disingenuous or partisan about it, nor would I venture
into such intent-divining, mind-reading territory. You're correct about the
intent of the Republican embargo, but your point is about what would have
happened. BeetleB's comment is about what did happen. If we're all champions
of rational discussion on HN then surely there's room for that much subtlety,
not to mention plain facts. Not enough Democrats supported the bill; they
declared it dead; Republicans decided in light of that, they could stop their
stonewalling (and in my opinion, dereliction of duty). It's a technicality,
and it's technically true.

~~~
craigyk
BeetleB is being disingenuous, the GOP fled and would not return until they
were sure the bill died. There were other things that needed voting on- the
climate bill was publicly dropped so that the missing senators would come back
and they could vote on other issues. Putting the blame for this bill failing
to pass on anyone but these senators is disingenuous by omission.

~~~
JetezLeLogin
It's all part of the story. Talking about the Niña doesn't mean I absolve the
Pinta and the Santa María from whatever Columbus' expedition did. It does
probably mean I'm talking about the Niña at the moment and am not terribly
interested in the blame game. (No one else wants a time-out from that tedium
huh?)

OK well if we're going to play the blame game, and we don't like
disingenuously omitting things, then why shield from blame those 3 Democrats
who switched sides? Why shield from blame the leadership who could've stayed
the course, maybe found a way to wait the Republicans out forever? (It's not
like "rules" or "procedures" apply anymore, so why not?)

You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the
most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual
their _supposed_ representatives in various bodies are, even despite having
majorities in those bodies. Am I automatically a Republican for saying
something like "Obama isn't liberal _enough_?" Of course not. And those who
claim that criticism of the leadership is disloyal/traitorous share that trait
with fascists.

~~~
BeetleB
>You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the
most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual
their supposed representatives in various bodies are, even despite having
majorities in those bodies.

Or, you know, just someone who values the truth. :-)

There doesn't have to be a complex narrative behind my actions, and nor do I
have to be on either the Democrats or the Republican's side to point out when
a statement is false.

~~~
rootusrootus
If you value the truth why did you exclude so much of it?

~~~
BeetleB
Here is the first comment in the thread:

>The good news is that Oregon, according to the article, also gave up on its
climate change bill.

Here is the next:

>"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership
fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum.

And then came mine:

>Umm... no. They returned in time to continue the session. It didn't pass
because there weren't enough _Democrats_ who supported the bill.

And then eventually you ask me:

>If you value the truth why did you exclude so much of it?

The first two comments were clearly omitting an important fact, so I
contributed to the conversation by providing _excluded_ truths. Furthermore,
my comment implicitly acknowledged that the senators ran away to prevent a
quorum, by acknowledging that they returned. In case there was any doubt, I
made that _explicit_ in my next comment.

Not to mention that my (initial) comment contained more information, and
actually provided a source. And in all these comments criticizing mine, _no
one else has even bothered to provide a source to support their claims_.

So what did I exclude, and why am I the one being asked? Why not hold the
original commenters to the same standard?

As I said, at the end of the legislative session:

1\. There was quorum.

2\. No one was stalling the bill at that point.

3\. The Democrats chose not to have a vote on the bill because of actions by
_their own party members_. Whatever tactics the Republicans initially used to
stall the bill, at the end the Democrats contributed to the failure in getting
the bill passed.

(For anyone still reading, and confused about my original comments - their
scores were well into the negatives, although they no longer are so.)

~~~
xrd
Can you share where the fact that Democrats didn't support it is documented?
I'm open to hearing this is the truth, and I'm also wanting to disprove my
assumption this is a Republican talking point. I will definitely read what you
provide.

~~~
BeetleB
>Can you share where the fact that Democrats didn't support it is documented?

It's right in my original comment, with the link:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20355418](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20355418)

------
skybrian
There is something for people outside Oregon to do. Google Maps and hotel
booking sites could delist hotels in the inundation zone. (Or at least put a
big warning.)

~~~
skybrian
Perhaps downvoters could explain why they don't care about keeping tourists
safe? This might seem mean, but it's the logical consequence of taking this
threat seriously.

~~~
quickthrower2
Maybe it’s google maps taking moral stances. There will be a lot of people
who’d like google maps to delist or rename things to suit an agenda, well
intentioned or otherwise so it’s probably best if google stay out of it.

------
dgzl
Not surprising, this governor of ours is pretty lousy.

