
San Andreas fault 'ready' with big earthquake, expert says - smaili
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-andreas-fault-earthquake-20160504-story.html
======
dmix
Relevant article about the _Cascadia subduction zone_ which is arguably a much
bigger threat:

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-
big-...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one) with
612 points w/ 275 comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160)

Although, I don't wish to downplay the risks of the San Andreas faultline.

It seems the west-coast should be investing a hell of a lot of money in
preparation for this stuff. British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon included.

If I lived in a high risk area I would invest in a 'go' bag, a mountain bike,
and a plan to get to high ground as quickly as possible. You'll have about 15
minutes after the earthquake before the wave hits. Cars will be useless in the
traffic. The hardest part will be ignoring the initial destruction and
focusing on getting out of the area.

~~~
jandrewrogers
To some extent people over-dramatize the Cascadia earthquake threat to the
major population centers. The major cities are hundreds of miles from the
fault line, which will substantially reduce ground motion; Seattle had a 6.8
earthquake in 2001 on one of its many _local_ fault lines and the city is
still standing. Second, some of the major cities like Seattle have greatly
mitigated tsunami risk due to their location and geography. In fact, the
largest tsunamis in Seattle's geological history were generated by fault lines
that run directly under the city; tsunamis that reach what is now Seattle from
the Cascadia subduction zone are quite modest. Vancouver is in a similar
situation, though they probably have somewhat higher tsunami exposure. People
that live on the outer Washington and Oregon coast will be in serious danger
but that region is sparsely populated.

The San Andreas fault, by comparison, runs right through the middle of densely
populated areas of California. Minimal tsunami risk but much higher ground
motion risk.

~~~
dmix
Interesting. Thanks for clarifying that. I always thought Seattle was closer
to the coast than it is. But it's actually just within an inlet, with Olympic
National Park in between.

I'm interested in moving to Victoria, Vancouver Island, BC, which is why it
concerns me. I believe that would fall into the low-medium risk category:

> People living along the outer coast of Vancouver Island will have between 15
> and 20 minutes to escape. Victoria can expect a tsunami wave of between two
> and four metres within 75 minutes.

[http://globalnews.ca/news/1779057/boxing-day-size-quake-
due-...](http://globalnews.ca/news/1779057/boxing-day-size-quake-due-to-hit-
vancouver-island/)

~~~
tempestn
I live in Victoria and have looked into this before. Being an island, in most
areas the land tends to rise fairly rapidly as you move away from the water.
Predicted rise due to a tsunami is relatively small given the that the lower
island is sheltered by the Olympic Peninsula. There has been extensive
modeling done, as described here: [https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-
source/news-pdf/2013/mode...](https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/news-
pdf/2013/modelling-of-potential-tsunami-inundation-limits-and-run-up-
report-.pdf?sfvrsn=0)

See page 16 for maps of predicted rise. You can compare that to an elevation
map of the area, ie here with the contours turned on:
[https://maps.crd.bc.ca/Html5Viewer/?viewer=public](https://maps.crd.bc.ca/Html5Viewer/?viewer=public).
As you can see, in most areas the predicted rise of up to ~ 3 meters doesn't
get you more than a few meters laterally away from the coastline. It will
obviously still be a risk, but as long as you're not right at the beach it
should be ok.

------
tristanj
I wish people would take the California earthquake situation more seriously.
We've had decades of warning yet are still minimally prepared for disaster.
The sad thing is, the only way we'll see real change is after a major
earthquake where thousands of people are killed/injured. Then people will
fight/sue/vote for change. It's just like in the city I live in, where we have
multiple known-to-be unsafe traffic intersections. Only after there's a
serious accident and someone sues the traffic lights get built. It's
unfortunate that even today, the cost of change is priced in human lives.

~~~
pfarnsworth
When I lived in Vancouver in the 80s, they had earthquake drills because
scientists said "It was too long, we're due for a Big One!" Everyone took them
seriously.

30 years later, no significant earthquake, and earthquake drills are nothing
but a distant memory. I think humans are really terrible judges of what "long
overdue" means, especially related to geological events.

Yes, at some point there will be an earthquake. Yes, some people will die. But
overreacting and worrying about it when humans have no ability to predict it
is worse. The best way is just do what we have been doing, which is increase
building standards, have once-a-year drills, and stop trying to predict when
disaster is going to strike, because humans can't.

~~~
knz
Having basic supplies on hand is just as important as building standards and
drills. As I mentioned in another comment my family and friends lived through
the Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 that destroyed much
of the largest city on the South Island. Water, food, and shelter were all
important concerns especially during the first 48 hours in some parts of the
city. Even if help arrives quickly it can take several days for basic services
to be restored.

------
wrsh07
Earthquakes are serious. But we're no good at predicting when they'll happen:
[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-still-cant-predict-
ea...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-still-cant-predict-earthquakes/)

This means there is elevated risk, but we can't say much more than that.

------
matheweis
The incredible thing is that the cascadia subduction zone is _also_ locked,
and past the average interval for moving. How unfortunate would it be if the
entire west coast unlocked at the same time?

~~~
deskamess
Have there been any studies done on how one may affect/trigger the other?

~~~
mjevans
What type of study are you proposing exactly?

The best data we have at the moment would be records of geologic events that
have a strong correlation to earth quakes and seeing how they line up between
the two different areas.

My gut tells me to expect, usually not co-incidence, but as they are part of
the same larger system, possible co-incidence (and likely at a much more
catastrophic level when something THAT LARGE does happen).

~~~
deskamess
Not knowledgeable enough about quakes to propose a study. As you and a sibling
comment have stated I was just wondering if the 'they are geographically close
enough and could affect each other' intuition may have merit.

------
Sarkie
I thought "The Rock" had already sorted this?

~~~
kdamken
Right? So long as he's in the area and has access to a helicopter I think
everything will be fine.

~~~
sxates
Only if you're in his family - he doesn't seem to care much about helping
anyone else.

------
guard-of-terra
There's this idea of simulating earthquakes with explosions (possibly nuclear
subterranean) in order to relieve plate movement. This should be causing mild
earthquakes as opposed to catastrophical ones.

Should be tested somewhere, tho.

~~~
stouset
The numbers don't work out because the scale is logarithmic, and no serious
seismologists appear to recommend such a thing. To avert a magnitude 8
earthquake every 100 years, you'd roughly need a magnitude 6 every year, or a
magnitude 5 every three and a half days.

~~~
mjevans
I wonder how many would advocate trying to have a /planned/ earthquake each
100 years? Surely one planned in advance which everyone is prepared for is
better than the unknown.

~~~
deftnerd
The general concept of prescribed forest fires has been considered good
forestry practice for a long time now.

As for the actual method, nuclear bombs every few years for a large magnitude
doesn't seem like it's mild enough.

We've seen that fracking often has the side effect of causing faults to get
lubricated and slip more easily causing earthquakes.

Maybe research into the ideal chemical cocktail to most effectively lubricate
and hook up injection stations along the length of the fault line, when there
aren't aquifers in the nearby vicinity. Bonus for some kind of lubricant that
degrades into non carcinogenic materials.

You wouldn't want to just start pumping fault lubricant into the system while
it's so full of energy, but after the next "big" earthquake you could have a
window where the pumping would trigger small size 3 or 4 earthquakes similar
to aftershocks in perpetuity.

~~~
cpr
Fracking itself isn't implicated--it's the wastewater injection wells that
seem to be the problem.

------
shostack
As someone who lives near the fault in Redwood City and has an older single
story wood frame ranch,Mehta are my best options for protecting my asset and
life?

Is earthquake insurance worth it?

What about retrofitting for earthquakes? I've read some pretty scary stuff
that even retrofits done with permits don't have much consistency between them
and no guarantees. Not even sure how to find a reputable retrofit contractor
because I'm not sure how to judge the quality of their work since we haven't
had a big one recently.

What should my priorities be for solving for all of this?

~~~
nradov
Earthquake insurance is probably a waste for most homeowners because the
deductible is so high. You would probably be better off putting that money
into structural renovation to make the house better able to handle an
earthquake. Make sure the frame is properly anchored to the foundation.
[http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/residents/planset/](http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/residents/planset/)

~~~
largote
Plus, in the event of a huge Earthquake, you'd probably have access to FEMA
funds anyway.

------
jefurii
Time to check/update the earthquake supplies again...

~~~
deftnerd
If this article is right and there is a risk of a large earthquake that will
release a century of pressure buildup, it might be good to keep a week or two
worth of supplies, including a bucket with attachable toilet seat lid, bag of
saw dust, and a shovel to bury the waste.

If you're in a home, you might want to make sure that your supplies are more
easily accessible from the perimeter of your structure in case enough damage
is done that your home is not able to be entered. Ideally, a backyard shed or
storage box would be the best place to store your supplies. If that's not
available, in a garage near the rolling door or by a back door of the house.

If as much damage occurs to water and waste water infrastructure as they fear,
and if your home becomes inaccessible, it might be prudent to make sure that
you also have several changes of clothes and a pair of boots in your kit.

Basically, pretend that you're preparing for a week-long camping trip in the
middle of nowhere and pack accordingly. Tent, sleeping bag, clothing,
supplies, small solar panel to charge a phone, etc. It'll take a lot more
space but it will make the (potential) experience a lot more tolerable.

------
xkcd-sucks
Maybe a massive earthquake and subsequent reconstruction could be an
opportunity to fix the Bay Area's housing situation

------
masklinn
On the bright side, this will probably simplify and unlock the current urban
planning issues.

~~~
knz
Good luck with that. My family lived through the Canterbury (New Zealand)
earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 (and the 12,000+ aftershocks). Most of the CBD
has been cleared and rebuilding is underway but there was/is a huge political
fight over what the rebuild will look like. I can only imagine how difficult
that process would be in the context of the US political landscape.

------
myegorov
I wonder how many here realize that the only social contract (between building
engineers and the rest of us in North America) is that for the absolute
majority of buildings (> 99.9% of building stock) under the scenario known as
the maximum considered earthquake a building shall not collapse. Meaning that
any damage beyond repair or any failure of structurally non-critical
components that can possibly entail lives lost is acceptable.

~~~
codingdave
Do you disagree with that approach?

I live about 3 miles from a large fault line, and am OK with it - my concern
is that my family does not get crushed when/if the predicted big earthquake
hits. As long as that is true, I do accept that I will have a lot of repair
work to do, and will lose some objects. I am not going to live my life pouring
money into preserving material goods, or preserving all of my home, when I can
spend that same money rebuilding, when/if that day comes.

~~~
myegorov
Consider if the recovery might be thwarted by airports unable to accept
arriving crews, hospitals and shelters without power and water, the fallout
from a high tech hub taken out of operations for months etc. There's also the
conundrum that -- because there's no metric in place to differentiate between
structures that would perform vastly differently under a seismic event --
there's no rational way to estimate the damage. You may be at once overpaying
and overvaluing your earthquake insurance. Your insurance has no way of
reliably estimating its risks, which undermines its solvency, which
unwittingly reduces its worth to the consumer. One might not be in a position
to rebuild.

The issue is that our society at present does not single out life-critical
operations and provide for them accordingly. The cost-benefit analysis has not
been done.

