Pacific Northwest At Risk For Mega-Earthquake 457
Hugh Pickens writes "Science Daily Headlines reports on research by Oregon State University marine geologist Chris Goldfinger showing that earthquakes of magnitude 8.2 (or higher) have occurred 41 times during the past 10,000 years in the Pacific Northwest. By extrapolation, there is a 37% chance of another major earthquake in the area in the next 50 years that could exceed the power of recent seismic events in Chile and Haiti. If a magnitude-9 quake does strike the Cascadia Subduction Zone, extending from northern Vancouver Island to northern California, the ground could shake for several minutes, highways could be torn to pieces, bridges might collapse, and buildings would be damaged or even crumble. If the epicenter is just offshore, coastal residents could have as little as 15 minutes of warning before a tsunami could strike. 'It is not a question of if a major earthquake will strike,' says Goldfinger, 'it is a matter of when. And the "when" is looking like it may not be that far in the future.'" Read below for more.
The last major earthquake to hit the Cascadia Subduction Zone was in January 1700. Scientists are aware of the impact because of written records from Japan documenting the damage caused by the ensuing tsunami, which crested across the Pacific at about 5 meters (15 feet). Knowledge about what happened in Oregon and Washington is more speculative, but the consensus — gleaned from studies of coastal estuaries, land formations, and river channels — is that the physical alteration to the coast was stunning. The outer coastal regions subsided and drowned coastal marshlands and forests, which were subsequently covered with younger sediments. "Perhaps more striking than the probability numbers is that we ... have already gone longer without an earthquake than 75% of the known times between earthquakes in the last 10,000 years," says Goldfinger. "And 50 years from now, that number will rise to 85 percent."
Yet another reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? A man named Goldfinger is threatening the Pacific Northwest with tidal waves and earthquakes?
A more reasonable Goldfinger. After all, he barely expects a 37% chance of Mr. Bond dying in the next 50 years.
And... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... (Score:1, Insightful)
... MI5 ...
You mean MI6 (Now called SIS) </nitpick>
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Same old thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
damned lies (Score:1, Insightful)
just because something happened in the past doesn't mean that it will happen again. let's take a hard look at the facts and the numbers, and not be frightened by prophecy. statistics tell the story that you want to tell.
Re:Oblig. xkcd (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, either you or the moderators misunderstood that strip, though (my guess is that it's the mods). The point isn't that all extrapolation is bad, flimsy or invalid; it's just that not all naive extrapolations are automatically valid.
It's rather like with correlation and causation, too. Sure, correlation doesn't imply causation, but that doesn't mean that when there is correlation, there NEVER is causation (also an unfortunately all too common Slashdot meme that gets employed whenever an article causes cognitive dissonance...)
Old news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oblig. xkcd (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be new here. Any xkcd reference gets an automatic +3 Interesting/Insightful mod, it's built in to slashcode. The fact that you think that someone would click on a link before moderating is laughable.
Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, he means MI5 (Military Intelligence) [wikipedia.org], not MI6 (still called SIS).
Re:37% (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather have earthquakes than tornadoes, hurricanes, or flooding. With an earthquake, at least all of your stuff is in the hole that used to be your house, rather than scattered around the county.
Of course, the latest fear-mongering here in the Pacific North-wet is that if the Cascadia Subduction Zone rips open, it could light off Mt. Rainier and other cascade volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows, lahars, and ash, oh my!
Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow I doubt it. Vulcanism is a completely different natural process than plate tectonics.
One involves the movement of the continents, while the other involves pointy ears.
Yes, I know "vulcanism" is today considered a "variant" of "volcanism", but that variant is based on a spelling error which has been propagated forward by the ignorant.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... (Score:3, Insightful)
Portland has the highest number of strip clubs (per-capita) in the U.S.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Try reading the bill, smart guy. It specifically prohibits profiling based on skin color, and if the people claims the police officer did arrest them because of their skin color (and they can prove it), they hit pay dirt. By the way, the bill specifically states that such rare and difficult-to-obtain forms of identification like A DRIVER'S LICENSE is acceptable evidence that you're here legally. Actually read the bill for yourself and stop relying on biases "news" sources to feed you twisted summaries and you might actually learn the truth.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:An old story recycled for fear-mongering (Score:5, Insightful)
... It's not that I think the stories are incorrect so much as they serve no purpose other than to feed the human hunger for new and overwhelming things to fear.
I've lived in Los Angeles since I left Vancouver and been faced with the same cycle of destruction predictions and they serve no useful purpose. They are not instructive. They just terrify people to no real end. How are people supposed to respond to a supposedly impending natural disaster that spells utter destruction?...
How are people supposed to respond? Allow me to explain.
"Fear mongering" can create public pressure, and political support, for introducing strong building codes and enforcement, and effective disaster planning that can drastically reduce death and injury.
Alerting people to the danger, and giving them good information about danger zones (e.g. tsunamai strike zones, soil liquifaction zones, etc.) allows them to avoid placing themselves at avoidable risk.
Are you truly unaware of how you can reduce your own exposure to risk? If so, you have only your own ignorance to blame. (Hint: staying out of old masonry buildings helps. I sure do. Also, did you strap your water heater? How about that masonry chimney?)
Even the largest earthquake ever recorded did not create "utter destruction", even though it was vast; the vast majority of people still survived and most who died could have been saved with appropriate planning.
On the other hand, throwing up your hands and saying "nothing can be done" assures that the maximum number of people are killed and maimed.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can eat a flamebate rating...
and you must be from one of those states where the leaders think they are so self righteous and moral that they get to legislate what genital configuration must be present in MY wedding bed, while they skip off with their rent boys to Italy...
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
It specifically prohibits profiling based on skin color, and if the people claims the police officer did arrest them because of their skin color (and they can prove it), they hit pay dirt.
Well, that's reassuring, because I'm sure the organs of the state would never do anything that they are specifically prohibited by law from doing, like running a secret prison system and torturing confessions out of people all over the world.
And of course proving intent is so simple! I'm sure there will be no difficulty with that, because a police officer would never lie about their intent, nor take any action to cover up their racist reasons for stopping someone.
Really, I feel safter already.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for the link. Also worth noting:
First violation for illegal immigrants: $500 fine plus jail costs
First violation for employers of illegal immigrants: Fill out some paperwork
This should be the real outrage - employers creating the supply of illegal work are barely punished. We can throw as many people back over the border as we want, but nothing will change until the supply of jobs is cut off.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your men may be "manly", but so are all men, because you know, man-ly = man like = men.
Meanwhile, our families are not a: retarded, b: conservative (politically), c: fundies, and d: devoid of logic, and we can't say the same about you big trucks folks. Drill baby drill, huh.
We may be liberal but we are financially conservative, something you big truck err big dick wannabes wish you were.