An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

[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.

[mflamespin]

Source?

[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.

[iongoatb]

Btw, from my research, the New Yorker article is a little sensationalized.

These videos are a better source of information IMO: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2CLEFocYVw - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzFYO1EU6rs

[daxfohl]

I had the same worry three years ago when I moved here. And of being the closest big metro to North Korea. I've gotten used to it. After doing a bit of research I realize the story is overblown (I mean, it'll be bad, especially on the coast, but most people a bit inland will survive and carry on. I lived through Wenchuan so.).

I'm far more afraid of these giant Douglas Firs and their branches during snow and wind storms now. And, the likely drop in home value in the next recession.

And realistically I should be more afraid of driving to work every day. (Even though Seattle seems to have pretty good drivers compared to Chicago).

[rrmm]

Well whatever you do, don't start looking up Yellowstone.

[gst]

> FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami.

Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big...

> For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

The consequences of that earthquake don't sound too bad in comparison to other risks.

[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.

[mc32]

While I think it’s exaggerated, the concerns are valid. If something like what hit Alaska in the ‘60s hits a more densely populated are there will be damage and things will be off line for a while. But also it’s not a catastrophic event that wipes out the economy of the area.

Of course that’s of no comfort to the people who will perish n such an event.

It’s just that it’s not going to be like a 1920s Tokyo or SF 1906 since we should have better handle on fire and emergency response in general.

[dboreham]

I moved next to Yellowstone. Much worse disaster expected here.

[dmux]

I've had similar thoughts, but wouldn't giant companies like Amazon be taking this into consideration if it were really an issue?

[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...

[blacksmith_tb]

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

[dmix]

According to Wikipedia that scenario is quite controversial and not a well accepted risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja

That article is the definition of FUD, especially the bit about US presidents. Even if there is still a degree of risk.

Edit: the wiki cites the author McGuire as misstating the Alaska landslide as a mega tsunami in a BBC show. So he’s known for this type of hysteria.

[bagacrap]

Don't worry, we can just drop a few strategically positioned and timed nukes in the mid Atlantic to counteract the waves.

[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...

Countries that are more exposed to Tsunamis have it worse.