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.
Those videos include an excellent reminder that statistically, you are very, very likely to survive the initial quake, therefore it's smart to stock up on 2 weeks of food and water, and to take a first aid training class.
Yes, it's the aftermath that I would be worried about. That and the well-being of your family. What if the quake happened in the middle of the day when the kids were in different schools, the wife was across the bridge in the city, and I was all the way over in Redmond? The destruction would take down cell service, internet, roads, bridges, water lines, electricity - everything to a screeching stop, potentially for WEEKS. That would be catastrophic.
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.
I wouldn't count on it. In terms of their IT infrastructure, they've got more than one datacenter geographically distributed so they're prepared for it. I don't think companies are really good about planning around events that don't happen regularly. Especially one as amorphous as "the big one" in a place that isn't California.
Agreed. AWS's cloud infrastructure is all about high availability and spreading computing/data resources across regions. The company's operations will be fine. Although, I'm sure the higher ups in Seattle have personally spent enormous resources to get their homes upgraded and have extensively prepared for something like this. The average person can stock up on non-perishable food and water, but besides that they don't have the resources to truly prepare for what is coming.
You can't really prepare for everything. I would even doubt if most of the Amazon higher-ups are thinking much in this direction or are prepared in even the usual ways (2 weeks of food, a barrel of water, and extra batteries level).
We just aren't going to live forever. If its any consolation, you'll (not you in particular :D) probably die in a car accident or a cardiac arrest when you aren't even worried about it.
You can certainly prepare your house for the earthquake and shaking. For one, reinforcing the structure, making sure the ground is under the house is attached to stable, hard rock like granite versus sediment, and very importantly, using wood instead of brick or concrete (look at Bill Gates's Xanadu house - it's not a coincidence that it is completely made out of wood, the best house material for withstanding earthquakes). These people are definitely consulting scientists and engineers and preparing themselves and their family for a potential M9+ event.
For what it’s worth, Amazon did just have a very public search for an HQ2 location and ended up picking one on the other side of the country: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2
I recommend moving to Kagoshima - they have an activo volcano right over the bay (with fregvent ferry service, no less) that regurarly covers the 400k people city in ash.
A honest in your face continuous natural disaster, no behind the scenes shaddy stuff that might hut you one day out of the blue. ;-)
I can appreciate that about a natural disaster. Or one could move to Australia which in general doesn't really try to hide the fact it's constantly trying to kill you.
It’s the dirtiest city in Japan that I’ve been too, purely down to the light coating of volcanic ash every building, road and public bench seems to have. Very friendly though and the best butasando.
Exactly! First you notice its a bit dusty everywhere, then that places that are not regularly swept seem to accumulate dirt a lot faster than normal - ant then you put one and the huge volcano next door together and bam! :-D
Nice touch how the city runs ash collection points or how people living on Sakurajima itself (the volcano) cope with it. They have roofs over gravestones, transparent tents over fruit tree plantations & ash sweeping equipment on every bus stop. Oh and those flying rock shelters every ~600 meters. :)
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.
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.
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.
> it is possible to commute into Seattle from east of I5,
I5 runs through the middle of Seattle. Many people do commute from nearby towns east of Seattle, like from Bellevue, or a little place you may have heard of called Redmond.
But I have an extremely hard time believing that Seattle could get an M9 and Bellevue to Issaquah would be unaffected.
Or that within the city, SLU, being west of I5, is affected, but Capitol Hill directly east is OK.
There are risks almost everywhere. I remember seeing a combined risks map that showed there was really only a small patch in the southwest devoid of all types of regional major disasters. There is no "perfect" place to live, and you live in fear, you'll never live. And if you ignore the coming droughts and famines that maybe nearly global and everyday safety, then you're optimizing based on unreasonable, manufactured FUD from watching too much mainstream media rather than taking an active, data-driven approach.
I grew up in San Jose in the early 80's through the late 90's. When I was 12, I went through the Loma Prieta which had aftershocks for 2 days. I turned off the gas to every house on the block as a preventative measure. There was a lot of internal contents damage but the building codes worked out fantastically... there was very little actual damage except to poorly-engineered structures and structures on landfill that experienced liquefaction. The only real changes where anchoring bookcases and furniture to studs and Velcroing monitors to furniture.
In 2018, I evacuated with my mom from the Camp Fire. As the property had little fuel and large set-backs because of large, water-hungry lawns, the structure survived. What burned: wood fences, a very large shed, ½ cord of wood, almost all of the landscaping and a large blue recycle wheelie bin caught fire and melted into aggregate concrete in a ring. PG&E and the city have so far removed tens of thousands of trees such that a future mega-fire is highly-unlikely for at least 80 years, and they're doing the PSPSes. The worst case near-term is local brush fires. What may lead my mom to move would be if insurance rate go up any more as her CSAA (AAA) premium has doubled. The PSPSes are annoying because maintaining the fuel and oil on a generator is a pain and Xfinity (Comcast) infrastructure shuts-down after the first day.
Elsewhere the weather is horrible. You won't find better weather than the Bay Area outside of San Diego, parts of LA or Hawaii.
The biggest cases against living in the Bay Area are the cost of living (unless #vanlife) and the majority of people aren't planning on staying and so treat the area poorly and each other not so neighborly. These are compounded by the messy, inconsistent, unpleasant decline of American influence where there's a mass shooting nearly every day, terrible poverty like a third-world country and the largest military white elephant the world has known so far.
I’ve driven I-5 (N/S) and I-90 (east) and 90 is much, much easier and faster to get into Seattle. You can see it in the housing prices to the south of Seattle - towns that look close are essentially in-commutable and somewhat cutoff from the downtown job market and salaries.
There's not really any risk worth worrying about, there is no imminent eruption coming. Its not even a given that it will have a major eruption again. If it does start erupting, we're most likely going to know its imminent well ahead of time (earthquakes, smaller eruptions, etc).
In Yellowstone's case, the timescales involved are hundreds of thousands of years or more, where margins of error dwarf human lifetimes.
> 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.
If you want this comparisons to make any sense you need to compare with the number of traffic deaths in the area that can be affected by Cascadia, otherwise you might as well compare with millions of other deaths anywhere in the world.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
53 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 56.6 ms ] threadThese videos are a better source of information IMO: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2CLEFocYVw - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzFYO1EU6rs
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.
We just aren't going to live forever. If its any consolation, you'll (not you in particular :D) probably die in a car accident or a cardiac arrest when you aren't even worried about it.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegraean_Fields
A honest in your face continuous natural disaster, no behind the scenes shaddy stuff that might hut you one day out of the blue. ;-)
Nice touch how the city runs ash collection points or how people living on Sakurajima itself (the volcano) cope with it. They have roofs over gravestones, transparent tents over fruit tree plantations & ash sweeping equipment on every bus stop. Oh and those flying rock shelters every ~600 meters. :)
Yellowstone has a big eruption every 600000 years so you are probably not going to see the next one. (But the destruction will be much bigger.)
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't have thought that would even help much. Even if your house survives, its value will tank and your job will be "toast".
I5 runs through the middle of Seattle. Many people do commute from nearby towns east of Seattle, like from Bellevue, or a little place you may have heard of called Redmond.
But I have an extremely hard time believing that Seattle could get an M9 and Bellevue to Issaquah would be unaffected.
Or that within the city, SLU, being west of I5, is affected, but Capitol Hill directly east is OK.
I grew up in San Jose in the early 80's through the late 90's. When I was 12, I went through the Loma Prieta which had aftershocks for 2 days. I turned off the gas to every house on the block as a preventative measure. There was a lot of internal contents damage but the building codes worked out fantastically... there was very little actual damage except to poorly-engineered structures and structures on landfill that experienced liquefaction. The only real changes where anchoring bookcases and furniture to studs and Velcroing monitors to furniture.
In 2018, I evacuated with my mom from the Camp Fire. As the property had little fuel and large set-backs because of large, water-hungry lawns, the structure survived. What burned: wood fences, a very large shed, ½ cord of wood, almost all of the landscaping and a large blue recycle wheelie bin caught fire and melted into aggregate concrete in a ring. PG&E and the city have so far removed tens of thousands of trees such that a future mega-fire is highly-unlikely for at least 80 years, and they're doing the PSPSes. The worst case near-term is local brush fires. What may lead my mom to move would be if insurance rate go up any more as her CSAA (AAA) premium has doubled. The PSPSes are annoying because maintaining the fuel and oil on a generator is a pain and Xfinity (Comcast) infrastructure shuts-down after the first day.
Elsewhere the weather is horrible. You won't find better weather than the Bay Area outside of San Diego, parts of LA or Hawaii.
The biggest cases against living in the Bay Area are the cost of living (unless #vanlife) and the majority of people aren't planning on staying and so treat the area poorly and each other not so neighborly. These are compounded by the messy, inconsistent, unpleasant decline of American influence where there's a mass shooting nearly every day, terrible poverty like a third-world country and the largest military white elephant the world has known so far.
In Yellowstone's case, the timescales involved are hundreds of thousands of years or more, where margins of error dwarf human lifetimes.
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.
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).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_Uni...
Countries that are more exposed to Tsunamis have it worse.
https://www.washington.edu/boundless/earthquake-authority/
I'm thinking of questions like: 1. Are there areas where people currently live that shouldn't be inhabited? 2. What's the worst case death toll?
I realize there's uncertainty, but a more concrete rebuttal would still be better.
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.
Without context, "all the scientists I've come across" could be 1 or 200.
Hey, turns out I remembered correctly. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/a...
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.