Slashdot Mirror


Pacific Northwest At Risk For Mega-Earthquake

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."

457 comments

  1. No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously? A man named Goldfinger is threatening the Pacific Northwest with tidal waves and earthquakes?

    Well, at least MI5 will save us...

    1. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Chas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, at least it's better than the whole laser-beam-to-the-crotch method of execution.

      What? Of course I'd rather be drowned, crushed, and torn apart by massive hydraulic forces!

      Yeah! Yeah! I AM a guy! So what?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously? A man named Goldfinger is threatening the Pacific Northwest with tidal waves and earthquakes?

      Well, at least MI5 will save us...

      Don't worry. We have an agent working on it. I'm sure that whatever the magnitude of the earthquake he'll be shaken but not stirred.

    3. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Thanshin · · Score: 4, 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.

    4. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Vekseid · · Score: 1

      The Pacific Northwest doesn't need to worry about the Tsunami. That's the job of everyone else living near the Pacific.

    5. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ... MI5 ...

      You mean MI6 (Now called SIS) </nitpick>

    6. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, at least MI5 will save us...

      Does the Northwest have exotic women and/or liquors? We might have trouble getting 007 out here.

    7. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least it's better than the whole laser-beam-to-the-crotch method of execution.

      ...and a hell of a lot better than the laser beam from the crotch method of execution.

    8. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Informative? Really? /Smekarn

    9. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Aeros · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Sharks with laser beams!!

    10. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Chas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, at least a trouser-snake.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    11. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by hey! · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean MI6 (Now called SIS)

      Can you imagine the reaction of the operatives when that memo made the rounds?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well it's about time the baddy got to make the world move for the ladies...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    13. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it falls into the ocean, my real estate holdings in Otisburg will be worth a fortune!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Oblig. xkcd:
      http://xkcd.com/123/

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    15. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he's teaming up with Max Zorin ("A View To a Kill"). I knew the Bond films were running out of ideas, but having multiple villains joining forces is going to turn this whole series into another Batman-like franchise.

    16. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original version of the joke is that James Bond slept through an earthquake - ie he was shaken but not stirred.

    17. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      >You mean MI6 (Now called SIS)

      No, he means MI5 (Military Intelligence), not MI6 (still called SIS).

    18. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Jake73 · · Score: 1

      I'd be more concerned if his name was Browning.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iben_Browning

    19. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      James Bond isn't an MI5 agent. He's an intelligence officer. Agents are informants.

    20. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > Does the Northwest have exotic women and/or liquors?
      > We might have trouble getting 007 out here.

      None that are native to the region; but there are a few evil billionaires up there. And, as I'm sure 007 is well aware, evil billionaires can be relied upon to import both.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    21. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does the Northwest have exotic women and/or liquors?

      The Northwest, and the West Coast as a whole, has a fairly substantial Asian population. LA, SF, Seattle and Portland have large Asian populations in particular.

      If James were to visit, we would never see him again. Sensory overload would be his downfall.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    22. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      James Bond isn't an MI5 agent. He's an intelligence officer. Agents are informants.

      Is that why they keep calling him "Agent double oh seven" in the movies?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Jake73 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Portland has the highest number of strip clubs (per-capita) in the U.S.

    24. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Does the Northwest have exotic women and/or liquors? We might have trouble getting 007 out here.

      Lots of Suicide Girls and micro-brews. I'm not sure what 007 would do in that situation.

    25. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but while MI5 does have agents, they are informants. If you just search through the page on MI5, pretty much all references to agents are as double agents (informants within MI5 for the enemy) or foreign spies.

    26. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by riverat1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's also has the highest number of microbreweries of any city in the world.

    27. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Not to be pedantic, but MI5 is the analysis side. I think you mean MI6, also known as the Secret Intelligence Service.

      From wikipedia:
      Commander Sir James Bond, (KCMG, RNVR) is an officer of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS; commonly known as MI6).

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    28. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by street_astrologist · · Score: 1

      Indeed - I can see Bond entering, say, Devil's Point in pursuit of his nemesis... and perhaps staying for a pint of New Belgium and some fire dancing.

    29. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by impaledsunset · · Score: 1

      I believe that the chance that all six James Bonds die in the next 50 years is higher than 37%.

    30. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Well, at least it's better than the whole laser-beam-to-the-crotch method of execution.

      Next time, don't go over his helmet.

    31. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by lastchance_000 · · Score: 1

      Bond is an officer of the SIS, (aka MI6), not MI5.

    32. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Nothing2Chere · · Score: 1

      They are making up for the lack of strip clubs and the 5' rule we've got in Seattle.

    33. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goldfinger, do you expect me to talk? No Mr. Bond, I expect you to be shaken to death.

    34. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Mr. Bond was a member of MI6.

      You know that this organization does not tolerate failure.. oh wait, this is Slashdot. Never mind. Carry on.

    35. Re:No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die... by loanreview · · Score: 1

      Hey, Lex Luther was definately on to something. Except I don't think he ever planned for the fall in Real Estate. He might be turning in his grave.

  2. Yet another reason... by Bicx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... why I'm glad I don't live in California.

    1. Re:Yet another reason... by rhsanborn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because everywhere else in the US doesn't have other natural disasters. There aren't wildfires in the west, tornadoes in the mid-west, hurricanes in the south, blizzards, snow storms, and ice storms in the north, flooding along the Mississippi...

    2. Re:Yet another reason... by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wha? There are blizzards, snow storms, ice storms, hail and excessive temperature and pressure changes in the midwest (which lead to tornadoes).

      no need to make it sound like all they have is tornadoes. Tornadoes just hit the trailer parks.

    3. Re:Yet another reason... by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Because everywhere else in the US doesn't have other natural disasters. There aren't wildfires in the west, tornadoes in the mid-west, hurricanes in the south, blizzards, snow storms, and ice storms in the north, flooding along the Mississippi...

      Dear God! I had to delete three paragraphs of flamebait!

      It's just too easy to continue that quote.

    4. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you consider snow to be a natural disaster then you are probably from Atlanta

    5. Re:Yet another reason... by Bicx · · Score: 3, Informative

      True, but natural disasters aren't the only reason I'm glad I don't live in California. Imploding economy, poor leadership, overbearing laws, and similar issues are others.

    6. Re:Yet another reason... by FTWinston · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yet another reason ... why I'm glad I don't live in the USA.

      Fixed that for the GP. I mean, seriously. Is there a form of natural disaster you guys aren't under constant threat of?

    7. Re:Yet another reason... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I live in Maryland, about 30 minutes outside of DC, and pretty much nothing happens here. Granted, we sometimes get the freak snowstorm (like Feb's Snowmegeddon), or sometimes get the tail end of tropical storms, but for the most part, the DC/Metro area doesn't have to worry about anything like that.

      Oh wait....DC...never mind, we have our own brand of disaster to worry about -_-;;

    8. Re:Yet another reason... by EricX2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI: California isn't in the Pacific Northwest.

    9. Re:Yet another reason... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Because everywhere else in the US doesn't have other natural disasters.

      Not compared to California. The worst "disaster" we have here (northeast) is 3 feet of snow, and all you have to do is wait for it to melt off the roads (usually 2 days or less). ..... But if your roof falls down on you, or a tidal wave buries you under 2 stories of water..... well that's it.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:Yet another reason... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      ..Mega-Sunami from the Canary Islands, Yellowstone Supervolcano, San-Andreas fault

      Nothing to worry about really ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    11. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is compared to someone in Brazil.

    12. Re:Yet another reason... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      True, but natural disasters aren't the only reason I'm glad I don't live in California. Imploding economy, poor leadership, overbearing laws, and similar issues are others.

      Name a state without the same problems, and you won't be talking about the USA.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Yet another reason... by Zantac69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Socialism?

      Oh wait...

      --
      1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    14. Re:Yet another reason... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Yeah, here in Virginia and the area around here, we don't get much in the way of natural disasters.

      A little flooding if you are stupid enough to build in a flood area, the occasional tornado that usually doesn't get very far before the mountains and trees break it up. etc.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    15. Re:Yet another reason... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      "extending from northern Vancouver Island to northern California"

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:Yet another reason... by Zantac69 · · Score: 1

      I always smile when we get these "snow storms" in Atlanta - but I have to get to the store before they sell out of beer!

      --
      1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    17. Re:Yet another reason... by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      I was in Atlanta when freezing rain was predicted once, and the city's response was to: park ambulances near the overpasses likely to freeze, so they'd be prepositioned to cart off the people injured in the accidents that would likely result. Seems salt trucks were not available in the region.

    18. Re:Yet another reason... by plover · · Score: 1

      Yet another reason ... why I'm glad I don't live in the USA.

      Fixed that for the GP. I mean, seriously. Is there a form of natural disaster you guys aren't under constant threat of?

      Hey, reminding us of that constantly is the job of politicians facing elections, not slashdot.

      --
      John
    19. Re:Yet another reason... by plover · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? 99 degree weather with 99% humidity is a freakin' disaster in my book.

      --
      John
    20. Re:Yet another reason... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... why I'm glad I don't live in California.

      Here's a list of the earthquakes for the last 7 days. California is not the only place to be concerned about.

    21. Re:Yet another reason... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Um, California isn't part of the Pacific Northwest. That's Washington and Oregon.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    22. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Valley girls', people who think that Hollywood is the greatest place on earth, people who think they can become Hollywood superstars, Hollywood superstars and gang violence. There are a lot of reasons to stay the hell away from there. Earthquakes are almost an enticement to go there.

    23. Re:Yet another reason... by rwa2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes! The DC/Metro area is great! All the seasons! Free museums! Lots of jobs (in administrative overhead)! You really want to move here! You could live in my condo by a Metro station!

      I for one, am in favor of Pacific-Northwest fearmongering, no one really wants to live there!

      / Been trying to relocate to the Pacific Northwest for quite a few years now
      // Have a feeling a lot of this fearmongering is encouraged by residents who don't want others to move in and bespoil it :-P
      /// Says something about the praise we have for the DC/Metro area... hmmm....

    24. Re:Yet another reason... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I've lived here my whole life (lived in Montgomery Village until I was 6, then Olney, then lived in Germantown, then Gaithersburg, now downtown Rockville), and I love it around here...but when we leave the area in a few years, I certainly won't miss the traffic, overcrowding, or asshole drivers. I really miss how this area used to be...hell, Olney, my hometown, had only 7500 residents in it when my parents moved in there almost 20 years ago (I'm 26). Now, Olney has close to 40,000 people...and the city limits haven't expanded outward by much. Don't get me started on Downtown Rockville, this place is insanely crowded.

      Still, it is my home, and despite its flaws, I do love it :/

    25. Re:Yet another reason... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Arizona! Arizona doesn't have any overbearing laws.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    26. Re:Yet another reason... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      True, but natural disasters aren't the only reason I'm glad I don't live in California. Imploding economy, poor leadership, overbearing laws, and similar issues are others.

      Name a state without the same problems, and you won't be talking about the USA.

      Alaska only has one of the three.

    27. Re:Yet another reason... by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      'It is not a question of if a major earthquake will strike,' says Goldfinger, 'it is a matter of when."

      Can't the same be said about any place on the planet.

      I think they teach that line in the "How to get in the newspaper" section of first year geology school.

    28. Re:Yet another reason... by Pteraspidomorphi · · Score: 1

      I'm not american or canadian, but I've been on a road trip which visited exactly that stretch of land and I must say it's a seriously beautiful region, even despite Seattle. I hope it's not torn apart by a mega-earthquake; it would be a waste.

    29. Re:Yet another reason... by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tornadoes just hit the trailer parks.

      I was in a tornado. The tree behind the apartment I was living in looked like a weed someone had stomped on. There were trees with five foot diameter trunks uprooted; steel girders twisted, splinters driven into concrete blocks. The walk-in cooler at a bar down the street was ripped from the building. But the trailer park down the street was completely destroyed; it's a vacant lot now. Miraculously, nobody was seriously hurt!

      This (central Illinois) may be the only place in the world where you can have snow storms, ice storms, rain, hail, sleet, and tornados all in the same week!

    30. Re:Yet another reason... by Rusty+KB · · Score: 1

      But socialism isn't...... Oh, wait. Yes. I see what you did there. Remarkable!

    31. Re:Yet another reason... by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      Because everywhere else in the US doesn't have other natural disasters. There aren't wildfires in the west, tornadoes in the mid-west, hurricanes in the south, blizzards, snow storms, and ice storms in the north, flooding along the Mississippi...

      Re:Yet another reason... ...why I'm glad I don't live in the USA.

    32. Re:Yet another reason... by Bicx · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a beautiful area. I definitely won't argue with that.

    33. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... why I'm glad I don't live in California.

      Here's a list of the earthquakes for the last 7 days. California is not the only place to be concerned about.

      and here's a map http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/ of the recent earthquakes in the USA.... where else is it that we should be concerned about?

    34. Re:Yet another reason... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Or Europe, for that matter.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    35. Re:Yet another reason... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Was going to say vulcanism, but then there's Hawaii. And you can't forget about the Yellowstone Supercaldera, which is sure to wipe our civilization off the face of the earth. So yeah, we're boned.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    36. Re:Yet another reason... by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      I love /. breaking news.

      Everyone in the pacific northwest KNOW THIS ALREADY!

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    37. Re:Yet another reason... by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      (Score:1, Troll): Socialism? Oh wait...

      Censorship? Oh wait....

      (I get modding down if someone gives the usual brainwashed anti-socialism rant. Modding people down simply because they bring up socialism is censorship. I believe the parent isn't serious, and find him funny actually.)

    38. Re:Yet another reason... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      California really dose take the cake in this regard though. I live here. It's crazy.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    39. Re:Yet another reason... by st_adamin · · Score: 1

      Volcanoes? Oh wait... ummm, hmmm, aha! Glaciers. It isn't too likely that we'll be covered by extreme glacial creep (again). Nobody panic.

    40. Re:Yet another reason... by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      Or Europe, for that matter.

      or Earth, let's be realistic

    41. Re:Yet another reason... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Oh wait....DC...never mind, we have our own brand of disaster to worry about -_-;;

      DC is a disaster that we all suffer under.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    42. Re:Yet another reason... by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      Aha! That's a form of "natural disaster" i hadn't thought of. You win, because at least for the immediate future, they seem pretty damn unlikely.
      But if its all the same with you guys, I'll stay at home, where midges and "moderate rain" are about the worst we're likely to get.

    43. Re:Yet another reason... by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Nevada! Where prostitution is legal in some counties.

    44. Re:Yet another reason... by BigT · · Score: 4, 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!

      --
      Is it weird in here, or is it just me?
    45. Re:Yet another reason... by butterflysrage · · Score: 1

      so long as you are white, hetero, christian, middle to upper class, and male....

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    46. Re:Yet another reason... by dacarr · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Name a state that does not have some sort of periodic inhospitable condition, including natural disasters.

      Besides, keep in mind that they said "Pacific Northwest". As in Seattle. And they note it's the Cascadia zone, which extends to Canada. And, by coincidence, northern California. This is pretty much along the western states.

      Frankly, having grown up in California and now living in Seattle, I can deal with earthquakes - most of what they cause tends to be very mild widespread wide-scatter (emphasis on scatter) panic.

      I'd rather live on the west coast than in, say, Pella Iowa. Not only are there twisters, but there is also little to do unless you're a dairy farmer. (Incidentally, I left California for another problem that isn't so much a disaster: little to no opportunity for someone of my skills.)

      --
      This sig no verb.
    47. Re:Yet another reason... by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      Just how often do these 'disasters' occur in California? Ok, there have been a few wildfires and related mudslides over the last few years, but stop and look at the data. The last time a 'major' earthquake that caused significant damage occurred was in 1994.

    48. Re:Yet another reason... by Skreems · · Score: 1

      A little snow isn't a natural disaster. 10 feet of snow that immobilizes half the state, collapses buildings killing the occupants, and leaves families stranded and unable to reach help while they die a slow, miserable death from frostbite and starvation might qualify, though.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    49. Re:Yet another reason... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You are aware the largest earthquake in the US wasn't in California?

    50. Re:Yet another reason... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1, Troll

      Well unless you have brown skin, in which case you are effectively forced to always have identification on you (unless you want to spend time in jail if the police ever stops you for any reason).

    51. Re:Yet another reason... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      There aren't wildfires in the west, tornadoes in the mid-west, hurricanes in the south, blizzards, snow storms, and ice storms in the north, flooding along the Mississippi...

      Ice storms aren't a "disaster" unless you live somewhere that's woefully unprepared for winter weather (i.e: the Southeast). The worst thing that ice storms do around these parts is knock out power for a few days.

      The Northeast doesn't have many redeeming qualities but a lack of scary natural disasters is one of them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    52. Re:Yet another reason... by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 1

      You should be more than a bit nervous if you live anywhere near St Louis.

    53. Re:Yet another reason... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      blizzards, snow storms, ice storms, tornadoes, wildfires

      Yeah, so the "natural disaster" part? That's just normal weather.

      You Coasters sure get bent out of shape about a little nothing. (This is why we like our big trucks.)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    54. Re:Yet another reason... by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1

      yeah give me hurricanes. i like disasters i can see coming far enough in advance to have a map of where it is and track the thing daily.

      as it happens, i am one of the last people to leave the building when a hurricane approaches. when we go under warning (24 hours out) we take down the datacenter and power down the building. then i can get in my car and drive away. not like a tornado or earthquake.

    55. Re:Yet another reason... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Saying such problems are "normal" is a bit of a cop-out excuse.

      Grammatical/typing errors aside, there are quite a few states without "imploding economy", "poor leadership", and "overbearing laws". California (and the NE corridor) are largely exceptional in that trifecta. Add to that an overly burdensome social welfare system, lackluster law enforcement (and the common acceptance of crime), and a lack of civil responsibility and California is looking pretty bad.

      Even most of the other states west of the Missouri have better saner laws and leadership than California. What's California's excuse? Hell, even Louisiana has good leadership now!

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    56. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Valley girls'

      I have no idea what this even means. One state's 'valley girl' is another state's hick, redneck, inbred, nut, evangelist, or neocon. I see idiocy as a universal problem. College girls in CA come just as dumb as elsewhere in the US, in my experience.

      people who think that Hollywood is the greatest place on earth

      LA has reputation for worst city in CA, within CA. I lived in CA for 15 years and never met anyone in central, north/west coast, or northeast CA who shared this opinion.

      people who think they can become Hollywood superstars

      Ditto again. What the fuck?

      Hollywood superstars

      If you avoid LA like the plague, as most people do... not a problem.

      and gang violence.

      It depends on where you live, of course - as with most states. But otherwise, a major exaggeration. It may be different in the south (I can't attest) but in all my years in CA, I never once saw any resemblance of gang activity.

      Poverty, drug, and ethnic issues are essentially as bad as it gets in (south) Sacramento, for instance. But move a few miles to north(east) Sacramento, and the difference is like that between Mount Olympus and Baghdad. Move near Tahoe if you want a permanent homestead that shares none of these problems. ('Trashy' folk hate the cold.)

      There are a lot of reasons to stay the hell away from there. Earthquakes are almost an enticement to go there.

      Earthquakes in CA are a once-or-never lifetime event unless you live on the west coast. Seriously, most people in CA would laugh when asked about flooding, earthquakes, tsunamis, or tornadoes - the only disaster a minority has experienced are fires, in the wooded areas.

    57. Re:Yet another reason... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      and here's a map http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/ of the recent earthquakes in the USA.... where else is it that we should be concerned about?

      Alaska sure looks "busy" ... so does Hawaii and Washington State ... there's a few other spots too. Historically there has been a lot more activity all over the US. You really should be looking at more than the last 7 days.

      You should be more than a bit nervous if you live anywhere near St Louis [wikipedia.org].

      You're absolutely right. Those quakes changed the course of the Mississippi river, which is no small feat.

    58. Re:Yet another reason... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      New Hampshire.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    59. Re:Yet another reason... by socsoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then can you please leave? Some of us like living in the most diverse (on many metrics, from people to environment) state in the union.

    60. Re:Yet another reason... by allseason+radial · · Score: 1

      Wait.... Hollywood ISN'T the greatest place on Earth?

    61. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple. People love talking about things they have not experienced. It's almost a national past-time to criticize other states. I stopped listening to any of this (from reports on racism, disasters, or condition/economy) a very long time ago -- people think they are experts on state lore after a 1-hour drive or out-the-window flyover. Basic example of confirmation bias.

      (Btw. It's amusing that I can accurately substitute states in GP's post. "The worst "disaster" we have here [California] (northeast) is 20 feet of snow, and all you have to do is {go skiing or drive the 24h-plowed-and-salted roads.}" Do people not realize just how large CA actually is?)

    62. Re:Yet another reason... by abigor · · Score: 1

      Northern Vancouver Island is in the southwest. It's not in the northwest of anything.

    63. Re:Yet another reason... by allseason+radial · · Score: 1

      mmmmm... midges....

      - helmetless motorcycle rider

    64. Re:Yet another reason... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      But on the other hand, you have to live in Virginia.

      --
      This space available.
    65. Re:Yet another reason... by socsoc · · Score: 1

      I agree with you defending my home state, but I've experienced earthquakes (6.0+) and out of control forest fires. Not one of either as a minor disturbance, but both multiple times with damage to my property. I'd still take either (and South Sac too) over the possible natural disasters in other states.

    66. Re:Yet another reason... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Is there a form of natural disaster you guys aren't under constant threat of?

      Godzilla.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    67. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Here in Denver that is a fairly average week in April.

    68. Re:Yet another reason... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      In Massachusetts in the 80's, that was just an average snow day. We still probably had school.

    69. Re:Yet another reason... by socsoc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hawaii has Vulcans?

    70. Re:Yet another reason... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      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.

      Problem is, so are you.

      Hurricanes are predictable days in advance. Flooding generally is too, outside of flash flooding - but even then, given a small amount of common sense, you stay away from moving water and you're OK. So you're left with tornadoes, for which most areas have warning systems that at usually give you 10 minutes at least. So long as you have permanent shelter within that radius, you're OK.

      The real risk for tornadoes is if you're driving. Been there, not fun. Still, the relative risk is low.

    71. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in CA too (and enjoy it) and I still think this is a dumb complaint. Telling someone to leave because they are self-critical smacks of (ignorant) patriotism. Surrounding yourself with people you agree with isn't healthy.

      Even if someone would strictly enjoy living in another state more, it's not that simple. Family, work, friends, history, et cetera. It takes much more than a collapsing economy to move elsewhere, in most cases.

    72. Re:Yet another reason... by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      Godzilla.

      Godzilla was the unintentional result of nuclear explosions, so I'd hesitate to count him as a "natural" disaster.

    73. Re:Yet another reason... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I was visiting Washington last fall, and made the trip to the observatory at Mt. Saint Helens. I'm still amazed that the trees haven't grown back. AT ALL. Whole mountainsides of trees laid down by the blast, and nothing growing back.

      But oh my god was sunrise beautiful...

    74. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they aren't really skills, are they?

    75. Re:Yet another reason... by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Name a state without the same problems, and you won't be talking about the USA.

      Virginia.

    76. Re:Yet another reason... by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Virginia's not bad, if you stay out of DC. But DC, technically, isn't part of Virginia.

    77. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the resulting ash cloud in the atmosphere will stop planes from flying and cool the earth!

      Global warming solved!

      Let it rip!

    78. Re:Yet another reason... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ... why I'm glad I don't live in California. -1 troll at the moment, which is flat out retarded.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    79. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live around the New Madrid area (IL/IN/TN) you get all that AND earthquakes!

      http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics.php?topicID=71&topic=New%20Madrid%20Seismic%20Zone

    80. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am probably projecting my own experiences here, but I was raised in Fair Oaks & Folsom, Cameron Park & Shingle Springs, and (shortly) Lake Tahoe. I didn't feel one earthquake in those 12 years. I think the last Sacramento earthquake was in 1994 or '95, and it was extremely minor and lasted all of a few seconds.

      I agree that fires are rightfully feared. But it's not a concern for city folk, unless you happen to live in SF, or elsewhere on the fault line.

    81. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    82. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Unless it's on fire. In which case the ashes of all of your stuff is in the hole that used to be your house.

    83. Re:Yet another reason... by Bicx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All the Californians are just now booting up their computers at work, visiting Slashdot, and getting angry about my comment :)

    84. Re:Yet another reason... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the planet. Find me one place on earth that isn't under threat of some kind of natural disaster.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    85. Re:Yet another reason... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Being hugged to death by a government that cares?

    86. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we like our big trucks

      That, and shame about the smallness of our penises.

    87. Re:Yet another reason... by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      No the Lahar took that smoldering hole your hose used to sit on and washed it 50 miles down stream.. Don't worry.. It's safe under 50 feet of mud..

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    88. Re:Yet another reason... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Grammatical/typing errors aside, there are quite a few states without "imploding economy", "poor leadership", and "overbearing laws". California (and the NE corridor) are largely exceptional in that trifecta. Add to that an overly burdensome social welfare system, lackluster law enforcement (and the common acceptance of crime), and a lack of civil responsibility and California is looking pretty bad.

      No, California is looking like every other state. I see that you drank the Kool-Aid mixed by your state's elected officials, though.

      Even most of the other states west of the Missouri have better saner laws and leadership than California. What's California's excuse? Hell, even Louisiana has good leadership now!

      For every ridiculous Californian law you can find, some ridiculous other-state law can be found. I agree that many of the laws are stupid; For example I think weapons characteristics bans are unconstitutional. Meanwhile I consider all other states ridiculous for not adopting California's emissions standards — I like breathing. California is a mixed bag, like every other state. Somebody brought up Alaska, but that's silly; lets restrict the discussion to states that people don't have to be paid to stay in. :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    89. Re:Yet another reason... by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      Trust me, we're doing fine. There was an exceptional amount of snow last year, several inches (gasp!) in some places, and way back in 1968 we did have hurricane force winds that took the roofs of several houses and killed 20 people.
      I'd contest that the former was too insignificant to qualify, and that the damage from the latter was too localised to count either.

      I could be overlooking several significant events, but I honestly can't think of anything else remotely significant since 1900 (an arbitrary cutoff), bar a couple of small border towns getting flooded because they were built on the flood plains of small rivers. Feel free to correct me there, though.

    90. Re:Yet another reason... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Does that really impact you in your parents basement? ;)

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    91. Re:Yet another reason... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Interesting thing about the laws in California. Sellers have to be able to disclose facts about the sale, or the sale is voidable. Sometimes, that's a little hard to do when the seller's business model is based on an uninformed public. As for poor leadership, the California Governor, has very little control as to how the money is spent; because money's are gathered for specific public works projects voted for by the people of California. One cannot allocate money for project A, then "whipsaw" or divert the money to project B without the voters approval. The California economy growth is dominated by businesses that outsource any work that can be outsourced, that means that at some point in time a person looses their job to outsourcing, they get another job but at a lower rate of pay; and this trend has stabilized. With lower pay means less money to buy things and the rent is due on the first. People can now buy manufactured goods from the Chinese version of Walmart. People can now buy services from an India services corporation. With transportation costs crashing down and communication costs at near zero levels, local economies are now coming to grips with the "new world order". It will take some time before this all stabilizes out, but billions of people will be affected by this.

    92. Re:Yet another reason... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      I don't want to minimize how awful tornadoes are, but it is good to be aware of the parts of the country which might be about to go away. People were saying for years that a sufficiently strong storm would likely break the levies and wipe out most of New Orleans, and that it exactly what happened. That was about 280 square miles of city.

      A 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific Northwest would be shockingly bad. Remember, that's a logarithmic scale, with the major 89 SF quake a 7.9. A 9.0 would be about 10 of those, all at once. That is guaranteed to throw a tremendous tsunami at all of the west coast north of San Francisco. People are estimating that at 100 feet. If it happens near enough to land, you could see 8.0 magnitude shocks hitting several major cities at once. And movement that large would probably trigger the San Andreas fault, which has been linked to the Cascadia.

      So, think of about 2k miles of coastline wiped out with a 100 foot tsunami, along with their inhabitants. You might get an additional million homes destroyed between Seattle, Portland, and the surrounding communities. Then add in the San Andreas, for another million or so in displaced people between LA or San Francisco. That's about 3 thousand miles and potentially 3 million people worth of rescue operations.

      And yes, that's a pretty bad case scenario. It may never happen. But, of course, they said the same thing about New Orleans. 9.0's happen pretty regularly on this fault, with historical and geological records of major catastrophies for the tribes who lived here.

      Tornadoes are bad, but I have yet to see one create that much damage.

    93. Re:Yet another reason... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Maybe one can buy a Derivative from Goldman Sachs on this issue; while it is still legal to sell products that are known to fail to an unsuspecting public.

    94. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love diversity! If you don't think like me, LEAVE!

    95. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's such a burden to have your driver's license on you while you're out driving...

    96. Re:Yet another reason... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      true, but if you will tolerate the snow, I can buy an utter mansion on the shores of Lake Michigan for the price of a crapshack in Most of california. and dealing with the snow is not that bad. All it takes is a little bit of education and you can drive through feet of the stuff with a Smartcar.

      Yup; I'd rather live here than Cali any day.... Plus we dont have the Governator sucking away all my freedoms..

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    97. Re:Yet another reason... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Or cant drive.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    98. Re:Yet another reason... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Strangely that never happens in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan... 10 feet? That's for pussies. Try 25 feet of snow. Houghton,MI went to visit a college friend there.. I had a subcompact car and I was driving through stuff that the SUV owners were afraid to. Snow was coming over the hood as I drove. It's called knowing how to drive, having the right tires and snow chains.

      Only the unprepared or uneducated end up dying in a snow state when a snowstorm hits.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    99. Re:Yet another reason... by Lumpy · · Score: 0, Troll

      which honestly, the solution is for everyone to NOT have identification. Screw the cops. If the jail is bursting at the seams from their stupid law, and the cops cant do anything but find and arrest brown people... Suddenly the law will change overnight.

      Bet you $100.00 they are not asking white people. There are a lot of illegal Canadians running around!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    100. Re:Yet another reason... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      New York?

      You better not be talking about California because New York kicks your guys arses hard for diversity.

      Where's your big irish population? How about the big Russian section of town? Oh I bet you have a giant muslim community...

      NYC on it's own is more diverse than the entire western 1/2 of the country.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    101. Re:Yet another reason... by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative

      IRIS maps them out for you.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    102. Re:Yet another reason... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      Not anymore, though. I'm a Rhode Islander, and last year they canceled school -because it was too cold-. Laughable. I remember waiting 45 minutes for the bus in 0-degree weather when I was a kid.

      Too Cold. Bah!

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    103. Re:Yet another reason... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      You must be from one of the Northern states. One that doesn't border Mexico. They seem to be the ones doing all the complaining.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    104. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... whiney baby aren't ya.

      Slight discomfort and you start calling FEMA...

    105. Re:Yet another reason... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Feel free to correct me there, though.

      Your cooking. May not be natural, but it sure is a disaster.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    106. Re:Yet another reason... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also remember a tornado is a small thing. The chances of a tornado that is within 5000 feet of your home to hit you are very very slim. Only freaks of nature have the supertornados that are nearly a mile wide, most are very narrow.

      you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than getting killed by a tornado directly.

      I spent 1 summer as a volunteer storm chaser dropping a sensor payload in the path of a tornado. I was several times within 1000 feet of a tornado and certain it would go towards us. It did not the damn things are random.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    107. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of all of those I'd rather deal with tornados.

      Hurricanes, massive flooding and big earthquakes all affect a very large region at exactly the same time. This takes a bad situation for any survivors, and makes it a logistically very challenging situation to recover from. Hurricanes take years for a region to recover from, I have no idea how long it takes a region to recover from a 9.0 earthquake, but it doesn't get counted in days either. Floods are a little better, usually life is back to normal within a few months. Tornados on the other hand do great destruction in very localized areas, which means that if you survive, there is a pretty good chance someone will come a help you out. And while it can take a while to repair the house etc. there is likely reasonable lodging available nearby in the meantime. Moving out of the area is a better option for hurricane, flood and earthquake victims.

      -sk

    108. Re:Yet another reason... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Alaska sure looks "busy" ... so does Hawaii and Washington State ... there's a few other spots too.

      That's the Pacific Ring of Fire. Standard Operating Procedure. Nothing to see here, move along.

      Literally thousands of small quakes a year. Most of them aren't even discernible. But because of all this geologic bumping and grinding a big one shows up now and again. The problem being that 10,000 years is just a blink in geologic time so the next blink is due, well, just about now....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    109. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't live in any of the cities. They're all built on previous lahar deposits. =p Seriously though, there are quite a few cities that sit on the remains of previous lahars. Though an Osceola sized event may not happen again for a while, the lahar deposits don't respond well to shaking.

    110. Re:Yet another reason... by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate tornadoes (two near Hays, Kansas last night), the area and population impacted by even a massive F5 is miniscule in comparison to an 8+ earthquake, hurricane, or tsunami. Although the frequency and possibility of threat is much higher in comparison.

    111. Re:Yet another reason... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      And then the mud stops moving. It tends to solidify to be much more like concrete than mud.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    112. Re:Yet another reason... by pianophile · · Score: 1

      > Alaska only has one of the three.

      Poor leadership? Oh, wait, SarahP dropped out...

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    113. Re:Yet another reason... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      The trees are growing back, it's just that trees take time to grow. The biologists are actually a bit surprised at how fast regrowth is proceeding. Likewise the fish have returned to the Toutle River much faster than was expected.

      It's still a pretty impressive sight and story from the observatory, though, isn't it?

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    114. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one: people living in Florida.

    115. Re:Yet another reason... by street_astrologist · · Score: 1

      You weren't allowed to wait in the house for an extra 30 minutes?

    116. Re:Yet another reason... by butterflysrage · · Score: 2, 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...

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    117. Re:Yet another reason... by street_astrologist · · Score: 1

      >

      Bet you $100.00 they are not asking white people. There are a lot of illegal Canadians running around!

      Plus Europeans and other Mediterranean types who can pass for US native.

    118. Re:Yet another reason... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's that exactly. Our penis size has everything to do with our self-evaluation. That's why we build tall buildings. It's why we're constantly shopping for new clothes, high-end gadgets, and the like. (Oh wait, we don't, typically: that's you.)

      In fact, that'd explain why all our children are small and stunted , our men are spinely and feminine (oh wait, that's you), and we tend to have something called a Work Ethic out here.

      Believe it or not, most of the 'big trucks' out here really do get used for work as trucks. A Ford Ranger? More often than not that's "too small" because a common day's work will twist the frame.

      Ironically, the environmental impact of our rusted out 20-year-old diesel pickups is negligible compared to the metrosexual's penile fascination vehicle of choice, the Prius. Why? It's here already; they don't need to manufacture another one.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    119. Re:Yet another reason... by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Despite its size, Hawaii is actually one of the "safest" volcanoes in the world; it's magma is very poor in silica (~70%) is much thicker, and tends to clog up the tubes, resulting in large pressure build up and things going BOOOOM - much like Mt. St. Helens and most of the other volcanoes in the Cascades.

      All of the really nasty stratovolcanoes that explode and produce pyroclastic flows, nuclear-winter style ash clouds and the like are of the silica-rich variety, whereas shield volcanoes like the Hawaiian hospots are much safer to live by.

      So yes, the US is vulnerable to volcanism, but Hawaii's probably the nicest place to live to stay away from it :) Until Yellowstone of course...!

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    120. Re:Yet another reason... by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Erm, OK, dunno what happened to my other comment but it missed out a whole bunch of text, so here it is again:

      Despite its size, Hawaii is actually one of the "safest" volcanoes in the world; it's magma is very poor in silica (<~50%), making the lava very runny. This prevents any large pressure build up, and it's fairly easy to predict where the lava will run. Magma with a very high silica content (>~70%) is much thicker, and tends to clog up the tubes, resulting in large pressure build up and things going BOOOOM - much like Mt. St. Helens and most of the other volcanoes in the Cascades.

      All of the really nasty stratovolcanoes that explode and produce pyroclastic flows, nuclear-winter style ash clouds and the like are of the silica-rich variety, whereas shield volcanoes like the Hawaiian hospots are much safer to live by.

      So yes, the US is vulnerable to volcanism, but Hawaii's probably the nicest place to live to stay away from it :) Until Yellowstone of course...!

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    121. Re:Yet another reason... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Having lived in both DC and Va, I'd say that living in DC yields a much higher quality of life. I didn't actually work in DC, but the commute from DC to the pentagon (and then Rosslyn) was very easy compared to any commute in Va, to any place near DC.

    122. Re:Yet another reason... by radtea · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    123. Re:Yet another reason... by SpecBear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      [Citation needed]

      I'll help you out. Here's the full text of the law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

      I couldn't find any mention of a driver's license being sufficient proof of legality.

    124. Re:Yet another reason... by querent23 · · Score: 1

      troll? really? hm.

    125. Re:Yet another reason... by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      Try comparing the Arizona law to the Federal law. When you're done feeling sheepish we'll be here for you.

    126. Re:Yet another reason... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Or cant drive.

      In my experience, that is redundant with "from Atlanta."

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    127. Re:Yet another reason... by operagost · · Score: 1

      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.

      So you're telling me that all these lawbreakers weren't falsely arresting people until a law was passed saying they could?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    128. Re:Yet another reason... by socsoc · · Score: 1

      In New York you can drive from the beach to the snow in 3 hours? I said many metrics.

    129. Re:Yet another reason... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Now, Olney has close to 40,000 people...and the city limits haven't expanded outward by much.

      As someone who has lived in metropolitan areas with anti-sprawl laws (Portland) and areas most definitely without them (Atlanta), I'd say count your blessings that it hasn't expanded outward. Suburbia is a wasteland.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    130. Re:Yet another reason... by Algan · · Score: 1

      New Jersey. No extreme weather, no tornadoes, no earthquakes, no volcanos and if you live 20 miles inland, you don't even need to worry about tsunamis when La Palma finally breaks apart and falls into the ocean.

      Our government is another story though... but that would be a man-made disaster.

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    131. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one that's not for lovers.

    132. Re:Yet another reason... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Name a state that does not have some sort of periodic inhospitable condition, including natural disasters.

      Everything isn't black and white. There are some states that have more disasters and worse disasters than others. California does get a bad rap because of its sheer size and varied terrain, but you will deal with more disasters in say Florida than you will in say North Dakota just due to geography and weather.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    133. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have hurricanes and tropical storms in the northeast?

    134. Re:Yet another reason... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      You don't understand. The two "main streets" in Downtown Olney were slightly crowded when there was only 7500 people there. Now there are 40,000 people, and the streets are the same size. Not to mention that since the city limits haven't expanded outward, there are far more people living in the same square mileage as before.

    135. Re:Yet another reason... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Here in southern Arizona, we don't have any natural disasters at all. No earthquakes, no tornadoes (besides really tiny ones we call "dust devils"), no hurricanes, certainly no blizzards or snowstorms or icestorms, and no flooding. Yes, we do have wildfires, but those are only in the wild, as the name implies. In the city where almost everyone lives, they're not a concern (except for people contemplating a vacation to one of the affected areas).

      So no, not every place has natural disasters.

    136. Re:Yet another reason... by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Well, sure you can. But I prefer California anyways (hate that NY snow).

    137. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with Pella, or Iowa for that matter? I went to school there and rather enjoyed my time spent there.

    138. Re:Yet another reason... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, the volcanoes in Hawaii have been erupting constantly for eons. They created the islands, after all; just look at a map and you can see how the islands are the result of the continental plate moving over the same spot on the mantle.

      What I'd like to know is if there's any way to mitigate the danger from the stratavolcanoes or the Yellowstone caldera, perhaps by drilling and releasing the pressure slowly so it doesn't erupt.

      Of course, I wouldn't put BP or Halliburton in charge of any drilling. They've already proven they're incompetent. I wouldn't even hire any Americans at all to do it, as the executives and managers are all corrupt and cut corners, and the workers are all on meth (as seen in BP's disaster). Instead, I'd hire a Russian or Norwegian company to do it.

    139. Re:Yet another reason... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      New Jersey. No extreme weather, no tornadoes, no earthquakes, no volcanos and if you live 20 miles inland, you don't even need to worry about tsunamis when La Palma finally breaks apart and falls into the ocean.

      Our government is another story though... but that would be a man-made disaster.

      You do have a risk of hurricanes.

      I think the least dangerous place to live is in the Rio Grande valley, specifically near Albuquerque. The volcanoes are are all dead, the fault actually slips relatively well, resulting in little stress buildup, and thus low chance of earthquake.

      You're at such a lack of risk for hurricanes and acclimate weather that if it snows or rains even a quarter inch, that people freak out like it is a disaster.

      Tornadoes are rare, because elevation changes due to being in a valley. Hail is an occasional problem, though.

      And to live in this nice geologically and weather safe location all one has to do is put up with a climate that makes it difficult for anything to live.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    140. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because just saying you can't profile based on skin color is enough to keep it from happening. There's no way to enforce that provision and they damn well know it.

      It's a terrible law aimed at people with brown skin.

    141. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a different discussion altogether, stop trying to change the subject.

      The discussion is whether it's a good law and the answer is clearly no, it's not.

      What "they" do behind our backs in secret is illegal and they should be held accountable. When "they" pass laws that make these horrible things legal it is now we who can be held accountable as the passing of these laws in silence by the public is implicit approval of these actions.

      What is being done in Arizona is wrong, regardless of whether they have a law that lets them do it or not. The secret prisons are wrong. Torture is wrong. Passing a law saying they're legal only puts the blame on the public. It doesn't make them okay.

      "They" being whomever is enacting the law or committing the act in question and varies on context.

    142. Re:Yet another reason... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      More people in the same square mileage can be a good thing in the long-run. It provides the necessary financial incentives to establish good support for walking & biking and for setting up a decent public transit system.

      The alternative is horizontal expansion which leads to you being forced to drive to get anywhere, such as having to take 15 minutes to drive around a mess of McMansion subdivisions just to get to a grocery store and having few to no workplaces close to home. I'm healthier and spend less money on gas living away from suburbia.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    143. Re:Yet another reason... by Skreems · · Score: 1

      And yet people DO die, in snow states, when stuff gets bad enough. The particular incident I'm thinking of is a year or two back when Minnesota got record snowfall and a number of people died in rather unpleasant ways. So yes, it does happen there.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    144. Re:Yet another reason... by minchazo · · Score: 1

      Buh? I don't think you know what you're talking about. The trees *are* growing back! Some of them are over 10 feet tall. The issue is that Mt. St. Helens' forests were douglas fir and other conifers. It's only been 30 years and they take a lot longer to grow back than poplars.

    145. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and all of New England.

    146. Re:Yet another reason... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      You could technically walk around Olney if you want...but crossing the street there is like trying to cross the street in DC: you do so at your own risk (i.e. too many cars, and too many asshole drivers that are steering them.) I sure as hell wouldn't walk around there any more.

    147. Re:Yet another reason... by waspleg · · Score: 1

      pfft... i live in the midwest we don't have any natural disasters.. just acts of God; these are red states after all...

    148. Re:Yet another reason... by Chess+Piece+Face · · 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.

    149. Re:Yet another reason... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      If I could use my mod points you'd get a +1 insightful.

      Until you make it too expensive for employers to hire undocumented workers they'll continue to do it. I would say the fine should be you pay the cost of deporting any undocumented foreigners you employ and their families back to their homes.

    150. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting the tsunamis, firestorms, lack of electricity etc... That hole that used to be your house might also be burned to a crisp and flooded, and the area you live in be without any power or water for up to 6 months. Tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. tend to be a lot more selective at that level.

    151. Re:Yet another reason... by raodin · · Score: 1
      That depends on how you define "largest," I guess. From your own link...

      Susan Hough, a seismologist of the US Geological Survey, has recently estimated the earthquake magnitudes as "right around magnitude 7. Possibly a bit below, possibly a bit above, but not as big as 7.5."

      Now, 7 is a big earthquake. There have been many 7+ earthquakes in California since it was settled, however. In particular the 1906 San Francisco quake was estimated as quite close to an 8. The New Madrid quakes were felt from much further away because of the geology of the surrounding areas, not the actual amount of energy released. Energy from earthquakes in California, and the rest of the west coast, doesn't propagate as easily through the already heavily fractured rock.

    152. Re:Yet another reason... by Calithulu · · Score: 1

      Ah, you've been to L.A./Orange County too! Everything you've said applies to the coastal regions of Southern California and the worst part of it is that there is effectively a continuous city from LA down to Camp Pendleton but no effective mass transit for the entire region. It takes 3 hours or more to go 20 miles since busses are about the best bet. The rail system out here costs so much you're better off getting a cheap sub-compact.

    153. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is going to fall for the claims of a half-cocked slashdotter over why Big Trucks does't mean standard penis size. Especially when one remembers that the Sears Tower was the tallest building in the world when it was built.

    154. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that police listen to that or get around that, but you wouldn't know because since you're white it doesn't happen to you. For the rest of us, it does happen.

      Here's one, on Fox, from before the law was passed.

      Arizona Police Routinely Asking for Proof of Citizenship How many Canadians do you think they asked? I'd say, oh, 'round about zero.

      Here's another from before the law was passed.

      Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling This guy, born in the US, was arrested and had to have his wife bring in his birth certificate to get out of jail.

      Here's one for a guy who was almost deported even though he is a naturally born US citizen. I don't know where they'd deport him to. He was locked up for 3 days even after he showed his birth certificateDeportation Nightmare: Eduardo Caraballo, US Citizen Born In Puerto Rico, Detained As Illegal Immigrant

    155. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Mexico is the safest in terms of natural disasters.

    156. Re:Yet another reason... by poetmatt · · Score: 2, 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.

    157. Re:Yet another reason... by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. But I'm in south east Virginia, Hampton Roads. Not quite as sophisticated as DC; but, we do OK.

    158. Re:Yet another reason... by Sorny · · Score: 1

      "This (central Illinois) may be the only place in the world where you can have snow storms, ice storms, rain, hail, sleet, and tornados all in the same week!"

      We've had that in the same day here in MN; last spring, as a matter of fact. For interesting weather, there is a lot to be said for the upper midwest. Now, about the fault lines running through here... we're hosed when they let loose considering nothing here is built to withstand that sort of stress.

      --
      OSX pwns.
    159. Re:Yet another reason... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's good news. Since it is illegal to profile based on skin color, I'm sure the police would never do that.

      Wake up! If you honestly don't think this law is going to be abused to the fullest extent, you obviously had never dealt with the police anywhere, let alone in Maricopa County.

    160. Re:Yet another reason... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, most of the 'big trucks' out here really do get used for work as trucks.

      Take a look in the parking lot for a typical office building. You'll probably see around 1 in 3 of the vehicles is a big truck.

      I wonder how many farmers/builders/plumbers etc are employed there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    161. Re:Yet another reason... by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      Atlanta? Try Norfolk, Virginia! That place gets shut down in a dusting!

      --
      Sig not found.
    162. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      I live in AZ (specifically, Tucson).

      First, the only driver's licenses that are acceptable according to SB 1040 are ones from places, like Arizona, that verify your citizenship before they'll give you a license. If you're here illegally, a driver's license is difficult (as in basically impossible) to obtain. States like Maine, on the other hand, who view driver's licenses as a way to enforce public safety and thus do not require proof of citizenship are explicitly not acceptable in Arizona as proof of citizenship under SB 1040.

      Second, SB 1040 specifically prohibits profiling base only on skin color. In practical terms, that means you not only have to look Mexican, you also have to speak with a Spanish accent. Because, as everyone knows, traffic cops would never pull over a black or Hispanic man for driving in a white neighborhood just because of his skin color...

    163. Re:Yet another reason... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Were those weather events all in the same town? They all happened in the same week, all here in Springfield that week.

      There is the New Madrid fault running just south of here. It let loose in 1812 when there was little civilization here, and reportedly it was a >8 magnitide that had the Mississippi river running backwards.

      At New Madrid, trees were knocked down and riverbanks collapsed. This event shook windows and furniture in Washington, D.C., rang bells in Richmond, Virginia, sloshed well water and shook houses in Charleston, South Carolina, and knocked plaster off of houses in Columbia, South Carolina. In Jefferson, Indiana, furniture moved and in Lebanon, Ohio, residents fled their homes. Observers in Herculaneum, Missouri, called it "severe" and claimed it had a duration of 10-12 minutes.[11]

      I wonder if that fault produced an earthquake around 1400 that destroyed the Cahokia civilization? They were a highly developed, agricultural civilization that started around 600 and disappeared around 1400. Archaeolgists don't know what killed that culture, although they have several hypotheses.

    164. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one that's not for losers.

      FTFY

    165. Re:Yet another reason... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even hire any Americans at all to do it, as the executives and managers are all corrupt and cut corners, and the workers are all on meth (as seen in BP's disaster). Instead, I'd hire a Russian or Norwegian company to do it.

      ... You're going to go to Russia to avoid corruption?

      As far as ethical construction companies with great workers, might I recommend Japan instead?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    166. Re:Yet another reason... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I didn't know Japan had much expertise in oil drilling.

    167. Re:Yet another reason... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Oh, I doubt they have much. I know they own some oil companies, and I'm aware of a few Japanese drilling companies, but no, it's probably not the go-to country.

      As far as ethical business practices and a less corrupt business culture, though, Japan's great. Especially compared to Russia.

      My point was really related to your suggestion of hiring a Russian company. They care even less about the environment and worker safety than American companies!

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    168. Re:Yet another reason... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Most other states don't need the emissions laws that California has: most other states don't build massive and largely useless freeways where people commute many, many miles a day.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    169. Re:Yet another reason... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most other states don't need the emissions laws that California has: most other states don't build massive and largely useless freeways where people commute many, many miles a day.

      You have that shit ass-backwards. Most states don't have so many people that want to live in them that they build cities that can't hold all the people who need to work in them. Except, of course, New York, which has a set of ridiculous problems all its own. Face it, California is fucked up, but no more fucked up than any other state. It's just different. There are clearly benefits to living here, or California wouldn't be emptied out by recession, proving that tons of people wanted to live here, but couldn't hack it, and went home to the midwest when the money ran out. They only went back when they failed. Figure it out.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    170. Re:Yet another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have DAYS of warning of a hurricane to prepare , You have what ,15 sec ?

  3. Washington? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, Microsoft, arrrreee youuuuu ready to ruuuuuuuummmmbllle!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Washington? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Not to worry. MS is used to catastrophic glitches.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Washington? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      They will just double the license fees to cover for any damage.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Washington? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know you meant this to be funny, but MSFT ( and google) are all over this earthquake thing. That, along with access to power, is why they are building data centers in eastern washington, away from the fault lines.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    4. Re:Washington? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Laugh if you want, but wait until your Boeing airliners need spare parts, and you want the latest video game console from Nintendo of America-- then who'll be laughing! (Me. Unless I'm dead from the quake.)

  4. Oblig. xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    By extrapolation

    http://xkcd.com/605/

    1. Re:Oblig. xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · 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...)

    2. Re:Oblig. xkcd by jamesh · · Score: 3, 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.

    3. Re:Oblig. xkcd by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "Any xkcd reference " I am sure the irony of that statement in conjunction with the OA completely misses you.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    4. Re:Oblig. xkcd by Achra · · Score: 0, Redundant
      --
      Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
  5. And... by s31523 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This information is great and all, but now what? Sure, the governments could be responsible and dust off the ol' disaster plans and have more frequent drills, but honestly, the day that the big one (earthquake, or, earthquake plus tidal wave) hits, the situation is going to be FUBAR no matter what people do. Sure, some preparedness will result in minor differences in life loss, etc. but in the grand scheme of things the same net effect will occur: total destruction. Therefore, the government, the people, anyone will do nothing but scoff at the prediction, until it happens, and then will cry "why didn't anyone tell me about this or do anything".

    1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      every day I try and pick out the stupidist thing I heard. Congratulations, today you've won the prize!

      the chilean earthquake was 500 times stronger than the haiti one, and yet the aftermath was 500 times less worse. why was that? could it be that chile has
      stricter building codes than california? could it be that they had prepared for
      this to happen as they live on top of a subducting fault line and there is a
      history of these things happening?

      nah, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die! it's the american way.

    2. Re:And... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Not if we can reinforce the existing structures sufficiently enough to survive that level of destruction. I have no idea how much it would cost to do so, but I am very sure that, we being human beings, once we know about a problem, we can sure as hell find a solution to it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:And... by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 1

      You can do a lot to prevent loss of life. Compare the recent earthquakes in Haiti to Chili, for example. The one in Chile had a magniute of 8.8 and claimed something like 500 lives. The one in Haiti was a measely 7 and still claimed 200,000+ lives. I've heard from several sources that the lack of development and preparedness in Haiti contributed greatly to the horrible tragedy.

    4. Re:And... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      It's cheaper to repopulate after the fact...

    5. Re:And... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Probably the same thing we've been doing for the last 20 years. This is hardly news when I was a kid back in the 80s there was plenty of talk about the next earthquake being a monster that would probably be above 8.0 magnitude. Consequently any new buildings are designed and built with that in mind and people are aware that it's going to happen at some point.

      But the critical things are related to construction and the building codes already include the relevant changes necessary. The only thing to be really concerned about is land slides and older buildings. Seattle for instance already has trouble in magnolia with landslides when we get too much rain. I shudder to think what that'll look like when there's a major quake.

    6. Re:And... by MagikSlinger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Governments in the area have been reacting to this news for a couple decades. In BC, we're spending over a billion dollars seismically upgrading critical bridges and making sure the older schools and hospitals don't colapse on their occupants. They've begun emergency preparedness drills, etc.

      The problem is: at 8+ magintude, all plans go to crap...

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    7. Re:And... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Really? How much is one human life worth?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    8. Re:And... by careysub · · Score: 1

      This information is great and all, but now what? ... Sure, some preparedness will result in minor differences in life loss, etc. but in the grand scheme of things the same net effect will occur: total destruction.

      How thoroughly untrue. I gather you have never paid much attention to (sounds much nicer than "are ignorant about...") what happens in deadly earthquakes. The vast majority of loss of life in most great 'quakes is due to collapsing structures falling on people. Strong building codes, based on the best and latest engineering insights into the problem, and rigidly enforced can drastically reduce the death toll.

      Identifying tsunami zones, and developing suitable marked evacuation paths and alarm/direction systems for rapid evacuation can eliminate most of the death toll from this source.

      The Great Cascadia Quake may happen tomorrow, but is much more likely to be 50+ years out. This is plenty of time to transform the safety of buildings and overpasses and tsunami zones throughout the Pacific Northwest.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    9. Re:And... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Considering that scientists have been predicting catastrophic quakes for California for years, and catastrophic quakes keep happening to California, I fail to see what the difference here is. Sure, this will help convince communities to upgrade their zoning and building standards, though California has some of the most stringent in the world. And the big number 9 is interesting, compared to "yet another 8.0." That's an engineering target to shoot for. But how do you engineer differently for a 9 as opposed to an 8.5?

      Big number, and interesting viewpoint. But how is this really different?

    10. Re:And... by SpaceMika · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is: at 8+ magintude, all plans go to crap...

      Actually, no. Vancouver is located near a triple-plate junction, and is susceptible to deep magnitude 9 subduction quakes with minimal surface shaking (akin to Chile), or shallower magnitude 7s with a lot of surface shaking. Locally, a magnitude 7 is a lot more problematic, although a magnitude 9 would put everyone else on the rim on tsunami-watch.

      Richmond and the unconsolidated saturated sediments they live on below sea water behind a dyke is pretty much out of luck in prolonged shaking, as the liquefaction means they'll discover they built on oatmeal. The only way to earthquake-proof that is to keep Richmond entirely agricultural.

      But for the city proper, it's pretty much set. Vancouver is built on glacier-compressed sediment, and once you've had 2km of ice squishing everything flat, as far as earthquakes are concerned, it's pretty much bedrock. The engineered fill around False Creek/Granville Island/the downtown docks are likely to have more problems (honestly, I'm concerned about those nice, huge cranes toppling under a bit of liquefaction, exactly like waterfront in Haiti), but as far as "places with people" go, the biggest danger should be the shower of broken glass in the city core. Even personal preparedness is fairly high: approximately 2,000 students per year pass the intro to disasters course at UBC; I don't have the numbers but I'd guess at least a few hundred take the equivalent course at SFU.

      Vancouver Island protects the mainland from tsunami; the only real tsunami-danger east of the island is locally in the fjords if the earthquake triggers a landslide (likely things will fail; not so likely anything big enough will go in any one place to really cause a threatening seche). As for the west coast of the island, this past year's Chile-warning was a good practice run. The last-mile notification is still bumpy, but getting better.

      Victoria (on the south tip of Vancouver Island) worries me more -- the current subduction has buckled the island up by approximately 15m, which is an awful lot to deal with if it all slips at once. This is made more complicated by the large proportion of the elderly (Victoria is a major retirement destination in Canada), who have lowered resiliency in emergencies.

    11. Re:And... by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      Also, that Haiti's quake was a shallow translational earthquake, so had lots of surface shaking, while Chile had a deep subduction quake with minimal surface shaking.

    12. Re:And... by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

      Really? How much is one human life worth?

      Well, if you're trying to hire an assassin, they come as cheap as $500, but if you want a professional, expect to shell out more in the realm of $10,000. But quite honestly, humans will kill each other for a lot less. Even the most ardent "pro-lifer" will kill for free in the right circumstances...

    13. Re:And... by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      Lots of big differences, from geology to building code to economic resilience. If you're curious, I bet it'll be a hot topic in all the big geo/policy conferences this year (AGU December 2011 in SF will probably have a whole session on it)

      1. Geology: Haiti was a shallow, translation earthquake. This means that the surface shaking was intense & prolonged over a focused area (just the city). Chile was a deep, subduction earthquake. This means the shaking was spread over a larger surface area (half the country).
      2. Awareness: Haiti's fault was only identified in the past few years. Chile's known it's in earthquake country forever.
      3. Building code: Haiti did not have an earthquake building code. Chile's earliest earthquake-safe building practices pre-date the foundation of the country. ...and then continue on into the development, economic resiliency, and so on.

      Pretty much the only thing the two events had in common was, "the ground shook," and "it happened in the same year." Nothing else is comparable.

    14. Re:And... by SpaceMika · · Score: 2, Informative

      A few factual corrections, although I agree with the tone.

      The earthquake building code for the United States is the same throughout the country, but it zones the country by expected earthquake risk. California is in a high-risk zone, but so are several other locations in the country. BC, California, and Japan all have fairly comparable building codes. So yes, California's code is very, very good. But it's not, technically speaking, "the best."

      Next, California has relatively small translational earthquakes caused by the plates rubbing past each other. This leads to intensely focused, fairly shallow earthquakes, similar to that experienced by Haiti. It's common for one city to be hit hard (LA during the Northridge Quake, SF in '89...) and the surrounding region to be pretty much unaffected.

      The Pacific North West and Chile have subduction earthquakes, also called megaquakes because of their incredible magnitudes. These earthquakes are caused by one plate subducting under another, and lead to deep earthquakes with less-intense shaking felt over a larger area. They are also commonly associated with tsunami-generation because of underwater vertical displacement (Sumatra was another subduction quake).

      Geologically, the regions you're comparing have very different causes for earthquakes, very different types of shaking felt at the surface, and different impacts on the rest of the rest of the world.

    15. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah thats great for BC.... come to Portland where they wont even fix a bridge that has large cracks in the support columns and is basically expected to fall any day.... guess how they "fixed" the cracks? industrial strength silicone.... so basically they glued it back together...

      Portland is screwed...

    16. Re:And... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Economics FAIL. If you pay someone $100 to destroy a Ming vase that cost you $100,000, said vase doesn't become worth $100.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    17. Re:And... by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all that money put to a preparation plan that will try to accommodate the earth opening up beneath you....


      Sure you can engineer a bridge over a river to withstand a 8mag quake, but if that river disappears (i.e. opens up, ground cracks)... all that reinforcement isn't going to do you any good, only good for that politician and business man that lives in DC or the East Coast reaping in the rewards now.


      Sure you can prepare for some things, but there's a point where prep doesn't even make logical sense. Anything over 8, especially ground fissures, formulation of new mountains, etc... well just say you can't prep for that.

    18. Re:And... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      This is plenty of time to transform the safety of buildings and overpasses and tsunami zones throughout the Pacific Northwest.

      Seattle had a large quake in 1949. Building codes are pretty earthquake aware already, and most construction of roads and buildings has happened since the advent of strong building codes. I live here, I'm not worried, I don't pay extra for earthquake insurance.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    19. Re:And... by green1 · · Score: 1

      Well if you want to go based on cost to acquire an item, a human life is quite cheap, in fact even the poorest people can afford to do so many times in fact between consenting adults it often costs more to avoid creating a human life than it costs to actually do so. of course ongoing maintenance costs are quite high, but that is usually a problem not thought of in the spur of the moment (which tends to cause all sorts of problems, but that's an entirely different discussion.)

      Most human lives are worth $0, unless they are specifically insured, in which case they are worth the dollar value on the policy. I think the harder part to deal with is that we consider specific humans to be worth immeasurable amounts to us personally, while perhaps much less to others elsewhere. People die all over the world all the time, MANY MANY people, but most of us don't even give it a second thought unless it is someone we can relate to. Human lives may be "valuable" but they are not worth money most of the time because it is usually not possible to simply buy a replacement.

    20. Re:And... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      My post does not relate to the value or cost of one human life, or many human lives. I am merely comparing the cost to improve current infrastructure vs. the cost to let it all fail and bring in new population and infrastructure. The first is a finite cost laid out now. The second is more variable and also paid out over an extended time period (hence more desirable).

    21. Re:And... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Just as a side note, I live on Vancouver Island, and I participated in my local community's earthquake preparedness program, which was a good experience for anyone living in earthquake country. As part of program, they showed a video produced by seismologists that showed some computer modeling of the likely scenarios if a major earthquake occurred in the Cascadia zone off the west coast of the island. It seems that the biggest issue would probably not be the earthquake itself as most of the main population centers are pretty far away as the west coast of Vancouver Island is pretty sparsely populated. However, Victoria (and especially Esquimalt) looked especially vulnerable to the resultant tsunami. I don't personally worry so much as I live "up island" and by the modeling the tsunami would not travel far up the Strait of Georgia (nor down into Puget Sound for those around Seattle). Anything along the Strait of Juan de Fuca could be in world of hurt, though.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    22. Re:And... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Please, here in Seattle, we can't even act on getting the Alaskan Way Viaduct replaced, and we know for a fact that it'll collapse in a 6.9 or higher. It's the exact same construction of this beauty you probably remember from 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:022srUSGSCyprusVia.jpg. Our slow-ass bureaucracy is going to cost lives.

    23. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? How much is one human life worth?

      Well, if you're trying to hire an assassin, they come as cheap as $500, but if you want a professional, expect to shell out more in the realm of $10,000. But quite honestly, humans will kill each other for a lot less. Even the most ardent "pro-lifer" will kill for free in the right circumstances...

      Depending on the importance of the person - I've managed to get >$50k for a semi-important African businessman. I quoted >$200000 for a well-guarded but little-known dictator (but not busy with it - presumably the opposition party doesn't have that kind of money)

      What kind of assassin does one get for $10k? Do these people actually even manage to get away? I need to stockpile money because there are always a gang of x-paras gunning for me, and anonymity costs money. $500 won't even cover the cost of changing identities!!!

    24. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more thing that I failed to add - if you're hiding out from the world in general, you can live very cheaply. If you're black, you have a range of options in remote African villages, and new identities are cheaper than what my white competitors have to deal with (cheaper to get fake identity as a DRC citizen than as a US or European citizen).

      [snarky]email me for quotes - anyassassin@gmail.com[/snarky]

      :-)

    25. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the good news about the triple plate junction is that in the past 150 years, the plates have actually been sliding quite smoothly. As a result, we've seen very few "quakes" as there has been minimal buildup of pressure. Every minor tremor we experience makes me rest a bit easier, as there's less likelihood of the magnitude 7 quakes (the magnitude 9 ones are still due, but that's a different kettle of fish, as mentioned by the parent).

    26. Re:And... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Huh. You learn something new every day.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    27. Re:And... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Economics FAIL again. You don't go by the cost of an item, you go by the cost to replace that item exactly. In the case of a human being, you have to factor in how much it would cost to produce someone with the same production capability, and how much production they would've been capable of for the rest of their natural lives.

      This stuff is so simple 8-year olds can get it. Why can't you people?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    28. Re:And... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You said "repopulate", not "rebuild". The former is used when talking about human populations, the latter when talking about buildings and infrastructure. If you don't want to be misunderstood, work on having a better command of the language.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    29. Re:And... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      That's disposal cost rather than replacement cost.

    30. Re:And... by theqmann · · Score: 1

      A few weeks ago we had a 7.2 earthquake about 100 miles from San Diego, and there were 0 deaths in the US, and 2 deaths in Mexico. This is another order of magnitude below even the two you listed.

    31. Re:And... by green1 · · Score: 1

      You can't consider something to be "worth" the lifetime productivity of an item either. If I have a tool that I use extensively to make my living, it may "produce" thousands of dollars worth of productivity, but if I can buy a new one for $50 at the hardware store, the tool is still worth only $50, not several thousand dollars, in fact after depreciation, my tool is probably not even worth the $50, even though it continues to make me thousands of dollars.

      The cost to replace an item though is only relevant if there is a point to replacing the item in question. I have all sorts of stuff lying around in my crawl space that would cost money to replace, but would never be replaced if it were lost, is it still worth money?

      If I were to die, my parents wouldn't suddenly decide they need a new me and make a new person. My boss would replace me, but they wouldn't have to pay the amount of my lost productivity for the remainder of my natural life, they'd only have to pay about $10,000-$20,000 (cost to hire and train someone to my level)

      My point was that "Economics FAIL" is a more accurate term than you realize. Economics DO fail to work in this situation. As much as humans love to think of everything in terms of little pieces of paper with weird pictures on them, some things simply can't be categorized in that way. Human life is one of those things.

      A person is worth different amounts to different people.

      I am worth nothing to you, but an immeasurable amount to my family, no dollar value would ever be enough to satisfy them if I were to die.

      I am worth about $10,000 - $20,000 to my employer (cost to hire and train a replacement) And I'm worth up to a million or so to my insurance company (what I could cost them depending on specific injuries or demise)

    32. Re:And... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      The infrastructure is there to serve and protect people, we are talking about it failing catastrophically during an earthquake, so yeah, I meant repopulate.

      You either plan ahead (missed opportunity), retrofit (too expensive), evacuate (no time), or take your chances and deal with a large loss of life.
      We are talking about a real world issue and this probably comes off as callous, I don't live in that area and would probably choose to invest in retrofitting myself, however I don't see that happening.

  6. Cheking out Chris Goldfinger's credentials by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cheking out Chris Goldfinger's credentials this will be big, they will be rocking as far away as the Caribbean.

  7. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly it's BP's fault. Those evil Belgians!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Ob by deKernel · · Score: 1

      What do you expect when you smell like cabbage!

    2. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what part of british petrol are you having trouble with?

    3. Re:Ob by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... Owns large chunks of what was Standard Oil, Run by a Swede ...Started as AngloArabian Oil in Iran... ...Belgian?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    4. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BP = British Petroleum

    5. Re:Ob by mtemmerm · · Score: 1

      How do we belgians fit in there again?

    6. Re:Ob by Sique · · Score: 1

      The part of it that is belgian.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Ob by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like anyone's going to believe your retroactive pawning it off on the Brits, you goddamn Belgian.

    8. Re:Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'll give you (and the two ACs above) a clue - the B stands for Belgian as much as it stands for British.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Which part of "it is now 2010, not 1998" are YOU having trouble with?

      The B means the same as the J in Michael J. Fox. No doubt you won't get that either.

      Oh, one other thing - the P never stood for "petrol" either.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It may be a multinational, but it's a Belgian multinational!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Ob by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Those sneaky bastards! Putting "British" into their name to try to throw us off the fact that they're Belgian! Thank Xenu we have Hognoxious here to set the record straight.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    12. Re:Ob by Kentari · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    13. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry dude. Don't think anyone gets it.

    14. Re:Ob by balbeir · · Score: 1

      Clearly it's BP's fault. Those evil Belgians!

      Belgian Petroleum ! Also known as Chimay.

    15. Re:Ob by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Because they keep waffling on how they're going to plug the leak, of course.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    16. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The B means the same as the J in Michael J. Fox. No doubt you won't get that either.

      Clearly you do not get Wikipedia where ever you are accessing Slashdot from:

      As he explained in his autobiography, Lucky Man: A Memoir, and in interviews, he needed to come up with a different name. He did not like the sound of "Andrew" or "Andy" Fox. He decided against using his middle initial because he didn't want to fit into a Canadian stereotype, as in Michael "Eh?" Fox, and because he did not want teen fan magazines referring to him as "Michael, A Fox!" He decided to adopt a new middle initial and settled on "J", in reference to actor Michael J. Pollard.[4] Sometimes he jokes that the J stands for "Jenius" or "Jenuine".

    17. Re:Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Recent_years

      British Petroleum merged with Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana) in December 1998,[27] becoming BP Amoco plc. In 2001 the company formally renamed itself as BP plc and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today. It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline

      Are you afraid that google is spying on you?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Ob by Kentari · · Score: 1

      No, I even read that page. It seems to me from your highlighted text that BP still stands for British Petrol. Its HQ is located in London, it lists on the LSE (as well as on the NYSE) so it is still clearly very British. I cannot see any connection with Belgium though.

  8. No problem. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    If they can hang on 'til the end of 2012, the problem will go away.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:No problem. by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      That depends on how you see it.

      How far from the predicted epicenter lived the guys who believed in the 2012 thing?

      Maybe some guys came from the north and, when asked about the reasons for their trip they just said "We predicted a 37% chance of the the earth opening and eating our village in about 1000 years, so we decided to move".

    2. Re:No problem. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      How far from the predicted epicenter lived the guys who believed in the 2012 thing?
      That's a trick question. Most of the people who believed in that 2012 thing are still living. I have seen no proof that the Mayans actually believed the world would end in 2012.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  9. East, west who cares by sveinb · · Score: 1

    California may be west of many things, but last time I checked it was on the east side of the Pacific.

    1. Re:East, west who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To every good US American, the USA are the centre of the world. Thus California is in the north west.

  10. Preparation by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    There is a lot of preparation that could help. Have dry food. Have water for a few days. Be prepared to move out of the area for a few days until water and electricity are available again.

    Unfortunately, those who predict an earthquake don't give much guidance for preparation. It would be useful to know, for example, what an earthquake is likely to do to a wooden house held together by nails.

    The subduction zone is off the coast. How would an earthquake there affect Portland, Oregon, which is 80 miles inland?

    What bridges would be destroyed in Portland? What buildings?

    We need more information. It is useful to prepare.

    1. Re:Preparation by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      The subduction zone is off the coast. How would an earthquake there affect Portland, Oregon, which is 80 miles inland?

      Create a lot of new beachfront property?

      --
      John
    2. Re:Preparation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, those who predict an earthquake don't give much guidance for preparation. It would be useful to know, for example, what an earthquake is likely to do to a wooden house held together by nails.

      If you live in the Pacific Northwest, and you don't know what an earthquake does to a wooden house held together by nails and metal straps (let's be accurate here, those metal tie plates are mandated by code in earthquake country) then you deserve to die in an earthquake. With that said, the house I live in is floppy and sloppy. Seriously considering a shipping container home.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Preparation by wkk2 · · Score: 1

      The best preparation: A government that isn't in debt so we can better weather the resulting economic down turn and people who help each other instead of standing around waiting.

    4. Re:Preparation by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you live in the Pacific Northwest, there's a good chance that your house *is* built to at least some earthquake code. My house was built in 1960, has metal tie plates, and is bolted to the foundation, and not as a retrofit.

      This isn't exactly new knowledge that earthquakes happen close to active volcanos, you know.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Preparation by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Have dry food. Have water for a few days.

      You left out the ammo and can opener ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Preparation by russotto · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, those who predict an earthquake don't give much guidance for preparation. It would be useful to know, for example, what an earthquake is likely to do to a wooden house held together by nails.

      Less than you'd think, compared to a building which isn't specifically designed to survive earthquakes and is made out of brick, stone, or concrete, anyway. Most wooden buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake. Unfortunately they burned down shortly thereafter. Earthquake-proof gas lines would be a good thing.

    7. Re:Preparation by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1
      Writing from the Cascadia Subduction Zone here...

      >Unfortunately, those who predict an earthquake don't give much guidance for preparation. It would be useful to know, for example, what an earthquake is likely to do to a wooden house held together by nails.

      Actually, you have to actively hide from that sort of information if you don't want it. There is a tremendous amount of information and assistance on structural and non-structural pre-quake mitigation. Google is your friend.

      Incidently, it is probably more important to consider what sort of soil/landform your house is built on. If you're on some sort of alluvium, you're probably screwed.

      >The subduction zone is off the coast. How would an earthquake there affect Portland, Oregon, which is 80 miles inland? What bridges would be destroyed in Portland? What buildings?

      Portland is actually about 55 miles inland from Cape Meares. All of your questions can be answered . If you live in earthquake country, you have to be actively hiding under a rock to avoid this information. That's not to say people don't, of course.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    8. Re:Preparation by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1
      Sorry, accidentally hit Submit rather than Continue Editing. Link is here.

      Safety tip #1: if you ever move here, don't hang anything over the head of your bed.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    9. Re:Preparation by joggle · · Score: 1

      The problem is the way buildings are constructed there. Since the odds of an earthquake happening any given year is low they are not built to withstand strong earthquakes (as buildings in California and Chile are). However, it appears that while the Pacific Northwest doesn't get struck by earthquakes often, when it does it will be a very strong earthquake. It's very possible that virtually all buildings will collapse in such an earthquake since they were only built to withstand much weaker earthquakes.

      While it would be expensive, it is possible to add reinforcements to existing structures to be able to better withstand a strong earthquake. They can also change the building codes so that new buildings are required to withstand stronger earthquakes.

    10. Re:Preparation by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      Please see "At risk: earthquakes and tsunamis on the West Coast". You can also see the USGS site on earthquake preparation, including seeing shakemaps for your region given hypothetical megaquakes.

      No, your buildings and bridges in Portland would not be destroyed, unless they're in violation of the earthquake code that went active in the 80s (with retrofits required by the 00s).

      Yes, you should be prepared to survive on your own for 72 hrs, particularly with respect to food, water, and medications.

    11. Re:Preparation by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      One of the awesome things about earthquakes is that although we aren't so good at predicting exactly when they'll happen, we are very, very good at predicting where (where stress has built up, usually at the ends of the most recent rupture zone) and what type of shaking will occur.

      Earthquake codes are designed to match the intensity and style of shaking not just for earthquakes with local epicenters, but what sorts of shaking they'll experience from elsewhere. The United States and Canadian codes were both revised repeatedly long after the threat of PNW mega-quakes were established. The building codes are very, very good (Japan's are also amazing), and quite well-enforced. Sure, we might have a few undetected defectors, like the high rise in Chile, but pretty much every public building in the entirety of BC that needed to be retrofit has been already.

      The parent article is not new news. Not even slightly new news. Not even remotely new news. This news is so old, my parents met, got married, had a few kids, then I was born, grew up, went to a bunch of schools, and became a certified disaster expert since it first became well-known to the disaster-community (& it became well-known to the non-expert residents still before I was born). The only reason it's making the popmedia rounds now is because Haiti and Chile raised awareness of the potential devastation of earthquakes.

    12. Re:Preparation by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I was starting to worry that I was biased about how common basic earthquake safety knowledge is locally!

    13. Re:Preparation by joggle · · Score: 1

      I wish I could recall where I first heard about this story--I believe it was on NPR a few months ago--it included a lot of details not found in the article linked to on slashdot.

      The 'news' is that the formulas they use to determine the strength needed for buildings isn't adequate for the Pacific Northwest region. Since the frequency of earthquakes there is relatively low they use lower requirements for building strength. However, the problem is that while the frequency is low when the earthquake finally comes it's going to be so strong that it will topple almost every building within a hundred miles of the epicenter.

    14. Re:Preparation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My house was built in 1905, so it'll probably end up in Wenatchee once the tidal wave recedes...

    15. Re:Preparation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shit, we've got volcanoes too! Why don't they have a warning sign at the airport?

    16. Re:Preparation by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      Since the frequency of earthquakes there is relatively low they use lower requirements for building strength.

      I am absolutely certain you are mis-remembering, or the popsci distorted the engineering in their efforts to make it interesting for public consumption. I attend a lot of disaster conferences. I sat in on a policy session at the rock mechanics conference in Vancouver in the fall of 2007? 2008? where at least 100 global experts gathered specifically to discuss earthquake building codes in subduction zones (including the PNW and Japan). Low-frequency, low-intensity earthquake zones have lax codes, yes, but low-frequency high-intensity zones currently have very, very strong codes that at this point are only revised upwards to be more strong. (The iconic image of the Japanese low-rises toppling over prompted a set of revisions for building on sediment.)

      ...topple almost every building within a hundred miles of the epicenter.

      Again, not a chance that's an accurate geotechnical assessment of any urban center in Canada or the United States. In part this is because our assessments have more to do with the hypocenter (the actual location of rupture) than the epicenter (the surface projection of the hypocenter). In California, the two are often close-enough to being the same, but in subduction zones the depth of the hypocenter has a huge impact on the type of shaking that will be felt. As I've explained in other comments in this thread, the PNW can get shallower magnitude 7 earthquakes that will cause a devastating amount of surface shaking in a very small area, or deeper magnitude 9 earthquakes that will cause less severe surface shaking over a very wide area. It is geologically not possible to have severe surface shaking over a large region*.

      * This is true globally, unless you have local superficial geology that intensifies shaking. Mexico City is located in a sediment-filled basin that amplifies ANY surface waves that go anywhere nearby.

    17. Re:Preparation by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      However, it appears that while the Pacific Northwest doesn't get struck by earthquakes often,

      Actually we get small to medium quakes quite often. There was a big one in Seattle in 1949, and there was a mid sized one in 2001. See this for some discussion. There was a 4.something discussed on the news a couple of nights ago. Little window rattlers aren't rare at all.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    18. Re:Preparation by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1
      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    19. Re:Preparation by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      IIRC, you *can* see Mt. St. Helens, America's most famous volcano, from the airport.
      Hard to think of a bigger sign to put up than that.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    20. Re:Preparation by raodin · · Score: 1

      The subduction zone isn't exactly the narrow strip of ocean where the plates meet, you know. Where do think that volcano in your backyard came from, exactly?

    21. Re:Preparation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The subduction zone is off the coast. How would an earthquake there affect Portland, Oregon, which is 80 miles inland?

      See http://nwdata.geol.pdx.edu/DOGAMI/IMS-16/

    22. Re:Preparation by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You can see Mount Hood, and Mount St. Helens both from the north runway at PDX as well as the parking structure.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  11. Same old thing... by kaychoro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've lived south of Seattle for 30 years, and predictions like these have been coming for years and years. I've personally felt 2 earthquakes, and seen dust from Mt. Saint Helens. While this doesn't minimize the likelihood of another big earthquake, I just question the reason this is news - especially on /.

    --
    //TODO: create a signature
    1. Re:Same old thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I just question the reason this is news - especially on /."

      It's a recent scientific finding.
      Your personal experience with earthquakes has little to do with it.

    2. Re:Same old thing... by tgd · · Score: 1

      I suspect it amounts to the fact that nothing gets the slashbot's panties wet like the possibility of something wiping out Microsoft.

    3. Re:Same old thing... by spleentor · · Score: 1

      Exactly, this isn't news. I've lived in Seattle my entire life and this is nothing I haven't heard before.

    4. Re:Same old thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a recent finding. It's a rehash of the same doom and gloom predictions that people in California have been hearing for decades. It's the same crap in a different sandwich.
      The end is near, now get scared so we can successfully scam even more taxpayers money. It's a tired pattern that works very well and is used on everything from earthquakes to oil to global warming.

    5. Re:Same old thing... by statusbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've met people 20 years ago who moved away from Vancouver in 1980 because they were scared of the big earthquake that will come ANY DAY NOW!

      There is probably more chance to get hit by a drunk driver when you are walking down the road where they moved to.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    6. Re:Same old thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect it amounts to the fact that nothing gets the slashbot's panties wet like the possibility of something wiping out Microsoft.

      Hell, I live about 10 minutes from their campus, and I too felt a thrill at the thought!

    7. Re:Same old thing... by Rolaulten · · Score: 1

      Aye - I don't feel like digging up the studies (probably hosted in some dark recess of the University of Washingtonian website), but its been shown that Seattle gets a big earthquake about every 300 years...and guess what, its been over 300 years since we had the last one. This is not news - even by the craptastic standers of the local news 'reporters' - so why is this on slashdot?

    8. Re:Same old thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the logical fallacy so many people do. Serious earthquakes happen very seldom, but when they do they happen to everybody in that area. Of course, not everybody who experiences it will die, but the chance of dying in any kind of traffic accident is about 1% over 50 years in the US. Compare that to the estimate of 37% for a serious earthquake.

    9. Re:Same old thing... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's not how probability works. Seismologists know that there's pressure building up under much of western Washington and they can see that it isn't being dissipated at the rate necessary to lessen the size of the eventual earthquake or even keep it at a static level. Which means that it will come at some point. And as time goes by the likelihood increases, because that's how earthquakes work. But once it does everybody in the region will be directly affected by it.

      So, while it is almost certainly more likely that a particular person will be killed by a drunk driver rather than killed by the earthquake, the likelihood of being caught up in it is significantly higher. And strictly speaking the earthquake is still coming any day now. We just don't have any good idea as to how to tell when it's going to happen. There's been some advances in that respect, but nobody can do so reliably based upon scientific inquiry.

    10. Re:Same old thing... by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course, I agree.

      My point though is that people were being irrational and lived in a different place for 30 years just because of the fear of a possible earthquake represented by some expert which never happened.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    11. Re:Same old thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 'the big one' is pretty much a sure thing, the longer it waits the bigger it will be (fyi, I live in vancouver). It's pressure building up, it's not like it may or may not occur and if it does it will be bad, it will occur eventually. There is a reason we spec buildings to 9+ standard here, we're hoping it will occur sooner and smaller and be manageable.

    12. Re:Same old thing... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Not to tangent, but is there a way of releasing the pressure? Firefighters routinely set controlled blazes to prevent kindling buildup and help stop uncontrolled burns. Might there be a way to encourage subduction at regular, controlled intervals, instead of having the pressure build up for generations?

    13. Re:Same old thing... by gt6062b · · Score: 1

      I've lived south of Seattle for 30 years, and predictions like these have been coming for years and years. I've personally felt 2 earthquakes, and seen dust from Mt. Saint Helens. While this doesn't minimize the likelihood of another big earthquake, I just question the reason this is news - especially on /.

      I lived in New Orleans for 15 years, and predicitions that a massive hurricane with flooding would cripple the city had been coming for years. I'd personally felt half a dozen hurricanes, had my house flooded, and been evacuated on no less than 4 occasions.

      While this doesn't minimize the likelihood of another big hurricane, I just question the reason why this is news or that anyone would be prepared for it.

      And that's why no one was ready in New Orelans either. We had family that was very prepared and family that was horribly unprepared. Fortunately for us, the family that was unprepared didn't see hardly any damage.

    14. Re:Same old thing... by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

      This stuff only comes out when some bored researcher at the UW/WSU/OS/UC** or whatnot decides to publish another paper with some odd bit of boring earthquake trivia that excites two geologists, and an end of the world nerd in his grandparent's basement. Or more bluntly, it's slow news day stuff. If I had a dollar for everytime I heard "the big one is coming" here in Olympia, I probably could retire.

    15. Re:Same old thing... by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      We just don't have any good idea as to how to tell when it's going to happen.

      What if we did, or if we could "trigger" the earthquake to happen (even if it would still be an ~8+)? I wonder what the "total cost" would be to prepare everyone, evacuate, etc. as compared to it "randomly happening"?

      I mean according to your post, it IS going to happen and the longer it waits to do so, the larger it will be. Could it even be possible to "beat the earthquake to the punch" by say setting off explosives (even nuclear if necessary) in strategic areas so as to force it to happen?

      So again, even if we could do it, would it be worth it? Could we get all of the nearby residents to buy into the concept? The end result will be catastrophic either way, but even if you completely ignore the "cost of life" factor (I for one don't want to have to come up with a dollar figure), would the cost to coordinate the effort be justified?

      Anyway, sorry for the (potentially) off-topic post but the thought popped into my head and just wanted to see what others thought about both whether it would be possible and also if it would be worth it.

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    16. Re:Same old thing... by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

      I've met people 20 years ago who moved away from Vancouver in 1980 because they were scared of the big earthquake that will come ANY DAY NOW!

      And I assume you'll be first in line to congratulate their wisdom when it does come? Assuming you survive, of course? Remember, this isn't like getting hit by a drunk driver where there is a % chance it *might* happen. The earthquake is going to happen, 100%. The only variable is when.

    17. Re:Same old thing... by SEAL · · Score: 1

      Actually it does get dissipated periodically. We just haven't had enough damage for it to be a major news event yet. For example, there was the moderate sized Nisqually earthquake in 2001.

      Sure another earthquake is likely on the way but who's to say how large it will be?

    18. Re:Same old thing... by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, the earthquake is going to happen, you can be 100% sure of that.

      Now what is the chance that it will happen in the next 30 years? That is most definitely not 100%! So is that chance greater than death by accident?

      Perhaps they would be better off quitting smoking if they were so scared of dying.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    19. Re:Same old thing... by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      300-500 years, with the last big one in near Christmas in 1700.

    20. Re:Same old thing... by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I don't think the residents will ever go for such a thing. There's no way to convince people it's better to destroy stuff now rather than later, if you can even convince them it'll happen later anyway and will probably be worse (and the science is shaky enough at this point that it's tough for geologists even to agree on it).

      And anyway, despite Walken's brilliant plan in A View to a Kill, the amount of energy involved in earthquakes is almost unimaginably huge - attempting to set one off in a controlled fashion would be incredibly difficult and expensive, and you wouldn't be sure if doing so made it worse than it might have been. For example, you may be able to determine where specifically the pressure is built up on the fault (and subduction zones are massive reverse faults) and set off a bomb there, but you can't tell if that pressure was naturally going to be released slowly over a series of small earthquakes or all at once.

      It may seem reasonable to us, but politicians and the public will never understand and only see such a plan as designed to destroy a bunch of stuff that may or may not be destroyed in the future.

    21. Re:Same old thing... by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      I've met people 20 years ago who moved away from Vancouver in 1980 because they were scared of the big earthquake that will come ANY DAY NOW!

      There is probably more chance to get hit by a drunk driver when you are walking down the road where they moved to.

      --jeffk++

      The alternative is identical. They have drunk drivers in Vancouver, too. AND EARTHQUAKES. Trade things equally if you are attempting logic.

    22. Re:Same old thing... by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Hey, on second thought this is a great idea!

      I'll promote to everyone in Vancouver that the BIG earthquake is coming real soon now (i promise! see the scientist said this! oh don't read what they said 30 years ago!) and they should sell their house to me for a lot less than the current average fixer-upper house price of $650,000.00 ! Or I could take it off their hands without charging them at all!

      BTW the last earthquake in Seattle affected the interior of BC. A VERY BIG EARTHQUAKE like the one being discussed would cause damage all through the Interior and Okanagan as well.

      Maybe I should move even further away, like Whitehorse or New Orleans... Then I'd be very safe from earthquakes!

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    23. Re:Same old thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live long enough and there's 100% chance of being hit by a drunk driver. The only variable is when.

    24. Re:Same old thing... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      My point though is that people were being irrational and lived in a different place for 30 years just because of the fear of a possible earthquake represented by some expert which never happened.

      Irrational? If you're in your mid 20's and you're choosing a permanent home, you're looking at about a half century given typical life expectancy. The best science puts the odds of a major quake at higher than 1-in-3 in that time frame. Given a choice of two places to live that are otherwise comparable, it is perfectly rational to choose the place without the earthquake risk.

      I wish more people exhibited that sort of rationality. I think it would be a good thing if we had fewer people living at the base of active volcanoes or living below sea level in hurricane zones. I find it particularly hard to feel sympathy for people who build glorious homes overlooking the ocean, and then start throwing a shitfit 5, 10, or 20 years later as the eroding cliffside inches up to their back door. If people with too much money want to build disposable homes on eroding land I won't try to stop them. However the only interest I have in helping them would be to set up a time lapse camera and post the video on Youtube while the cliffside keeps eating away and pulls down the house.

      There are various risks no matter where you live, but it is completely rational to consider those factors and it is completely rational to make an effort minimize those risks. If there's a diamond mine at the base of a volcano then it may indeed be completely rational to build a home there to work in that mine. But if you have kids and they start moving out and buying their own homes, they should seriously consider a neighborhood with a less picturesque view of the crater.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:Same old thing... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      There is no direct connection between the Nisqually quake and the subduction zone off the coast. Quakes like the Nisqually may be due to stresses caused by subduction but they don't do much if anything to relieve the build up of the subduction zone itself.

    26. Re:Same old thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      didn't see hardly any damage; did not see a little bit of damage; did see a lot of damage. I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but am pretty certain you're saying it wrong.

    27. Re:Same old thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - but would you buy a house it'll take you 30 years to pay off?

    28. Re:Same old thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends...are they still in Canada?

  12. Re:height conversion by FTWinston · · Score: 1

    Its 5m, not 15. But you're right. 5m is not 15 feet - it is precisely 16.4041995 feet.

  13. damned lies by jsepeta · · 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.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    1. Re:damned lies by jandersen · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      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.

      You are right, of course. So, why don't you jump out of tall building? Just because things have fallen downwards in the past doesn't mean that you can't stay up if you try.

    2. Re:damned lies by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      The first red light should be the mention of extrapolation. No statistician I have met was ever willing to extrapolate beyond the set. There are no sound methods to do extrapolation analysis. This guy is making assumptions and is playing up the danger by not outlining them. I would ignore the quack as there is no way to stop the earth quake and the worry would be senseless. There should be a plan of action for that type of disaster though, but that would be irregardless of how likely the quake is.

    3. Re:damned lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No statistician I have met was ever willing to extrapolate beyond the set.

      How many have you met?

      I ask because it is done every day. Virtually the entire work of theoretical econometrics is extrapolation, and complicated by the absence of the usual experimental controls. Climate scientists do it as well. Obviously the results are subject to a lot of debate. Some bookies have statisticians on staff. Insurance companies want all sorts of extrapolation from their actuaries. Players in futures markets aren't doing seat of the pants guessing. U Iowa has been studying prediction markets of many kinds on a large scale for a very long time, and have well developed statistical models. Large companies and governments alike pay people to forecast everything from crime rates to how many drilling permits to hand out.

    4. Re:damned lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah why be prepared like Chile was for a big quake when you can be unprepared like Haiti was for a much smaller quake... Are you sure you don't want those building codes upgraded, and emergency plans thought through?

    5. Re:damned lies by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But it's not pure extrapolation. Earthquakes in subduction zones are the result of pressure buildup. They are not spaced randomly, as the time between them is determined by the tectonic action that causes the pressure to be generated or released. Thus, the time difference between earthquakes is relevant.

      --
      I hate printers.
    6. Re:damned lies by Skreems · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just based on statistics, sure. However, tectonics provide some less fluffy predictions, and they also agree. I mean hell, you can go take a walk near Puget Sound and see where one side of the fault is sticking up a good 6 feet higher than the other. If that energy all releases at once (and there's nothing saying it will, but it might) we're absolutely going to have some problems up here.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    7. Re:damned lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It follows that the conventional wisdom that you can't predict earthquakes is wrong or at least technology-dependent.

      Good enough technology should be able to predict approximately when an earthquake will happen and approximately how big it will be. Maybe Californians will have time to plan ahead for the next big quake.

    8. Re:damned lies by pclminion · · Score: 1

      In this case it does. Are the plates going to just stop subducting? There will be a massive quake, with 100% certainty. I live here, and I'm not frightened by it -- what the fuck is the point of being frightened -- but it does influence certain decisions I make, such as buying earthquake insurance, making sure my house will probably survive a quake, keeping some emergency supplies on hand, having a family emergency plan, etc.

    9. Re:damned lies by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If it happened once in the past it doesn't mean that it will happen again, but the more it's happened, the higher the liklihood it will happen again, especially if the event happens in regular cycles.

      Just because the sun came up today doesn't mean it will come up again tomorrow, but since it's come up every day since you were born, you would be foolish to think it won't come up tomorrow.

      History (and prehistory) does, in fact, repeat itself.

    10. Re:damned lies by Demonantis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a chemical engineer and all the stats profs I have met said don't extrapolate as you don't know if the model is consistent. My guess is they expand their sets by factoring in assumptions. Like the model will remain second order and such forever. You also mention a bunch of fields where there is statistical analysis, but it is understood to be easily incorrect. I don't get angry when the weather man is wrong so I am just saying that this guy could easily be wrong and should be treated just like the weatherman is.

    11. Re:damned lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earthquakes in subduction zones are the result of pressure buildup.

      [cite needed]

      They are not spaced randomly, as the time between them is determined by the tectonic action that causes the pressure to be generated or released.

      Please provide the raw source data from which you derive this conclusion, along with all relevant calculations which justify this statement.

      Asshole. You got modded up for essentially saying nothing at all, yet saying it with "authoritah".

  14. I wonder... by ringmaster1982 · · Score: 1

    ... if San Andreas was a dead giveaway. In other news, scientists warn that a tornado catastrophe could hit Kansas in the next 10 years...

  15. So your're watchin SyFy Now too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to go, grrrl!

  16. Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm curious what the impact of earthquakes in/around the NW would have on the Yellowstone Caldera.
    Granted, it sounds like the earthquakes in the NW are orders of magnitude more frequent (and less catastrophic) than the eruption of the Yellowstone formation, but it seems likely that one might impact the other, being that they're only what, about 700mi apart?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by corbettw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Somehow I doubt it. Vulcanism is a completely different natural process than plate tectonics. If anything, a massive earthquake like this, even if its energy did reach that far away, would, at most, shift the location of the hotspot where the future eruption is likely to take place. Which means that a section of thin earth (the hotspot) would be pushed away and replaced with a section of thicker earth that hadn't been warmed to the same degree yet. This should minimize the chance for a new eruption, not increase it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It would have basically none. At least one of the massive earthquakes to hit the failed Mississippi rift valley back in the 19th century was powerful enough to ring the bells in Boston, but that was about it. The energy tends to dissipate quickly over distances.

    4. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by corbettw · · Score: 2, Informative

      I actually prefer the variant "vulcanism" because it shows the roots of the word going back to the god Vulcan. "Volcanism" just doesn't seem as poetic to me.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, right? Doesn't that just drive you nuts?

      The word "volcanism" came about in 1864 (according to Merriam-Webster), then just the other day, in 1877, some young upstart misspelled it "vulcanism" and the new name stuck.

      I mean, the word "volcanism" existed a whole 13 years before someone added the modern variant a mere 133 years ago.

      I blame the whigs.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by SpaceMika · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Yellowstone Caldera is not related to the subduction melt. Mount Saint Helens, Mount Rainier, and the rest of that volcanic chain are related, but plates shifting about in an earthquake doesn't increase or decrease rates of melting.

      A bit off topic, but a fun bit of trivia: oceanic plates produce non-violent volcanoes (like Hawaii), continental plates produce highly violent volcanoes (like Yellowstone, although most are very very very small), and ocean melt passing through continental plate produce intermediate volcanoes (like Mount Saint Helens) which are technically less violent than purely andesitic volcanoes, but have larger volumes of magma so are the most destructive. (For the chemistry nerds, it has to do with percent-silica & trapped gas).

    7. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Although I don't know the full history I wouldn't be amiss speculating that it was deliberately renamed to vulcanism to associate it to Vulcan the Greek god of fire. As it was traditional in the 17-19th centuries scientific pursuits were named using ancient Greek names/alphabet and gods. Plutoism was the theory that spawned vulcanism and I doubt the scientists of Newtons time could avoid naming the study of Volcano's after the god Vulcan simply because that's what you did. Almost no one in the profession refers to it as anything other than Vulcanism.

    8. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Vulcan was the Roman god of Fire before he was a race in Star Trek. Vulcanization is turning polymers into more durable materials. And some people spell things differently because their English is different. Vulcanism is legitimate.

      Y'know, I hate it when people complain about the ignorant while also ignoring facts.

    9. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      I actually prefer the variant "vulcanism" because it shows the roots of the word going back to the god Vulcan. "Volcanism" just doesn't seem as poetic to me.

      No, I think you're just being Norcissistic.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    10. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zip to none. Possibly a very minor re-plumbing of a groundwater system, of the sort that happens all the time with or without external perturbation, or a small shallow earthquake on account of the minor changes in groundwater pressure. There are few mechanisms to transmit significant forces over that distance. The two systems simply don't interact in any relevant sense.

      For a primer, read: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/32/6/537.full

      To look at it another way: I heard that there is lot of oil flowing in to the Gulf of Mexico. I live on the West Coast of Mexico in Salina Cruz, only a couple hundred miles from the Gulf, and wonder what effect that oil will have on the Pacific Ocean where I am at? The Pacific Ocean is very large, so I'm quite concerned.

    11. Re:Well, as long as we're talking catastrophe by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Considering that a large Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake has occurred at least 7 times in the last 3500 years without triggering the Yellowstone Caldera I don't think it's a problem.

  17. Old news by psyque · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've lived in British Columbia for 28 years and this is old news. They've been measuring the distance and stress on the plates between Vancouver and Vancouver Island for decades. Most of us are well aware that at any time we could get hit with an earthquake of biblical proportions.

    1. Re:Old news by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Most of us are well aware that at any time we could get hit with an earthquake of biblical proportions.

      I realize that the bible is a thick book, but just how fat has that thing gotten?

    2. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "biblical"? Are we talking real "Wrath of God" type stuff? Dogs and cats, living together?

    3. Re:Old news by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Mayor: What do you mean biblical?

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    4. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.

  18. Pacific NorthWest? by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 4, Informative
    i guess only Americans would understand that...

    For the rest of the world they are referring to the North Eastern Pacific.

    --
    $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    1. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Alaska?

    2. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It's a bit surprising, I know - but an article in a US publication, by a US scientist, from a US university might just very well be geocentric. Particularly on account of the fact that the globe is round, and any such non-exacting reference is going to be largely cultural.

      But no, that's fine: keep up the good work! Your cultural indignation and hatred for the US is evidently getting you far in life.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Within the United States, we often refer to Oregon and Washington as the Pacific NorthWest because, they are the North-Western most states on the Pacific ocean coast. They get grouped together because they have a similar climate and geology. Pretty straight forward if you're looking at a map of the North American continent. Does that explain it?

    4. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that, here in the U.S., we refer to those states as being in the west, and we occasionally refer to Asia (China, Japan, Korea, etc) as the "Far East". The origin is probably either the perspective of the early American settlers or the European perspective. Does that make it better or worse?

    5. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      What about the Canadians, eh?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    6. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Well, in this context "west" means "western part of the continent" and "east" means "eastern part of a (different) continent". It has nothing to do with where you happen to be standing.

    7. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For the rest of the world they are referring to the North Eastern Pacific.

      Almost. "Pacific Northwest" refers to the northwestern states of the USA. The ocean off the coast of "The Pacific Northwest" is the Eastern Pacific. Slashdot is based in the USA, so by default, references are American (don't care if you call us that, either; that's what we call ourselves. if you don't like it, please never call yourself European or whatever.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the Northwest corner of the US. But the Northwest corner includes eastern washington, eastern oregon, and idaho, all of which have a very different (desert) climate than western washington and western oregon (lots of rain). So in order to distinguish the two the word 'Pacific' is tacked onto the front when referring to the parts of the Northwest nearest to the pacific ocean.

      In other words, 'Northwest' is not modifying Pacific (that would be NorthWest Pacific). Rather 'Pacific' is modifying Northwest.

    9. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Right, and the "Far East" means waaaaaayyy over there. But, I was replying to myself replying to a guy who was complaining that we refer to Oregon and Washington as being in the north west when, he claims, they're in the east. So, clearly, they are standing in Asia somewhere, or perhaps Hawaii. In any event, it all depends on the context. If you want to be really specific you'll state the context. Which, this being /., is North America.

    10. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      i guess only Americans would understand that...

      For the rest of the world they are referring to the North Eastern Pacific.

      I'm Canadian you insensitive clod! It's the Pacific Southwest.

    11. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by minchazo · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? You're like the guy who put Tiki masks in the Pacific exhibit at the museum instead of redwood trees and salmon fishing!

    12. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Or if you're Canadian it's really the Pacific South-West... North West would be Prince Rupert or some such. /pedant

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    13. Re:Pacific NorthWest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i guess only Americans would understand that...

      For the rest of the world they are referring to the North Eastern Pacific.

      British Columbians also understand it, as it's to the south (and for Victoria, east).

  19. Really!?!? by Jetrel · · Score: 1

    Really this is news worthy?? Doesn't the world realize that we live on top of a molten core that is a river of rock and that the surface that we live on could be equated to the shell of an egg. Easily cracked and fragile with lots of pressure from below? Why don't we just report pending massive earthquakes and volcanoes "ON THE EARTH" and be done with it?

    --
    If it isn't broke, tinker with it till it is!
    1. Re:Really!?!? by Dunega · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Because then kdawson wouldn't have another crappy story to post.

  20. Oregon? by identity0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ducks and Beavers living together, UTTER CONFUSION!!!!

    1. Re:Oregon? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Ducks and Beavers living together, UTTER CONFUSION!!!!

      Don't you mean "otter" confusion?

      Cuz otherwise, wow. Totally got it man.

  21. It the blackhawks after they beat nashville it got by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    It the blackhawks after they beat Nashville it got flooded Vancouver is ok for now. But now is SJ next???

  22. Will California become it's own nation after it br by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will California become it's own nation after it breaks off from the usa? It if becomes a island?

  23. 37% by mapkinase · · Score: 3, Funny

    37%? 37% even? Are you sure it's not 37.367%?

    Honestly, guys.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:37% by st_adamin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. I won't believe any made up statistic unless it is 9 digits of precision.

    2. Re:37% by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I know you're kidding, but that reflects the precision of their estimate. They didn't get a figure which was precise enough to go into decimal places. I'm a bit surprised that they were even able to get to percents.

    3. Re:37% by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Depends if they ran projections on Pentium I processors. Then it will be 37.367000000023%

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:37% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really have no idea what you're talking about, or did your post just make it seem that way?

    5. Re:37% by jewelises · · Score: 1

      37%? 37% even? Are you sure it's not 37.367%?

      Yes, we're sure. 37.367% is way too high.

    6. Re:37% by spartacus_prime · · Score: 1

      37%? 37% even?

      In a row?

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
  24. Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be so easy to get a job after the quake.

  25. Is it possible to induce a minor tremor? by klashn · · Score: 1
    Is it possible to induce a tremor on the 4-5 magnitude scale that would weaken the effect or lower the probability of having a massive 9-magnitude quake?

    (similar to the way we use vaccines to create anti-bodies of stronger strains of virii and bacteria?

    Oh, seems that maybe its not such a financially sound idea as pointed out here http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002552.html . But can you put a price on human life?

    1. Re:Is it possible to induce a minor tremor? by st_adamin · · Score: 1

      I think it is possible using the widely believed resonance (or "Doomsday") Device that Tesla may have built, if he really did. But off the top of my head... If a year is 31 million seconds, and an earthquake lasts maybe 3 minutes, and you need to do 1,000,000 mag 4's to relieve the stress that an 8 would... Is that 6 years of a constant earthquake? To avoid a mag 8 event every 40-60 years? It seems more temporally unsound than financially unsound.

  26. Re:And yet another reason... by MrHanky · · Score: 1

    ... why I'm sad Washington DC isn't in Washington. :-(

  27. Goldfinger by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I thought Goldfinger was the one where Bond has to stop the Fort Knox being blown up with a nuclear device.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Goldfinger by boristdog · · Score: 1

      I thought Goldfinger was the one where Bond has to stop the Fort Knox being blown up with a nuclear device.

      All I know is that Plenty O'Toole will get you Pussy Galore.

      And then you can have all the earthquakes you want.

  28. Don't mock the Thunderbird by smchris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, there was a pretty interesting BBC Horizon show on this a while back. Possibly the origin of the Thunderbird legend in Native American mythology and they traced a likely quake to a Tsunami that caused flooding in Japan according to an existing written record that is well dated. Aside from coastal flooding the question was whether the modern buildings would bend or break. Show left it with, "it'll be an interesting test."

  29. This is meant to be a discussion. Contribute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... you deserve to die in an earthquake."

    If you have some answers, why not supply them for everyone to read, rather than talking violence?

  30. Nothing new at all... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

    First time I visited my friend (he is an earthquake expert) at UBC ten years ago, he told me that they are waiting for their own "Big One" to happen, one day or another.
    Since the danger for the area is known, I hope that Vancouver area buildings conform to an appropriate construction code...it is a pity that such a lovely city is living with such a danger hanging over its future.

  31. So short-sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New Zealand, and its capital, Wellington, in particular, have been known to be under existential threat from earthquakes, tsunamis and what have you for donkey's years. The Kiwis have made enormous strides in reinforced concreting and earthquake-proofing, and now large numbers of large buildings are expected to "survive" any very large earthquakes. What's more, the major Wellington fault line is known to run adjacent and parallel to the largest access road to the city, and steps are being made to improve the state of the "alternate" road slated for use when/if the other one goes underwater. There's plenty you can do on a smaller scale too - ensure water filtration equipment is available in useful places, hard copy guides to survival techniques. Sure, things will be fucked up badly IF the legendary "BIG ONE" hits, but your apathetic attitude would NOT be appreciated by your neighbours if you happened to live "down under".

  32. Microsoft-swallowing earthquake by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Really? There could be a huge earthquake capable of swallowing up the Microsoft headquarters into the ground?

    Oh please please please please please let there be an earthquake!

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Microsoft-swallowing earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work here you insensitive clod.

    2. Re:Microsoft-swallowing earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then good riddance to you.

  33. Central tendancy by TheStatsMan · · Score: 1

    It's unknown if large geological events like this occur according to any central tendency. It may be that the mean time between large earthquakes is not related to the mean. Ultimately we have no idea, the data is not good enough to say. Saying that an earthquake of magnitude X is likely in Y period of time is basically just a guess at this point.

    1. Re:Central tendancy by TheStatsMan · · Score: 1

      It may be that the [editted] time between large earthquakes is not related to the mean. Ultimately we have no idea, the data is not good enough to say.

    2. Re:Central tendancy by careysub · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's unknown if large geological events like this occur according to any central tendency. It may be that the mean time between large earthquakes is not related to the mean. Ultimately we have no idea, the data is not good enough to say...

      This is an absurd contention. Paleoseismic research provides precisely this information, and is a very well developed field. Further, we actually understand the basic mechanism that creates very large earthquakes and thus have a normative theory that explains and reinforces a purely statistical approach. Large earthquakes follow the same frequency law (the Guttenburg-Richter Law) as small and moderate earthquakes.

      It strikes me as sad (but I guess not surprising given the anti-scientific political culture on the right) to find this same contra-factual "we don't really know anything" claim for earthquake geology that is currently pushed by those hostile to climate research.

      For a useful backgrounder on earthquake statistics loook at: www.earthquake.ethz.ch/education/NDK/NDK

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Central tendancy by TheStatsMan · · Score: 1

      It's not contrafactual to assess the remarkably broad "37% chance in 50 years" prediction as unhelpful. It's basically no better than a soothe sayer. It was derived using relatively simple nonparametric statistics, and doesn't really help predict at all because we already know the pacific northwest is subject to seismic activity. There's also an off chance of another massive hurricane disaster, volcanic eruptions and massive flooding. Why do I know this? Because even being alive for as less than 30 years I have seen these more than one of these events happen. Yes the big one is coming. Tell me something I don't know.

    4. Re:Central tendancy by TheStatsMan · · Score: 1

      In fact, these people are just abusing statistics to create panic. One way to look at this data is "37% chance in 50 years" the other way to look at it is, what's the time frame for a 99% probability. That is actually vastly more useful information. The reason they didn't report on this is because the time frame is probably somewhere between 1 and 10,000 years.

    5. Re:Central tendancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, just maybe...if we are lucky, Al Gore will keep his mouth shut, all that hot air will bring global warming to a standstill, and if he doesn't move, his fat a$$ won't cause a tectonic shift. Can I have a Nobel Prize now???

  34. How to prepare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move elsewhere as soon as you can. I don't think most people realise just how dangerous it is to live in those areas over time.

  35. Re:Will California become it's own nation after it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California is going to break off to go hang with Hawaii.




    Alaska can come too.

  36. So... by EllisDees · · Score: 1

    Looks like I picked a bad time to move to Seattle.

    --
    -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  37. The Bible isn't fat... by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

    The Bible is just big boned

  38. Ready! by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    I've got Plissken's surfboard. Believe you me, I'm ready!

  39. An old story recycled for fear-mongering by rbanzai · · Score: 1

    When I lived in Vancouver, B.C. in the 1980s these "super-quake" stories about the northwest were common, and just as full of lurid and horrible details of destruction. 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? Should we abandon every part of the U.S. that has been under "super-quake" warning for the last 100 years? So there goes the entire west coast? What about the New Madrid fault? Ok, we'll clear out the midwest from top to bottom. Hmm, isn't there a big fault in the northeast that threatens Quebec and New York? Then everyone can move to the southeast. Where they'll all get killed by hurricanes.

    1. Re:An old story recycled for fear-mongering by careysub · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:An old story recycled for fear-mongering by radtea · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yeah, it's curious how many innumerate, anti-empirical wankers are on here proclaiming "nothing can be done". I think it's part and parcel of the right-wing bible-believing crackpottery so common in the US. I'm not quite sure what the causality is, although I think innumeracy is probably the biggest part of it: at some point beyond three people dead and a few buildings down they declare that "everyone" will die and "everything" will be destroyed. It's a very difficult mindset for a scientist, steeped in quantitative reasoning, to grasp.

      This story is not the least bit sensationalist, and it is something worth reminding people of. I grew up on the West Coast, and earthquake preparedness was something everyone was familiar with. But talking to people who didn't grow up there reminds me that they need to learn about it. Given the large influx of Easterners into Vancouver and environs in recent years getting people to pay attention to the reality they are quite likely to face is important.

      Now if only Vancouver were spending $6 billion on emergency preparedness rather than having pissed it away on that athletics festival a few months ago...

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:An old story recycled for fear-mongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      I disagree. Careful planning is needed to ensure that the maximum number of people are killed and maimed.

    4. Re:An old story recycled for fear-mongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The information is indeed useful. It definitely influences my decision when deciding where to move/live. Known major earthquake zones are out of the question for me. Frankly, anyone who knowingly moves to such an area deserves no sympathy if they suffer loss due to an earthquake. It's tiring to see people laugh potential disaster in the face and then cry when it befalls them.

    5. Re:An old story recycled for fear-mongering by DrCode · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm moving to Pompeii. Much nicer climate than drizzly Oregon.

  40. The land and woods will be fine. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The morons and hippies, on the other hand...

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  41. That's why I lay my hat in Texas! by weddings3097 · · Score: 1

    Thank God I don't live in Seattle!

    1. Re:That's why I lay my hat in Texas! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      As an Oregonian all I can say is: Thank God I don't live in Texas!

  42. We are actually aware of this up here... by Kickassthegreat · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a native to the Pacific Northwest, this is something you are constantly aware of. Every time there is a major earthquake or tsunami, the local news posts stories about how the "Big one" is due to hit in the next 50 years. Every time a volcanic eruption becomes major news, we get reports about how Mount Rainer is going to erupt and bury my hometown. I was born a year after our last major volcanic eruption, so you could say that this has been something I have been aware of my entire life.

    More interesting than when the big one is going to hit is how well we are setup to handle it when it does. I was in a building rated only for a 7.0 Ricter magnitude quake during our last major quake (which measured 6.8), and there were major fears that the building was going to collapse either during or just after the quake. Luckily for me, it weathered the quake with only minor damage.

    However, after the Chile quake last year, I heard a report from our local NPR affiliate comparing the infrastructure of the NW with the infrastructure of Chile (our buildings are built to roughly the same standards, and are around the same age), and mentioning that the state governments up here were taking interest in learning from the lessons of that quake to prepare better for our next big quake.

    1. Re:We are actually aware of this up here... by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      ...mentioning that the state governments up here were taking interest in learning from the lessons of that quake to prepare better for our next big quake.

      You would not believe how many quickie-conferences are popping up this summer addressing small little details in response to that earthquake.

  43. When do we...? by hackingbear · · Score: 1

    'It is not a question of if a major earthquake will strike,' says Goldfinger, 'it is a matter of when.'

    When do we have a question of if?

  44. Summoning Captain Obvious! by JustNilt · · Score: 1

    In other news, the sky is BLUE! OMG, it's BLUE!!!!!!!!

    Why the heck we have to have this sort of crap in the news after every tiny little tremor is beyond me. Yeah, the Pacific Northwest (where I live) is one of several areas in the world where major earthquakes happen every so often, geologically speaking. There's also a nice juicy volcano just waiting to blow its top. ZOMG, what next? Tornados? Oh wait ... that happens every so often also.

    Someone wake me when we have a real disaster.

    --
    You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
  45. ONE WORD: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Microsoft

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  46. Shake shake shake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the bright side, Seattle will still have the frothiest lattes . . .

  47. Real Old News, This... by the+old+rang · · Score: 1

    I hate to say it, but... This is truly old news. It is NOT a study, but a rehash. Watching the chain of volcanoes in the Pacific North-West has been something scientists have been aware of for many years. They have known that St. Helen's explosion, was just a step, and Hood and Ranier were the ones to watch. (When they go, the quake is soon, inevitable. The 'BIG' one.) Better still, that doesn't mean there will not be other 'BIG' ones. Giving credit to 'studying' reports of many years, is saying 'I have concluded' rather than, 'it is common knowledge in this field, that...' Me? I am not a 'Scientist' in this field... (or any other...) But, I have known this information for many years. Of course, that is because I have not ignored the problem, nor am I looking for a distraction. Things will happen. Yellowstone will blow... The shelf will fall off the Big Island of Hawaii, and a Tsunami will be created. A Meteor will hit the earth. Not news. Things we should be aware of, and should be brought up from time to time. But, not news. Of course, I have heard a rumor that hurricanes and tornadoes will happen... withing the next few years... but don't quote me.

    1. Re:Real Old News, This... by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      Wow! I didn't know the Hawaiian submarine landslides and resulting tsunamis were in the common knowledge. I've done a tiny, tiny bit of work modeling consequences of that one, and always figured it was a reliable "danger you've never heard of."

    2. Re:Real Old News, This... by the+old+rang · · Score: 1

      You don't follow the data like I have, I guess... The same is true for the problem in the Canary Islands... and the potential tsunami for New York... (as great, or not... eventually, almost everywhere is subject to problems. The next 'BIG' overdue quake... New York area is most overdue... ) But, you have to follow everything (a generalist). Again, I am not a 'scientist'... (Neither are most that claim to be) But, it is/has been in print... or covered. Just not necessarily as widespread as some might think. It has been of note to people that live in Hawaii...

  48. In the hole by phorm · · Score: 1

    With an earthquake, though, you may end up in the hole yourself. With tornados and hurricanes there is usually some forewarnings so you can batten down and then get outta there. Depending on the flooding it can be rather sudden, but it tends to be more destructive-to-property than fatal, unless you live in New Orleans.

    Of course, with an earthquake on a coastline you can get a triple whammy. Earthquake causes tidal-wave/hurricane which causes flooding...

    1. Re:In the hole by norminator · · Score: 1

      Earthquakes can cause hurricanes?

    2. Re:In the hole by phorm · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Tsunami. Effects may be similar though.

  49. Re:Will California become it's own nation after it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well the creationists/birthers/tea party people like to think that Hawaii is not part of the USA, just because Obama was born there :-)

  50. Just can't escape it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every 5 years, this is a major story in the Vancouver newspapers. Now I've moved away and I'm still going to see the same story every 5 years on Slashdot. Thanks intarwebs! NOT!

    In between, I can expect some more killer bees stories.

  51. Oh, riiiight by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    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.

    So all they have to do is PROVE the cop didn't pick them up based on the color of their skin? That should be no problem. And racial profiling is actually the least of the issues here. Go out for a run and leave your wallet behind? You might have just earned yourself a trip uptown.

    The fact of the matter is that the Arizona legislature just gave the police the authority and more importantly, the responsibility, to try to make a determination whether someone might be an illegal alien, even though there's no earthly way to detect someone's immigration status by looking at them. Unless, of course, you somehow happen to notice that the "suspect" is swarthy and has a Hispanic accent. Think you've been discriminated against? You get to prove it based on what's going on in the head of the guy arresting you. Good luck with that.

    In fact, my understanding is that a lot of Arizona police hate this law, because it puts them in a no-win situation. They're REQUIRED to make a determination of whether someone with whom they have some kind of interaction is a potential undocumented immigrant, PROHIBITED from using any racial characteristic, and not given any other plausible method of making such a determination. So their choices are: 1) blow off enforcement of the law (which some departments have already announced they plan to do) or 2) check people more or less at random. Either way, this law is a big fat mess.

  52. Graph Showing Increasing Earthquake Activity by knowthetruth · · Score: 0

    There is a graph showing the increase in earthquake activity based on the actual data since 1973. http://www.believenot.com/

  53. OT: It is a troll. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Being funny and being a troll aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, attempting to be funny is often the #1 motivation for trolling.

    I like the Wikipedia's definition of troll: someone who posts "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community." Bringing up "America is becoming socialist" rhetoric in a discussion thread about earthquakes and other natural disasters meets all of the above criteria -- even though it's clearly a joke. (Whether it's actually funny or not is a matter of taste and level of irritation with certain political talking points or with changing topics to politics in general.)

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:OT: It is a troll. by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      I would consider intent a factor in determining whether someone is a troll, which would (usually) make the funny and troll posts exclusive. I agree that, using your definition, he is a troll regardless of humor value.

  54. The Lower Mainland by MochaMan · · Score: 1

    is what we Canadians call it... eh :P

  55. Practical implications by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Building codes could be revised to reflect the reality of 3-4 minutes of shaking as opposed to the 20-40 second California earthquakes that are used as design cases today. After 50 years of that, the region would be much better prepared and much loss of life and disruption would be avoided.

  56. mountains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't their some kind of mountain that can be formed from this kind of tectonic activity?

    1. Re:mountains by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Cascade volcanoes are a result of the subduction zone.

  57. Modifier order, who cares? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    California may be west of many things, but last time I checked it was on the east side of the Pacific.

    You seem to be unaware of the difference between "the Pacific Northwest" and "the Northwest Pacific."

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  58. You mean only people who can read English, right? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    i guess only Americans would understand that...

    For the rest of the world they are referring to the North Eastern Pacific.

    Well, I guess if English isn't your first language, you might not realize that adjectives typically come before the words they modify instead of after, so you might not realize that "Northwest" refers to something other than the word preceding it.

    Really, I'd blame one's ESL teachers rather than Americocentrism. Also, I'd blame your native language teachers for not stressing the importance of learning the meaning of new words and phrases from context, such as all the references to relevant U.S. states on an American news site. Being Slashdot, I guess we can forgive not reading the article, but not reading the summary is just sad.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  59. Oblig. bash.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  60. Re:It the blackhawks after they beat nashville it by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Wow. This is a marvel of unintelligible nonsense. You are to be congratulated, sir.

  61. Get it over with already! by Chess+Piece+Face · · Score: 1

    As others have pointed out, we in the area have been on alert for this forever. Nothing would be better than having it happen so we can put it in our past. It will be dealt with and then remembered nostalgically - we're in full-blown "remember Mt. St. Helens" anniversary mode right now.

  62. Incorrect... by Yo_mama · · Score: 1

    Depending on faults, there is a very good possibility of Tsunamis within Puget Sound:
    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/activefaults/sfz/

    --
    Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
  63. Tsunami and the coast by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    Not true. If the epicenter is off the coast (as the summary suggests), then the nearby coast is at grave risk. This specific coast is a risk.

    For more information: http://www.hulu.com/watch/135843/how-the-earth-was-made-tsunami

    And yes, this is old news. (But it is scary.)

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  64. *Six* James Bonds? There could be only one! by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Really now, there's really just Sean Connery isn't there? Or at least I hope you're not counting Roger Moore....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  65. Hold up by mongrol · · Score: 1

    Isn't the "Pacific Northwest", ie, the northwest portion of the pacific ocean actually Japan/Russia? California and it's quite clearly geography fearing population (generalization) is actually on the east side of the pacific.

    Panic over!

  66. The Northwest is an awesome place to be from but.. by s-orbital · · Score: 1

    Glad I moved to Boulder, Colorado (From Western Washington). Now as long as Yellowstone stays put, I'm fine.

    --
    Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
  67. You did not answer the question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quote: "Actually, you have to actively hide from that sort of information if you don't want it. There is a tremendous amount of information and assistance on structural and non-structural pre-quake mitigation. Google is your friend."

    If you have the information, why not supply it, instead of giving a link to a web site with no information, and saying "Google is your friend"?

    Those who know about earthquakes seem only interested in building their own importance. It's all, "Be afraid, be very afraid."

    To ask again: What is an earthquake is likely to do to a wooden house held together by nails? Most houses in Portland were built before 1940.