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."
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."
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.