Slashdot Mirror


What Will Happen When Cascadia Subduction Zone Slips

Noryungi writes: The New Yorker has published a chilling account of what would happen in the case of a major earthquake (roughly magnitude 9.0) inevitably striking the Cascadia subduction. "Under pressure from Juan de Fuca, the stuck edge of North America is bulging upward and compressing eastward, at the rate of, respectively, three to four millimetres and thirty to forty millimetres a year. It can do so for quite some time, because, as continent stuff goes, it is young, made of rock that is still relatively elastic. (Rocks, like us, get stiffer as they age.) But it cannot do so indefinitely." Most of the west coast of the U.S. and Canada is at risk, from Vancouver all the way down to Los Angeles and beyond. Most of the states and cities within this region are woefully under-prepared for a large earthquake. Scientists peg the odds at 1-in-3 for a quake within the next 50 years, and 1-in-10 for a really powerful one.

265 comments

  1. Lies by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Geology is a Commie Pinko pseudo-science. God-fearing Kochites know that scientists are evil monsters who must be destroyed!!!! Vote GOP and get a government that knows what to do with scientists.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not "Kochites".... They prefer to be known as "Koch-heads".

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

      Not "Kochites".... They prefer to be known as "Koch-heads".

      No, they are called koch-suckers. Koch-head is what they give.

    3. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well this republican will do the math for you.

      It is 0.033 % of a chance of a 'big one' by their numbers.

    4. Re:Lies by rochrist · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is definitely a scam to get those geologists more of that sweet, sweet grant money!! God made the world 5000 years ago, how stressed out can a rock get in such a short time?

    5. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show your work, or admit that you did none.

    6. Re:Lies by paazin · · Score: 5, Informative

      There actually was an AMA on this yesterday or the day before. The scientists involved stated that much of the article, though grounded in reality, was hyperbole:

      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthquake_experts_ask_us_anything_about

    7. Re:Lies by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      You jest (I hope), but I've actually seen some of the crap the young-Earth creationists cite against geological evidence.

      It literally boils down, as an example, to "rocks are hard, how could they get all bendy in geological formations". It's the fucking Wookie Defense make by drooling idiots who then think they've won the argument but in fact have reinforced they're drooling idiots.

      The sheer drivel of crap intended to be cited by people who don't comprehend science to refute science is utterly mind boggling.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Lies by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Could you please stop interrupting my comedy show?

    9. Re:Lies by rwa2 · · Score: 2

      Yes, mod parent up.

      Actually, if you don't like Slashdot Beta, just go to that "Ask Me Anything" reddit now, don't even open it in a new tab. It was all covered there yesterday with actual experts and stuff.

    10. Re:Lies by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      The last thing I need in my republican american breakfast, is the truth.

    11. Re:Lies by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      As a "rock solid" republican whose Fear Syndrome you have ripped away, what will I fear now?

    12. Re:Lies by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Well, the last major quake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was January 26, 1700 at about 9:00 PM, only about 300 years ago so apparently plenty stressed out.

    13. Re:Lies by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do indeed jest. :)

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

      What point do you think you're making here?

    15. Re:Lies by DutchUncle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hyperbole? If the matching to history is true - that is, if the Indian oral history of a disaster, and the Japanese written history of an unexpected tsunami, indicate that *something* happened in January of 1700 - it's still a valid warning for the Pacific coastline. Even if the situation were only one-tenth as bad, just from back-of-the-envelope rough estimates, that still sounds pretty bad to me.

    16. Re:Lies by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea, I know you people get off on bashing the creationist ideology, but it's not all ignorance and folly. There are actually some pretty intelligent folk who think about these questions and have come up with reasonable answers for most of them, plus they have some answers for questions you are not asking because you haven't spent the time to think about stuff much.

      What you are describing is sophistry, and not science.

      Just because people go to extraordinary lengths to justify their religion, doesn't make any of it true.

      So step down off the high horse and try and engage, without bashing and name calling... You will likely get further with people if you don't offend them right off the bat.

      No. By insisting we engage means we've given in to the position that these silly beliefs have any basis in science, and aren't just some hand waving crap.

      Not happening.

      If someone truly believes the Earth is 6000 years old, then I'd prefer to get offending them out of the way right off the bat. Because there is no reasoned and intelligent conversation which can ensue.

      You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're sure as hell not entitled to your own facts.

      Engaging in that level of stupid, because it implies reason, evidence, and logic are in effect.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:Lies by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      There actually was an AMA on this yesterday or the day before.

      Hmm, the article says "posted 1 day ago", is that yesterday or the day before?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    18. Re: Lies by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      This one is the winner so far. :^)

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    19. Re:Lies by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The Republican Party.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    20. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this republican will do the math for you.

      It is 0.033 % of a chance of a 'big one' by their numbers.

      That does sound like republican math.

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

      I appreciate that (if you're referring to me ... the first AC). It's fun to mess with other ACs who try to fuck with my AC mojo.

    22. Re:Lies by AltGrendel · · Score: 1

      I wish my mod points hadn't expired, you deserve them all.

      --
      The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

      - Douglas Adams

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

      the earth is over 4 billion years old...God must have been a little late to the party

    24. Re:Lies by tipo159 · · Score: 1

      Hyperbole?

      Given that a lot of the coverage of the New Yorker article leads with stuff like "Seattle will be devasted", yes, hyperbole. Things will suck in Ocean Shores and Seaside and other coastal locations that don't have large populations. Unless the Seattle Fault is triggered, there won't be a tsunami in Seattle. The USGS projections show damage in central Puget Sound as moderate.

      What I would like to know is what is new about this story? There is nothing new about it. Could they not find someone to play up asteroid or Atlantic mega-tsunami risk? NYC publications seem to have a Seattle hang-up, so maybe they couldn't find someone to do another story about the damage that could be done by a lahar if Mt. Rainier goes.

    25. Re:Lies by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      You posted as Anonymous Coward. Are you really a Republican? I don't think so as you can do math.

    26. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dumb wingnut! You should never question science. Anyone who asks questions of scientists is evil. Scientists know everything and people who question them should be put in jail. Us libarals are sooper smarter than you. As smart people like us said to Galileo, "Never question prevailing dogma, or else!!"

    27. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the shorter version:

      "Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience" - George Carlin

    28. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not entitled your own facts either. Facts are found through a process that weighs each side impartially. You are making a lot of assumptions here. Even if what you say is true, put it to the test. Simply waving it away as sophistry makes you guilty of creating the very sophistry that you are accusing others of doing. Because your theory doesn't fit under my theory your theory is wrong. Not reasonable, not logical, and no evidence has been presented.

    29. Re: Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBQ's are fun?

    30. Re:Lies by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      To be fair to those people, it is not a choice but quite simply a matter of genetics, nothing more and nothing less. Quite simply when you flip over the other side of that 100IQ line, your ability to learn and actually understand science is severely abridged. Why do they not understand complex issues because they are physically in terms of cerebral genetics incapable of doing so.

      You would think more smart people would eventually pick up on why those less genetically enabled individuals always talk about a "belief in science" instead of how we talk of a "understanding of science". Get off your bloody high horses, for them science is a belief because there is no understanding, not via choice by as a result of cerebral ability. The problem lies in scam artists who lie to them in order to sell some con for profit. From the point of view of those with less ability to understand, they just see to beliefs being presented because that is all they are capable of interpreting.

      Want to resolve those issues, tackle the liars not the people being fooled by those lies. Prosecute them for those scams, throw their worthless asses in jail when they lie for profit, that is what is meant to happen. Why must this be stated over and over again, "don't blame the victim". Also don't be so cocky about being "smarter", genetics just means you get a brain chemical reward for thinking more and you are a drug addict, addicted to thinking because it makes you feel good and as a result your exercise you mind more and understand more.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    31. Re: Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My anonymous office is filling with anonymous laughter. Getting a strong Aziz Ansari vibe from AC. Oh shit, I just outted you Aziz!!

    32. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, waving it away as sophistry is the right thing to do. There isn't an unlimited amount of time and energy to debate everything. Plus, people engaged in sophistry will just find a way of moving the goal posts anyways.

      The point is that there's a ton of science on one side and absolutely none on the other. If they want to be taken seriously, then they should do the work necessary. Operating without proof is one's prerogative, but expecting others to go along with it isn't.

    33. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not, they've been predicting an 8.x magnitude earthquake for at least 30 years now and it's just getting bigger. The buildings around here might be able to survive something up to about 8.4 or thereabouts. If it gets to be a 9.x magnitude earthquake it's going to be some pretty massive damage to even newer buildings It wouldn't surprise me if some of them toppled like those buildings in our sister city of Kobe.

      However, you are correct about the tsunami, there won't really be one, there isn't enough water in the Puget Sound for that and we're too far from the ocean.

      I'm more concerned, personally, with the volcanoes in the area. Although, being buried by a house doesn't sound like fun either.

    34. Re:Lies by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's actually something I would have assumed the stereotypical Republican would like: "Put up or shut up". The scientists have their evidence, and those who don't like the findings should put up their evidence and not just anonymously post some nonsensical rebuttal devoid of evidence. So yeah, if you are trying to fight scientific findings with your opinion, you are a fucking idiot muppet.

    35. Re:Lies by LQ · · Score: 1

      You haven't heard of the creation concept called "apparent age" have you? Yea, I know you people get off on bashing the creationist ideology, but it's not all ignorance and folly. There are actually some pretty intelligent folk who think about these questions and have come up with reasonable answers for most of them, plus they have some answers for questions you are not asking because you haven't spent the time to think about stuff much.

      So step down off the high horse and try and engage, without bashing and name calling... You will likely get further with people if you don't offend them right off the bat.

      These are people blinded by their religious ignorance who first adopt a position and then attempt to justify it. Why would anyone want to "get further" with people who put faith before science?

    36. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So being brainwashed is "spending time to think about stuff". Sorry but he is right, you how can you have an intelligent conversation with someone that doesn't have any common sense or use any logic.

    37. Re:Lies by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Well, the last major quake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was January 26, 1700 at about 9:00 PM,

      No white man saw it, so it didn't happen.

      (Yes, I am being sarcastic. But that's not far from the thinking of no small number of YECs.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's really nice of you to wish death and destruction on millions of people because you see them as "arrogant".

  3. I'm sure more by Limitless_Potential · · Score: 2, Funny

    than Juan will be fuca'd

  4. I bet it'll be rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think I'll wait for the DVD

    1. Re:I bet it'll be rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Great glittering skyscrapers, shaking themselves like wet dogs. Downpours of shattered glass from fifty floors of windowpanes. Streets turned into killing floors; thousands slickly dismembered in the space of seconds. And then, when the quake was over, the scavenger hunt: a search for jigsaws of flesh and blood with too many missing pieces. Their numbers grew logistically over time."

        - From Maelstrom by Peter Watts

  5. Stiff? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rocks, like us, get stiffer as they age.

    Are rocks stiff in the morning, too?

    1. Re:Stiff? by DougOtto · · Score: 3, Funny

      That happens less often with age.

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    2. Re:Stiff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it gets older and less stiff is when all hell breaks loose.....

    3. Re:Stiff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh but people always want to live until they're 150 years old.... They never understand that they'll be as young as '70' for all those years which is worthless.

  6. Nobody will notice or care, outside of the region by argStyopa · · Score: 0

    ....since when it goes off, it'll probably either be in conjunction with or set off the Yellowstone supervolcano, and everyone else will have their own catastrophic issues to deal with.

    Hey, but at least we might stop hearing about global warming for a while. There's a silver lining.

    --
    -Styopa
  7. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by praxis · · Score: 2

    Are you sure that a disaster on the coastal infrastructure will have negligible effect on the non-coastal regions of the country? Last I checked our ports are on the coast and our ports are where most of our clothing [1], and non-negligible amount of food [2] come from.

    [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Business...
    [2] http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafi...

  8. Everything will be destroyed by msobkow · · Score: 1, Funny

    Everything will be destroyed or flooded except for Ozzy Osbourne's mansion. Ozzy is immortal. You can't kill him. He's survived more self-abuse than humanly possible. He'll rise above the ashes and throw a concert for the survivors. :P

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Everything will be destroyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ozzy Osbourne vs Keith Richards at the Thunderdome. You know it must happen. (It'll probably end with the Thunderdome collapsing first.)

    2. Re:Everything will be destroyed by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Everything will be destroyed or flooded except for Ozzy Osbourne's mansion. Ozzy is immortal.

      Okay. Ozzy may be immortal, but his mansion? Not so much...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Everything will be destroyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two zombies enter, two zombies leave.....

  9. Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You guys are behind the times, this is Hilary's fault.

    1. Re:Meh. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      How can it be Hillary's fault when the Republicans plan to impeach and remove her from office on Day One?

    2. Re:Meh. by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that the Koch party is going to feel comfortable with V.P. Bernie Sanders as President? I think they'll settle for Hillary, and be only remorseful.

    3. Re:Meh. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Bernies Sanders is too old to be Vice President. Hillary's VP pick will be younger, from somewhere else than the East Coast, and has a good reputation with Congress. After 30 years of beating the anti-Clinton drum, the Republican Party will be toast if Hillary serves eight years despite their opposition.

    4. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it won't be Hilary's fault, but the Bill & Hilary foundation will be there to collect any relief $$, as per Haiti

    5. Re:Meh. by RoccamOccam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Astounding as it may seem, but the Democrats are clearly positioning former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (that's right - Mayor) as their VP pick. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/...

      Of course, that's not as astounding as the fact that the Democrats are hell-bent on nominating Hillary, in the first place.

    6. Re:Meh. by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, neither is astounding, considering how shallow their bench is.

      For those among us with a leftward ideology and a twitchy knee, set the ideology aside for a bit and think it through: How many Democrats are 1) nationally recognized, 2) have proven executive ability (e.g. as governor - senators/reps rarely get elected) 3) have enough of a following among their base to push through the primaries?

      The Republicans have many of those - in waves, and it shows in the zillion-candidate cage-match they're going through now (though to be honest, only about 8-10 of them have any hope in Hell). Yes, they have some toxic folks among them (e.g. Trump), but they'll flame out long before the primaries are underway.

      The DNC? Not so much. There's a couple of outliers (dude from Maryland for example), but they lack any real name recognition, or a political machine to promote their name. Sanders has the populist imagination (much like the Tea Party does with the GOP), and Hillary has the Clinton name, as well as the massive political machine to back her up. Everyone else is either way too old or way the hell too, well, toxic to get the independent voter's nod. I mean, really, who else has a chance there?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    7. Re:Meh. by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, neither is astounding, considering how shallow their bench is

      Particularly to find a young face to put in ads. The average Dem in congress is something like 5 years older now than the average Republican. The GOP has clearly been shaken up in the past decade, with lots of new faces (and the shaking hasn't stopped - lots of conservative blogs now spend more time criticizing Republicans than Democrats).

      Yes, they have some toxic folks among them (e.g. Trump), but they'll flame out long before the primaries are underway.

      Trump is an "issue candidate", not a real contender. He's using the race to get a soapbox to stand on, a long tradition in American, and I think a good one. It's the only way to bring some points of view into the political discussion at all, and it's good to have these arguments about issues during the primaries..

      Sanders has the populist imagination

      I've come to like Sanders: much as I fine his politics vile, his quite upfront and honest about what he stands for. We need more of that in politics!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Meh. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      How can it be Hillary's fault when the Republicans plan to impeach and remove her from office on Day One?

      And when that fails, they'll just say "No" to everything she wants to accomplish without providing any economically-workable and/or morally-acceptable alternatives and blame her for nothing getting done - you know, "the usual".

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:Meh. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Elizabeth Warren would have a great chance if she ran. Personally, I'd like to see both Trump and Sanders lose their respective primaries and then enter the general election as independents. I'd like to see the hand-wringing that occurs when people across the country question why only the Democrat and Republican are in the TV debates even though there are other popular candidates.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    10. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many Democrats are 1) nationally recognized, 2) have proven executive ability (e.g. as governor - senators/reps rarely get elected) 3) have enough of a following among their base to push through the primaries?

      1) At this point in the race how much does this matter? The whole point of PACs is gathering money for publicity.

      2) You've made up your own facts, I see... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience

      3) Isn't this a repeat of #1?

    11. Re:Meh. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I heard Trump was going to install a wall around the fault lines to prevent earthquakes.

    12. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The United States will be toast if Hillary serves eight years.

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

      I've come to like Sanders

      Me too. I'm quite partial to greasy fried chicken.

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

      The DNC? Not so much. There's a couple of outliers (dude from Maryland

      Huh, Dude from MD is pretty well known, or that other dude from VA....

      Also consider the reason why the dudes from the republican side are well known... typically for their mistakes (bad record).

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

      I think "Hilary's fault" was an intended pun.

    16. Re:Meh. by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      The United States was toast years ago. The republic started its fall about 1861. The formation of the Federal Reserve in the early 20th century was the coup de grace.

      We've been living a lie ever since.

    17. Re:Meh. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The Republicans have many of those - in waves

      Enough that tollbooth guy has no chance?
      Not enough I'd say.

    18. Re:Meh. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd like to see both Trump and Sanders lose their respective primaries

      I'd like to see Trump pay off his massive debt that he avoided by bankruptcy (then magically finding some money somewhere very quickly, exactly as if he'd hidden it) before he is allowed to ever crow about how rich he is. He's so far in the red that his contribution to the economy is vastly less than a homeless person who has been unemployed for their entire life.

  10. You sure you have the right guy? by AltGrendel · · Score: 1

    I though that was Lemmy.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:You sure you have the right guy? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Keith Richards.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  11. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by tekrat · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    That's because the really arrogant assholes are in the midwest.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  12. I can tell you what will happen ... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... the quake will show how stunningly unprepared that region will be for the ensuing catastrophe.

    1. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by 602 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      This. Oregon DOT did a study a few years ago and concluded that in western Oregon (where essentially all the population is), 70 [seventy] road bridges will go down.

      For household prep, top priority is water, which may be the hardest thing. At least one 5 gallon jug per person. We have 10 gallons per person, which is pathetically inadequate. Food for 2 weeks. Camp stove with fuel. Flashlights, radios, batteries. Firewood. Extra prescription meds. Gasoline (I keep a 5 gallon jug and I never let my car get below 1/4 tank).

      I haven't read the article yet (awaiting my magazine to arrive) but the scariest part is that if a strong earthquake hits the CSZ off Oregon in the spring/summer when the reservoirs are full, the Hills Creek Dam (an earthen dam) could fail. This could then cause Dexter Dam below it fail. Then most of the cities of Springfield and Eugene (about 200,000 people) would be scraped off the face of the Earth.

    2. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So sounds like I should take that vacation roadtrip up the Pacific coast sometime before the end of this decade, just to be on the safe side.

    3. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by ahoffer0 · · Score: 1

      "The wall of water would be as high as the fifth floor of Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend in Springfield or the third floor of the downtown Eugene Public Library, according to the maps." http://www.opb.org/news/articl...

      That's enough to dampen my spirits.
      There has got to be an easier way to get rid of Springfield and Creswell!

    4. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      ... the quake will show how stunningly unprepared that region will be for the ensuing catastrophe.

      And the biggest earthquake in the US wasn't in California or Alaska, but Tennessee. In the words of Michael Palin, "Welcome to Nashville, a city waiting to die."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ...And the biggest earthquake in the US wasn't ...

      It is not about "was", it is about "will be".

      .
      What is the likelihood of another quake of that magnitude occurring in Tennessee in the next 100 years? 500 years?

    6. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by leftover · · Score: 1

      Just call for a carefully planned line of bunker-busters to be dropped. Instant bypass and reservoir.

      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    7. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      technically that only applies to places on the actual coast. Anywhere in the Puget Sound south of Everett has this giant mountain range called the Olympic Mountains protecting it (you know, the place Twilight movies are located).

      At most 1-2 blocks next to the water are vulnerable in the actual Puget Sound, and that's from the Seattle fault itself.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    8. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you prepare for a mag 9 earthquake? Have a backup plan for living without bridges, electricity, running water? There's so much concrete and steel construction that the cities probably won't burn to any great extent, but there's no protecting the basic infrastructure when the ground starts undulating like a Slinky.

    9. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      At least one 5 gallon jug per person. We have 10 gallons per person, which is pathetically inadequate.

      Wait, what? If you should have a 5 gallon jug per person, how is 10 gallons per person "pathetically inadequate"? Isn't that twice as much as the minimum need?

    10. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Make friends who live in other places.

    11. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Really? It seems to me that Seward is in Alaska, not Tennessee.

      http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/10_largest_us.php

      I'm a bit surprised. I always thought that the New Madrid quakes in the early 1810s were rated 8+.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    12. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > pathetically inadequate

      Well, water counts but food is irrelevant. Most Americans can easily survive six months without food.

      As for water, take how long a human can survive, in classical medicine, and add 2-3 days as the Amerifat body de-camel-humps the swollen ankles.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      At least one 5 gallon jug per person. We have 10 gallons per person, which is pathetically inadequate.

      Wait, what? If you should have a 5 gallon jug per person, how is 10 gallons per person "pathetically inadequate"? Isn't that twice as much as the minimum need?

      I read it to mean that the very minimum to survive a few days is 5 gallons per person. But if the fault goes, and everything goes to shit, even double that amount is not enough because his family will run through it before the nightmare is over. Then they'll be standing in those lines with everyone else, trying to get a koolaid pitcher filled from a FEMA water truck.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    14. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will happen is...
      Everything will be flattened and cracked.
      Everything will shutdown... no food, no transportation, no water, no petrol, no natural gas, no heat, no electricity, no internet, no diesel power, no cell phone, no shipping, no ports, no rail, no air cargo.
      Chaos will ensure... fires, riots, looting.
      Law enforcement, firefighting will be useless, they'll stay home or only at their bases.
      FEMA and the national guard will be called in.
      But the damage to infrastructure will be too widespread and severe.
      Some Serious Shit will go down.
      The US economy and markets will collapse, triggering some world shit.
      The world will offer help, you know, like Haiti and so on, but probably just like 911, the US will be stupid, ungratious assfucks and send them away.
      Some more serious shit will go down.
      Shit you ain't never seen before.
      Eventually, humans will keep doing what they've always done, rebuild their stupid shit in stupid locations just because they want to.

    15. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I've lived without electricity, running water and bridges for a long time (a few years). Not really fun, but not a death sentence. Plus there are lakes every other street exit.

    16. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think those lovely highways, even the ones without bridges, are going to be passable by FEMA trucks?
      LOL.
      For at least the first week that shit will have to be air dropped in.

    17. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missouri and Arkansas actually if you're referring to the New Madrid fault.

    18. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      And for the first week, 602's family will have water. After that, they will be standing in line. Just as I said. In addition, I didn't say that the water supply won't be air dropped in.

      You grant yourself too much credit if you think your post is LOL worthy.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    19. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure it will be no worse than New Orleans, which was aware of the risk and prepared for the possibility of a major hurricane for many decades.

    20. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by undefinedreference · · Score: 1

      We have a lot of risk up here north of the border, too, but water doesn't worry me at all. I live in a rural region with wells on most properties, plus I could just walk over to the sound to get sea water that could be easily distilled.

      Food, on the other hand, would be very challenging unless it happened when the commuters were away at their jobs.

    21. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you prepare for a mag 9 earthquake?

      I've prepared for a mag 9 earthquake - I know they happen so live in a geologically stable location. I'm inland enough to survive an oceanic comet strike as well as La Palma collapsing into the Atlantic and hurricanes are weak by time they get here. The worst weather here is heavy rains from tropical storms and the odd tornado. Ice and snow are just an inconvenience.

      But go ahead and live the high life on the coasts and then come begging for bailouts from everybody who had the sense to not live there. The under-capitalized insurance companies aren't going to save you from economic ruin because they will be completely wiped out.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    22. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Ah, well, the government will underwrite us all ex post facto. They paid out to 9/11 victim families, so why not?

    23. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's exactly what he's saying. If you consider it, each time you flush, it's a gallon (at least). With a loss of water comes a frightening loss of septic, which will surely precipitate a catastrophic sewage problem. There are a lot of people relying on their wells near the coast, and I equally wonder what shifting might do to well access (sorry, I don't know nearly enough to have an opinion but it's never stopped me before). Additionally, in this area there are a lot of highly dependent people living near groups of highly independent people. If those two groups come into contact, I can easily see bullets flying.

    24. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Food, on the other hand, would be very challenging unless it happened when the commuters were away at their jobs.

      What? You don't want your dogs to eat fresh meat?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    25. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where exactly do you go that isn't subject to natural disasters? Around here it's earthquakes, volcanoes and occasional flooding. Down south you've got hurricanes and tornadoes, throughout the midwest it's tornadoes and blizzards. I suppose New England is great because they only get blizzards, except when the occasional hurricane shows up and everybody craps their pants.

      Then there's things like the Yellowstone Caldera and asteroids that would impact much greater regions.

      Just sayin' it's a bit of picking your own poison here.

      As far as the insurance goes, usually the re-insurance will pick that up and if they can't there's also assistance from the government. Considering that this fault is in a Democratic area, it would be nice to see some of our tax dollars coming back from the ungrateful leaches on the other side of the state.

    26. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You can build things that can handle a 9.0. And by "handle" I don't necessarily mean that they will stay exactly the same, but that they can be restored and operational in a short amount of time.

    27. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Given that it's Oregon, there will be plenty of water just "dropping" in. I would invest in some large sheets of plastic and/or some tarps, and some buckets myself. Get a bunch of those chlorinated tablets that treat water, and while it may taste terrible, should be perfectly safe to drink. Now, things like food/gasoline might be a bit tougher to come by.

    28. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by undefinedreference · · Score: 1

      The problem would be the handful of weeks it takes for them to die, the resources they would consume in that time, and the risk of violence as they begin to starve.

      My community, provided we were limited to round-the-clock local/rural residents, could almost certainly become self-sufficient within a few weeks and survive indefinitely without outside assistance. We have plenty of farmland, farm animals, edible plants, wild animals, and fishing available.

    29. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      200,000 floaters, eh? That's a pretty good score, and higher than I'd generally expected for the expected Cascadia quake. But I still think that for the first megadeath quake, you're still probably looking at the Ganges plain. which is as badly overdue as Cascadia, but has much poorer building codes, infrastructure resilience, enforcement of building codes, and more aggressive microbiology.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    30. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I could just walk over to the sound to get sea water that could be easily distilled

      I think it would be very instructive for you to try putting that plan through a trial run. Distilling water takes a hell of a lot of fuel. A hell of a lot.

      (I used to run alcohol sills on various occasions.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    31. Re:I can tell you what will happen ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Being elsewhere is my mechanism too. Despite having spent some of the last month working in Istanbul, which is not high on any sensible list of low-risk places.

      But for pay, I'm prepared to take the risk.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  13. Goldfinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was about to comment that I'm pretty sure there was a James Bond movie where this was part of the plot.

    And then I went and started reading the linked article, and the whole article is talking about a guy called Goldfinger.

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

      I was about to comment that I'm pretty sure there was a James Bond movie where this was part of the plot.

      And then I went and started reading the linked article, and the whole article is talking about a guy called Goldfinger.

      That's the wrong article, you were looking for the one on Max Zorin.

  14. Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not take out of Oklahoma's or Texas's playbook and do some fracking near the fault line? It will likely cause earthquakes but hopefully they would be minor, and would relieve the pressure a little bit at a time, instead of all at once.

    1. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by mtippett · · Score: 1

      IANASS (I am not a seismic scientist)

      The general belief (unfortunately google doesn't provide many non-tin foil links) is that it isn't the fracturing process itself that is inducing siesmicity it is the presurrized injection of the waste slurry that is loosening the stresses and creating the swarm earthquakes.

      The risk in your suggestion is that you will reduce risk and stresses in some areas which may increase acute stress in other areas. One unexpected area that becomes the hinge point for a large stress could trigger a larger issues in an unexpected.

    2. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The risk in your suggestion is that you will reduce risk and stresses in some areas which may increase acute stress in other areas. One unexpected area that becomes the hinge point for a large stress could trigger a larger issues in an unexpected.

      To add to this, there's also the sheer number of these minor earthquakes you'd have initiate. Earthquakes are rated on a logarithmic scale, so a 3.0 is 6 orders of magnitude (1 million times) less intense than a 9.0. So theoretically, if you want to frack the ground and bleed off the energy from a possible 9.0, you'd need to initiate 1,000,000 earthquakes at a 3.0 magnitude. When you're doing that many, I suspect it only compounds the risk of producing an acute stress that triggers "the big one".

    3. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by ahoffer0 · · Score: 1

      I don't think they know how to frack at the bottom of the ocean. The subduction zone is under 2000+ meters of water.

    4. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Every now and then the subduction zone is subjected to swarms of earthquakes, which I'd imagine are stronger in total magnitude than anything we do ourselves in the course of year: 6/02/2015 — West Coast / Oregon Earthquake swarm occurring at UNDERSEA VOLCANO – Cleft Segment Volcanoes | Dutchsinse Controlling fault lines is an exercise for Kardashev Level 1 civilizations.

    5. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      "Hey guys, I know how we can avoid bad earthquakes--let's emulate the actions of a couple states that didn't even have have earthquakes before humans mucked with it!" I seriously hope you're joking. If not, LOL fracking trolls proposing we manually "relieve pressure" in a system we don't completely understand.

      Shame on anyone who upvoted this for anything other than "funny".

    6. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by kit_triforce · · Score: 1

      The subduction zone may be located out to sea, but the subducted plate extends under the continental crust for a fairly long distance, and at even greater depths. The eastern boundary of the subducted plate can only be "mapped" by comparing hundreds of seismic images and estimating density, temperature, and composition to determine what is still there to fracture and what has been sufficiently reabsorbed into the mantle.

      Note that the current subduction system with a transverse zone to the south has been in place since the Pacific Plate made contact with the American Plate around 30 million years ago, dividing (and fracturing) the old Farallon Plate (of which Juan de Fuca is one remnant).

      And as for potential worse-case scenarios, look at the Chilean subduction zone, and the 1960 Valdivia earthquake . The subducted Nazca Plate there is the southern remnant of the old Farallon Plate.

    7. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Why not take out of Oklahoma's or Texas's playbook and do some fracking near the fault line? It will likely cause earthquakes but hopefully they would be minor, and would relieve the pressure a little bit at a time, instead of all at once.

      Given the amount of pressure that's built up in the subduction zone since the last big quake 315 years ago chances are all you'd do is set the next big one off. The time to do what you're talking about is right after the big quake to prevent the stresses from building up again. But nobody's ever going to pay for it anyway so it's a moot point.

    8. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Hoorayforthings · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, we are still only a Kardashian Level 4 civilization.

    9. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I live in CA and I manually relieve pressure several times a week. No major earthquakes since I started!

    10. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just try to use "Kardashian" and "Civilization" in the same sentence? Back to remedial English for you, and don't come out until you can explain the difference between celebrity and importance.

    11. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Why not take out of Oklahoma's or Texas's playbook and do some fracking near the fault line?

      Um, 'cause shale layers != tectonic plates?!

    12. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're claiming. Are you saying that the earthquakes in OK/TX aren't tectonic-plate earthquakes? Because I'm pretty sure they are.

    13. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by danlip · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the Richter scale is logarithmic. A 9.0 releases a million times more energy than a 5.0 (and a 5.0 is still quite destructive). So if you want to dissipate the energy of a 9.0 in a series of 5.0 earthquakes you are going to be shaking continuously for years.

    14. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, reducing a potential 9.0 earthquake to a potential 0.0 earthquake would be quite an undertaking. Reducing the energy to 8.0 might be more reasonable (and probably what the OP meant).

    15. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... or using fracking to create voids or develop additional cracks that allow the pressure to expand, causing bigger earthquakes.

      The Earth is not a body that needs a massage. Fracking that do both good and bad things---you want to risk it?

    16. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      No, not in any meaningful sense (i.e. the context of the comparison in question): fracking-induced quakes are highly-localized and miniscule by comparison; i.e. just because you might be able to pop a zit on your face quite easily doesn't mean that you can use the same technique to remove a brain tumor... but yes, both the zit and the tumor are located in your head. ;)

    17. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty idiotic to think that there can be earthquakes in areas where there aren't faults. There is literally no data that suggests that fracking is in any way dangerous according to the current administration. So, are you guys suggesting that fracking creates fault lines or that there were no tremors on those fault lines before fracking?

    18. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably we'd want to drop it down to a 5 or a 6. There's no point in going any lower than 5. The 5.2 magnitude earthquake we had nearly 20 years ago caused almost no damage and the Nisqually Quake was 6.8 with relatively minor damage over all. So, really, we'd just need to bleed off about 99% of the energy to take it down to something that's readily managable.

      Still, it would be insanely stupid to even try as a mistake early on in the process could mean getting that earthquake now rather than later.

    19. Re:Fracking to relieve tectonic pressure by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      Wastewater injection is known to have caused earthquakes in oklahoma: http://www.scientificamerican....

  15. There is always a catch. Get ready. by wickedsteve · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It figures. When something like a mild climate seems too perfect there is some catch like impending doom. At least it's not tornado alley, right? Stock up on water and nonperishables. If you live through it there will be no plumbing or power for a while.

    1. Re:There is always a catch. Get ready. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stock up on water and nonperishables.

      Having grown up there decades ago, this was common knowledge to even little kids. What's new?

    2. Re:There is always a catch. Get ready. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's something almost fear-mongering about the way it's being presented. But maybe that's because I live in the Pacific Northwest.

      But aside from a mass exodus of everyone (to avoid the area), I figure we can prepare. Two weeks is going to be difficult for poor people. If we can't take care of our homeless, I don't know how we're going to take care of people who become homeless due to a disaster. But I imagine saving rain water, using solar panels, etc., assuming those don't fail, would be useful for those who can afford those. Wouldn't a septic tank be better than sewer?

      Would it be a good idea to get one of those camper toilets? Although, where to put the waste is an issue.

    3. Re:There is always a catch. Get ready. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      As a whitewater rafter who lives in Salem, Oregon I feel fairly well prepared. I have a couple of big water jugs that I keep full. I have a river toilet with enough supplies to last me for several weeks. I have propane stoves and lanterns, water purification equipment and other camping equipment to tide me by. My home was built in 1994 and so has some earthquake resilience built in and is high enough in elevation to avoid flooding if dams break. I probably should stock up some more non-perishable food but I can probably raid the grocery store 2 blocks from my house if it happens.

      Check out the PETT wag bag toilet systems. The sewage is in zip lock bags that you can just pile up until you can dispose of them.

    4. Re:There is always a catch. Get ready. by plopez · · Score: 1

      "Two weeks is going to be difficult for poor people"

      Nah, just round them up, put them into stadiums , and let God sort them out. Just like during Katrina.[1]

      [1] Is there a Godwin's like law re: Kartrina? Should there be one?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:There is always a catch. Get ready. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I figure we can prepare. Two weeks is going to be difficult for poor people.

      The worrying part is not so much the damage from the quake itself (though it'll suck if you're in an old building on bad soil, or in one of the shoreline communities affected by tsunami). It's the damage to infrastructure. Here's the relevant quote from the article:

      "in the I-5 corridor it will take between one and three months after the earthquake to restore electricity, a month to a year to restore drinking water and sewer service, six months to a year to restore major highways, and eighteen months to restore health-care facilities."

      1-3 months is a whole different ballpark than two weeks. And several months without direct access to drinking water is seriously bad. Also the combo of busted sewers and healthcare facilities is an invitation to an epidemic of infectious diseases.

      Furthermore, this is one of the quotes from that article that was flagged as 100% legit in the Reddit AMA that was meant to debunk some of the more sensationalist claims.

      I have to say that I was always assuming that recovery time for all basic services to a reasonable level would be no more than a month in my preparations. Given these new (well, old but not widely publicized before) figures, even the basics like the amount of food & water to keep on hand has to be revised way up.

      Wouldn't a septic tank be better than sewer? Would it be a good idea to get one of those camper toilets? Although, where to put the waste is an issue.

      Neither one does you any good if the piping in your yard is busted. And the problem is that you can't really know that without a detailed inspection, so the safest thing would be to stop using either one to avoid soil contamination and backflow problems that can easily end up contaminating your home. So get a portable toilet seat and stock up on garbage bags (assuming 2 bags for every time you expect to poop). The nice thing about garbage bags is that you need them anyway (so it's not a useless stockpile that just sits there for no purpose other than emergency), and they don't expire. Kitty litter added to the bags (before & after) also helps to make this all a bit more manageable.

      Garbage disposal is going to be a problem in general, it's not just poop. I would assume that in densely populated areas, like Seattle proper, some form of centralized collection would be one of the first things that'd be restored. Elsewhere, I guess we'll basically just pile up the bags for a while.

  16. Meh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

    I've been told for the last 30+ years that the BIG ONE that will send California off into the Pacific Ocean is coming any day. Guess what? It should happen within the next 30 years. If the next 30 years was like the last 30 years, I got nothing to worry about.

    1. Re:Meh... by DougOtto · · Score: 1

      Except CA will never "fall into the ocean" as that plate movement is largely north/south....

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    2. Re:Meh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The American people — especially on the far right fringe — won't allow facts to interfere with a popular misconception.

    3. Re:Meh... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      It's "the next 30 years" as in "economical Fusion power will happen in 30 years /is 30 years away."

    4. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They got the California Big One wrong. When that hits, everything east of the San Andreas fault is going to sink into the Atlantic.

      There is an island off the bulge of Africa, I think in the Canary Islands, which is due to have a massive landslide Any Day Now. The prediction is that the tsunami it raises will do about as much damage to the east coast of the USA as the recent Japan quake did to NE Japan.

    5. Re:Meh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Cold fusion still have another five years to prove itself as being economical. ;)

    6. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If California slides into the ocean
      Like the mystics and statistics say it will
      I predict this motel will be standing until I pay my bill - Warren Zevon

    7. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently ColdFusion still exists!

    8. Re:Meh... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The American people â" especially on the far right fringe â" won't allow facts to interfere with a popular misconception.

      Yeah, the far left fringe has no such problem with reality. Earth is really at risk of becoming like Venus, you can really print all the money you want with no downside, it's not worth injuring an animal or a tree to save a human life, in fact, killing off most humans (starting with 95% of males, of course) would solve most problems. Yup, no disconnect with reality there at all.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Meh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      you can really print all the money you want with no downside

      Never mind that the annual deficit is at a seven-year low.

      http://www.nasdaq.com/article/us-annual-budget-deficit-remains-near-7year-low-in-june-20150713-00726

    10. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not one yearly deficit. The problem is the debt. Also a seven year low is nothing special either. True good news would be a budget surplus to pay down the debt. That should be the measuring stick.

    11. Re:Meh... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That isn't saying much, isn't Obama in his 7th year? I thought this was why all we hear about on the news is who is running for president.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re:Meh... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So then if we throw enough investment at this problem, it will happen in the next 30 years? Where do I send my donations?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:Meh... by lgw · · Score: 1

      If you care about the size of the deficit, then obviously you're not a loony who believes that you can really print all the money you want with no downside.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Meh... by dave420 · · Score: 0

      So you defend the right by assaulting the left with straw men. Brilliant. You are really good at this.

    15. Re:Meh... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Right, right, the left-wing fringe is strawmen, but the right-wing fringe isn't, and needs to be defended. Makes perfect sense! It's all so clear to me now!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  17. Lies and statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This jumped out at me:

    "In 2009, Dougherty told me, he found some land for sale outside the inundation zone, and proposed building a new K-12 campus there. Four years later, to foot the hundred-and-twenty-eight-million-dollar bill, the district put up a bond measure. The tax increase for residents amounted to two dollars and sixteen cents per thousand dollars of property value. The measure failed by sixty-two per cent."

    The average house price in Oregon is $246,000. I assume in this area due to proximity to the ocean it will be higher, but let's just use the average. That "measly" $2.16 is $531.36 a year. The average American leaves home at 21 (and thus, even if renting, is in some way exposed economically to those taxes) and dies at 79. That's 58 years exposed to property taxes. Assuming an average interest rate of 3% over all that time, that school cost the average citizen $369,826.56.

    I am happy to see, however, that 62% of people in that city know that $2.16 can actually cost them almost $370k.

    1. Re:Lies and statistics by caseih · · Score: 1

      Sure and you spend even more money raising children, buying food, paying income tax, driving to work. So what? $370k over a lperson's ifetime for a school that benefits the society as a whole isn't a horrible thing. Schools are essential, and they have to be paid for. It's part of the society that we live in. Part of the social contract. The whole point of taxes is that they are amortized over time and the entire population, for the benefit of the collective society.

      Some people spend more than that on cigarettes over their lifetime. And if you add up all the useless things we buy (junk food, toys we throw away, clothes we throw away), I'm sure that's a huge number also. So I'm not really sure what your point is. Public spending is always bad? Taxes are always bad? Having a civil society with a social contract is bad?

    2. Re:Lies and statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am happy to see, however, that 62% of people in that city know that $2.16 can actually cost them almost $370k.

      The voter pamphlet likely told them how much it will cost a year, and/or over the bond life. It is required by law.

      And I am not sure why you are extrapolating the bond out to an entire lifetime. The bond is probably over 10-20 years, not 58 years, and it is for a much more major infrastructure change than is usually asked for in bonds, and will probably replace other smaller bonds that would be needed for maintenance, anyway. You are lying not just with statistics, but with purely fabricated numbers.

    3. Re:Lies and statistics by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      In general the tax increase for a bond measure like that lasts a limited number of years until the bond is paid off so no one is going to spend 58 years paying that off. Also the average home price in the area is probably a bit less than that unless it's within a half mile of the ocean.

    4. Re:Lies and statistics by tipo159 · · Score: 1

      This jumped out at me:

      "In 2009, Dougherty told me, he found some land for sale outside the inundation zone, and proposed building a new K-12 campus there. Four years later, to foot the hundred-and-twenty-eight-million-dollar bill, the district put up a bond measure. The tax increase for residents amounted to two dollars and sixteen cents per thousand dollars of property value. The measure failed by sixty-two per cent."

      The average house price in Oregon is $246,000. I assume in this area due to proximity to the ocean it will be higher, but let's just use the average. That "measly" $2.16 is $531.36 a year. The average American leaves home at 21 (and thus, even if renting, is in some way exposed economically to those taxes) and dies at 79. That's 58 years exposed to property taxes. Assuming an average interest rate of 3% over all that time, that school cost the average citizen $369,826.56.

      I am happy to see, however, that 62% of people in that city know that $2.16 can actually cost them almost $370k.

      Do you really not know how bonds paid off through property levy work? I supposed that you think that when someone takes out a loan to buy a car that he has to make that monthly loan payment for the rest of his life.

    5. Re:Lies and statistics by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, many people do actually make car loan payments their entire lives, so perhaps his confusion is understandable.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  18. I got this one by paiute · · Score: 1

    I already know what will happen. We will spend no time or money preparing for it but billions and billions and years and years paying for our lack of planning.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:I got this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much time and money would it take to STOP AN EARTHQUAKE? Or stop plate tectonics? Lack of planning, like the movie "2012"?
      Duh, spend all the time and money you want you can't stop nature on this scale. You must have been a liberal education major in college.

    2. Re:I got this one by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Exactly. We can - and have - changed construction codes so that buildings won't collapse as badly, but anything over an 8.0 will cause 50 percent of all buildings and bridges to collapse and there really is not much you can do about that. Even tsunami risks are mostly about climbing to higher ground or getting on top of the tallest buildings.

      Beyond that, while we do have a NOAA alert system now (hosted by the UW as an app for your phone), it's not going to do you much good if half of everything shakes to pieces.

      Have a container of water and a whistle in every room. That will be useful, as you can survive a month without food, but only 2-3 days without water.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:I got this one by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      I disagree. We won't spend billions paying for it, because we'll have to completely abandon the area like Pompeii or Chernobyl.

    4. Re:I got this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to what I was reading, during the Hurricane Sandy clean up, the representative from PNW asked what would happen in the event of Cascadia. After a few minutes of awkward silence, they apparently said the Northwest should be prepared to take care of itself for three months or so.

  19. Planet Earth Failure Modes by kenj123 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every so often I like to look over this list just so see what kinds of things can go wrong with the planet
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    This one has always gotten my attention, I have heard about from multiple sources.
    10 deadliest volcanic eruptions --1815 eruption of Mount Tambora-- 92,000 dead -- Year Without a Summer

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

    It just boggles my mind that there is a real potential for global disaster like this. I believe there is only a 40-90 day world wide food surplus available. I remember in the 1970s there were some discussions on the talking head shows about it. I think it was after Vietnam and the talking heads were scraping the barrel for things to get people excited about. A few economists said it was too big of a capital expenditure on something with a speculative return. But the possibility of an event is not 0... gives me something to ponder when I don't have anything else to worry about.

    1. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldbtnt matter much because if we lost The US we would lose 5% of the population but gain 20% food back cause your all fat fuckers. Would be a shame to lose the Kardashian show though.

    2. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      What can go wrong with the planet?
      Take a look at this "what will go wrong?" list :
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Note : Bad news for life on Earth, possibly good news for life on Titan.

    3. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This one has always gotten my attention, I have heard about from multiple sources. 10 deadliest volcanic eruptions --1815 eruption of Mount Tambora-- 92,000 dead -- Year Without a Summer

      It wouldn't be so bad now, because of our improved transportation mechanisms. Vermont, for example, would still have trouble with a similar volcano eruption, but Kansas would still grow corn. Also note that a lot of our produce is already imported from Mexico and even Argentina. So our system is more robust, not as regional now.

      Of course, a larger volcano eruption could still cause problems. You can get a year supply of food if it especially worries you. It's good to be prepared.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by kenj123 · · Score: 1

      My impression is this would be a world wide event. Kansas and other areas would be similarly bad off, its just they didn't have good information about what was going on there in 1815. Also, I wouldn't want to depend too much on 'sharing'. I suspect a lot of countries will go into hoarding mode.
      Good News:, I did some further investigating. The Tambora volcano was a 10,000 year event on the VEI, Volcanic Eruptions Index.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Eruptive Volume: 100 km3 (20 cu mi)
      Type: Ultra Plinian
      Frequency: 10,000 years
      Example; Tambora (1815)

    5. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      That's assuming that the transportation mechanisms work. Bridges come down; roads and rails get damaged. I recall photos after quakes of what used to be a road separated by a dozen feet both horizontally and vertically. That's even assuming that people are willing to ship food rather than hoarding it for their own region.

    6. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      My impression is this would be a world wide event.

      It was mostly a northern hemisphere thing, but yeah.

      Kansas and other areas would be similarly bad off, its just they didn't have good information about what was going on there in 1815.

      The main thing to note from this graph is that in the worst areas, the temperature dropped 3.5 degrees C. In some parts of Vermont, that could mean freezing in June, but in Kansas it would just delay the growing season a bit.

      Also, I wouldn't want to depend too much on 'sharing'.

      We already do, and it works really well. In centuries past, the drought in California would have caused mass emigration, if not famine. Now, it's a minor annoyance increasing food prices somewhat, and causing farmers to call their crop insurance providers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I messed up there, you're right, worldwide.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by kenj123 · · Score: 1

      trust me, if there is a world wide crisis that affects agriculture, things will change very quickly. A drought in California is regional, so people wouldn't get to excited about that. Also, food sharing doesn't work all that well right now. there are lots of people starving in different places the world. I tried to look up info on max exporters, US is number 1 and has in the past 60+ years been the only one that really affects international prices. France is listed as 2, but that's because of the high value wine, cheese they sell. Brazil and Argentina are emerging big exporters of basic food crops, and they are increasing fast, the limiting factor seems to be infrastructure to get crops from fields to ships. I grew up on a farm and read quite a bit about world food supply, its not nearly as elastic as you are saying.

    9. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      there are lots of people starving in different places the world.

      Come on man, that's pretty much irrelevant.

      trust me

      I don't trust you. Show me.

      I grew up on a farm

      So did I. I don't trust you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by kenj123 · · Score: 1

      ok, so starving people today is not a compelling example that food sharing doesn't happen, how about this:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...
      Hoarding Nations Drive Food Costs Ever Higher

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
      Food hoarding by governments keen to keep prices low is pushing prices higher

      http://www.scmp.com/business/c...
      Memories of 2008 food crisis push Asian countries to hoard grain

    11. Re:Planet Earth Failure Modes by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Now you're doing better, that's good.

      The thing is, we aren't talking about the end of all crops here......we're talking about a winter where 200,000 people died in Europe, out of 200 million. That's with horrible farming practices, lousy distribution systems, and plenty of hoarding.

      Our modern agriculture system is much more prepared to handle something like that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  20. Spanish Inquisition by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 1

    When the 'end-of-the-world' disaster comes, it won't be the one you were expecting.

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    1. Re:Spanish Inquisition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely agree. But I'm expecting an EMP, and I think I might be right.

  21. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Scientists whose continued research grants depend upon a finding of imminent doom peg the odds at 1 in 10 of a really powerful one in the next 50 years."

  22. Liquefaction by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's also a problem with liquefaction. Most of Victoria and Vancouver (in BC) are built on soft earth which will become mud and will stop supporting the stuff we've built. All those foundations, bridges, streets, they'll all become impassable. There's a liquefaction map I saw at an engineering presentation and the whole thing was red and black. Victoria is literally built on landfill garbage right next to the ocean. One of its landmark buildings, the Empress Hotel, was slowly sinking until it had a major refurb to drive piles down as far as they could reach.

    Vancouver is the biggest port for exporting all of Canada's wheat, lumber, ore, etc. If it shuts down, people could be starving for work and food all over the world. It's not all bad though, because EA North would cease to exist. However, greater Vancouver is where most of BC's engineers live and work. We're your experts in fixing up after an earthquake, and most of us would probably be gone.

    It's going to be bad when it hits. The upside is that most people here have earthquake kits, emergency supplies, ninja reflexes (we do earthquake drills) and have some idea that it will in fact happen.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    1. Re:Liquefaction by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's also Richmond, which is basically built on top of an island in the middle of the river that is made from the silt accumulated by that river. And the ground level there is one meter above water on average, so it's all ringed by a system of levees. In an earthquake, pretty much the entire place will liquefy in moments.

    2. Re:Liquefaction by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure most of North Portland (Oregon) is in the same boat. Soft sandy soil that is going to not support anything once water bubbles up through it.

    3. Re:Liquefaction by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Forgot to add, Portland in general is pretty much hosed, because we are "bridge town". It will quite literally cut the city in half. Every bridge is expected to fall during a moderate earthquake.

  23. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    I can't wait until this happens. CNN will spin off a whole channel for nonstop coverage.

    Los Angeles had a minor earthquake some years ago. I think it was like a 4.0 or so, a truck rumble at best. CNN kept running a black-and-white surveillance video of a grocery story where absolutely nothing moved in the background. Nothing falling, nothing breaking, nothing anything. But CNN made it sound like the BIG ONE already happened and California was sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

  24. we must stop this Juan guy by drwho · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who is this Juan de Fuca? How is he applying so much pressure on the United States? He must be stopped. It's not our fault, it's his.

    1. Re:we must stop this Juan guy by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      He's applying pressure to the Cascadia Subduction, which sounds like some form of HVAC repair. It's hot here in Oregon this summer, so I'm on board.

    2. Re:we must stop this Juan guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this Juan de Fuca? How is he applying so much pressure on the United States? He must be stopped. It's not our fault, it's his.

      he's actually Greek. figures...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca

    3. Re:we must stop this Juan guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexicans that discovered the northern border had less enforcement. *ducks*

    4. Re:we must stop this Juan guy by adamanthaea · · Score: 1

      We'll just put Donald Trump on it. He'll find a way to force Juan de Fuca to fix the problem and pay for all of it.

    5. Re:we must stop this Juan guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump: "I told you so!"

  25. Re:Blame, Recriminations and new Taxes by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

    I'm not worried about quakes, they are of course bad but the effects of them aren't long lasting. I'm more worried about when Yellowstone decides to erupt.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  26. If I told you once ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Look guys, if I told you once, its like I told you hundred times. I told you what to do when earthquakes are predicted. It worked for Memphis. It will work again. Proven remedy.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  27. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shame then the mid west leech states will actually have to start contributing,

  28. What Will Happen? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    What Will Happen When Cascadia Subduction Zone Slips?

    On the West coast we'll all fuckin' die, that's what will happen.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  29. game over man, sell your property, move away! by smoothnorman · · Score: 2

    Seriously, we're all doomed here on the west-coast, run-away! sell your property, save yourselves! It's all just rain and drought here anyway - nothing to see here, move along. The midwest is where you you should go. All that nice safe open space. Leave us poor clueless left coasters to die. oh... and take all the telephone sanitizers with you.

    1. Re:game over man, sell your property, move away! by plopez · · Score: 1

      Open space, cheap housing, and abundant water. I interviewed for a job in Pittsburgh and the more I investigated the town the more I liked it. Given an offer I would've moved there. Besides the Monroeville mall is nearby.
        I hear Cleveland is making a comeback too.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  30. It will be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the hipster fail which is Seattle will be flushed out to sea.

  31. Re:Blame, Recriminations and new Taxes by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

    "How dare you sir." I'm certain my President Bush would site the movie 2012 as a valid reference, and with biblical quotes to support his supporters.

  32. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by dunkindave · · Score: 1

    I can't wait until this happens. CNN will spin off a whole channel for nonstop coverage.

    Los Angeles had a minor earthquake some years ago. I think it was like a 4.0 or so, a truck rumble at best. CNN kept running a black-and-white surveillance video of a grocery story where absolutely nothing moved in the background. Nothing falling, nothing breaking, nothing anything. But CNN made it sound like the BIG ONE already happened and California was sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

    I was in the San Francisco Bay Area for the World Series in 1989 during the earthquake that was about 7.0. While the shaking was scary, when you watched CNN, all you saw was a picture of one of the deck plates on the bay bridge that fell onto the one below, and some close up shots of some houses in San Francisco that had partially collapsed (they were build on fill in an area that used to be part of the bay so the ground liquefied). Based on what they showed and what they said, you would think that all of the major roads were impassable, the bridge itself had actually collapsed, and the area was like a war zone. The reality is I had to drive far out of my way to find any visible damage or effect beyond a few items that had fallen off shelves (and the baseball game being cancelled). What I saw on the news and what I saw out my hotel room window were two vastly different things.

    What sells news is scary stuff, so they look for things that look scary and then push that like there is no tomorrow, or if necessary, they invent the scary stuff for the same reasons.

  33. Wouldn't take that bet by jandrese · · Score: 2

    They are saying there is a 1 in 3 chance that California will experience an earthquake sometime in the next 50 years? Doesn't California suffer Earthquakes on a regular basis? I thought maybe they were talking about major quakes, but the summary immediately goes on to talk about the odds of a major quake.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Wouldn't take that bet by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The quake they're talking about will be to the north of California for the most part and won't have as much effect south of Cape Mendocino about 280 miles north of San Fransisco.

    2. Re:Wouldn't take that bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They mean specifically from a quake on the subduction zone, which only affects northernmost California. Most of the effect would be in Oregon, Washington, and southern British Columbia.

  34. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    How can an inner bread trailer dwelling meth addict be an arrogant asshole?

  35. Well there will be a boom by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    in construction jobs, funeral homes business and new jobs for those that have to replace the dead.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  36. Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Minnesota and will enjoy watching the left coast carnage on Fox News.

  37. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I was working with my father in San Francisco and Oakland, driving across the Bay Bridge twice before the 1989 earthquake. After we got home in San Jose and the earthquake hit, we turned on the TV. A bit scary watching the news as we passed through all the damaged areas prior to the earthquake.

  38. Re: Blame, Recriminations and new Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the aftershocks from a very large quake could set that off.

  39. Re:Nobody will notice or care, outside of the regi by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like no one noticed or cared when the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami hit or the 2001 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that destroyed the Fukushima nuclear plant hit. When the next Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits it will result in thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damage that will take years to recover from.

    And don't worry about anthropogenic global warming, you'll be hearing about it for the rest of your life because it's not going away.

  40. Re:Blame, Recriminations and new Taxes by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    Now that will be Bush's fault.

  41. Too early, too boring by tomhath · · Score: 1

    It's way too early in the election season to be turning every thread into a dung slinging festival. Especially since (as is obvious from this thread) the parrots don't have anything to say that hasn't been said a million times already.

  42. Net Present Value by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 2

    The net present value of annual payments of $531.36 over 58 years, at a discount rate of 3%, is $14,958.

    Meaning if you set aside $15,000 today in an account earning 3%, you'd have enough money to make those 58 annual payments of $531.36. Per your scenario, the actual cost of the tax increase is about $15,000 per household (consisting of more than one taxpayer on average)

    And if Dougherty's property tax millage rate is fully amortizing the bond, then those payments aren't for 58 years, but for the life of the bond, which is probably 30 years. In which case the NPV drops to $10,727 per household.

    Not sure where you're getting $369,826 per taxpayer from.

    1. Re:Net Present Value by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Probably because if Oregon is anything like Minnesota once a tax has been levied it is never gotten rid of. The tax for the old Metrodome was kept around even after it was paid off and used for something else. The building isn't even around anymore but that tax is.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Net Present Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schools in Oregon have to use the bond structure to even get things passed. Even if they could bypass the bond structure through some legal loophole, it would just make the tax even less likely to pass. It isn't worth the risk.

      With sports, the landscape is different, because you have millionaires relying on the passing of the tax, so the process is much more crony, and they can pay lawyers to look for creative legal tricks, and run a bunch of TV ads. A school union just isn't going to be able to do the same stuff, and they have to follow the rules, and the bond is very transparent in the voter pamphlet. All they have is talking about what good it would do.

  43. Re:Yet another hoax. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand your attitude. Was the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake a hoax? How about the 2011 earthquake off Japan? It is well known that the last major earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was January 26, 1700 at about 9:00 PM, 300 years ago. To expect it won't happen again is foolishness.

  44. Take home real life messages by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    1. Keep a container of water and a whistle in each room. You can survive a month without food, but only 2-3 days without water.

    2. There is not enough airlift to rescue even 1/20th of the injured. Only children in schools will be rescued. If you are in a Deep Bertha Tunnel, you will die there as the power goes out and the fans and pumps stop working.

    3. Don't worry about Tsunami risk if you live in the Puget Sound, south of Everett. Unless you live within a block of the ocean. If so, get on the roof.

    4. Half of all buildings and bridges will collapse in anything over an 8.0. Nothing we can do about that. You're safer in buildings built since the 90s.

    5. Don't you wish you had a solar panel now? That will keep working, even in cloud cover. Enough for a fridge and microwave.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Take home real life messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bertha is never going to finish.

    2. Re:Take home real life messages by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      5. Don't you wish you had a solar panel now? That will keep working, even in cloud cover. Enough for a fridge and microwave.

      FWIW, grid tie solar is typically designed in a way that it doesn't work during local outages (with the intent of preventing your solar energy from backfeeding into the grid and potentially killing or injuring line workers). That's not to say that it MUST be designed in such a manner (transfer switches can solve the problem) but that it typically is.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    3. Re:Take home real life messages by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if the power is out for a few months, anyone who installed their own panels will quickly convert it to power existing in-home systems, disconnecting from the grid.

      My dad installed his own and is off grid. It's not that hard.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Take home real life messages by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Most of the grid-tie inverters I have seen do not support a stand alone operating mode; they *must* be connected to the grid to operate. The exceptions are the ones which also support batteries for independent operation when the grid power fails.

  45. "A Slight Miscalculation" - Ben Bova by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the 1971 Ben Bova short story A Slight Miscalculation", where a scientist creates a theory to predict earthquakes. He only makes a slight miscalculation...

  46. Re:Meh... or Fusion comparisons by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    It's "the next 30 years" as in "economical Fusion power will happen in 30 years /is 30 years away."

    Actually, the University of Washington is making real fusion reactors.

    Keep up.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  47. We're Saved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the land is rising at 4mm per year, that should easily cancel out the sea level rise from Global Warming--oops Climate Change. Problem solved! Unless we all freeze to death from the Sun going dormant in 2030.

    1. Re:We're Saved! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      When the quake lets go all that land will drop several feet giving back all of the rise that's built up since the last quake on January 26, 1700.

    2. Re:We're Saved! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Seeing as you appear to be confused by the terminology, so much that you think misusing it is some sort of sleight or attack on its veracity, let me help you:

      1. Global warming = The increase in energy in the Earth's atmosphere
      2. Climate change = the changes in climate due to #1

      Easy, right? Now you can use these terms without sounding like a scientifically-illiterate fucktard.

  48. Natural Disasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every area has its potential natural disasters, The west coast has earthquakes/volcanoes, the East coast has some earthquake risks and significant hurricane risks, the center of the country has a super volcano and significant tornado risks and areas in the northeast have significant snowstorms. Every area should prepare for the risks associated with their region, and within those regions people/communities living in especially high risk areas (flood plains, mud slide areas, avalanche areas, pyroclastic flow ares, etc) need to either accept that risk and not expect significant outside assistance or get out of them.

  49. Re:Meh... or Fusion comparisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Farnsworth fusors don't count.

  50. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CNN will spin off a whole channel for nonstop coverage.

    I'd love to see CNN's logo files. You know they have that shit in the chamber and they just pull the trigger when it's time. It's just like celebrity obit files.

  51. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the coasts of the USA (West and East) are arrogant assholes anyway

    Translation: "Someone from California was rude to me once, and I'm still fuming about it".

  52. This isn't new information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...It's just popular because it's told in the form of an action movie.

    This just in. On a long enough timeline everyone will be killed by

  53. Re:Blame, Recriminations and new Taxes by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    ... quakes,... the effects of them aren't long lasting.

    Tell that to the residents of Atlantis.

  54. Trump by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    It will be Hillary's fault. Sadly, she will be the next president. Bush will get the nomination. Trump will throw a fit, saying it isn't fair, he was robbed. He will form a 3rd party and run as an independent. This will pull a substantial number of Republican votes from Bush (Ross Perot all over again) This will allow Hillary to win. Anyone that thinks Trump is a Republican, is drinking or smoking some weird stuff! Trump has supported Hillary a lot, and funneled money to her NY State campaign, plus they are good friends. Trump wants to continue to be on tv, radio, newspapers, plus, he would have to put all his holdings and the like in a blind trust. You think he is going to give up the limelight and the money, by becoming president? He's in this to make sure Bush gets the nod, then do the Ross Perot thing to ensure a Hillary victory.

    1. Re:Trump by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      This idea was very popular during the last election.

    2. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This will pull a substantial number of Republican votes from Bush (Ross Perot all over again)

      Seriously? Is there really a substantial number of Republicans that would vote for Trump? I guess it is the Party of Stupid after all.

  55. Who's been watching... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    All those 1970's disaster movies again? "The Towering Inferno", "Airport", "Airplane", "Godzilla", "The China Syndrome" and "Earthquake" must have just shown up on Netflix or something...

    They are NOT documentaries, they are theatrical productions people!

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  56. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With any luck yellowstone will let go and with the sides pushing in It'll turn the middle into a giant lava lake :-)

    (not to hot on geography, not going to google it, I'd like to keep it as a nice mind picture as I watch the news and think "If only" )

  57. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like what the midwest contributes, then you could just live without it.

    Good luck growing enough crops to feed yourselves, coasties. And, BTW, this is why we keep our guns. Don't bother crawling back, we don't want you.

  58. Re:Yet another hoax. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    I don't understand your attitude. ... It is well known that the last major earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was January 26, 1700 at about 9:00 PM, 300 years ago. To expect it won't happen again is foolishness.

    Are you using the word "foolishness" in relation to politicians or scientists - 'cause one is to be expected and one is not.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  59. URBAN RENEWAL by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    The old line about "beachfront property" in Arizona will come true! Buy some property NOW on the west side of Arizona.

    1. Re:URBAN RENEWAL by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      Some say the end is near.
      Some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
      I certainly hope we will.
      I sure could use a vacation from this
      Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
      Freaks

      Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.
      --Aenima

  60. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 1

    Allow me to introduce you to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
  61. Re:Yet another hoax. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    I was using it in relation to the AC I replied to any anyone else who thinks a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake is a hoax.

  62. Re:Nobody will notice or care, outside of the regi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll be the terrestrial equivalent of the moon exploding in Neal Stephenson's latest novel....just the beginning of a bunch of bad stuff that humanity will have to deal with.

  63. Re:Cannot happen soon enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it translates as "I'm a basement-dwelling troll in the inland part of the country who resents that the coasts have a lot going on and I have neither the professional or social skills to succeed in that environment."

  64. Beach Front Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AWESOME. So my home in Las Vegas will suddenly become 'beach front property'! That's cool. :-)

    No obviously 'not cool' for the 100's of millions of people that will be affected. But really, we've been 'talking' about such an event for ages & each dire prediction always comes with 'people are woefully unprepared'...but here's the thing, what exactly does anyone think 'people' will be able to do to prepare for this eventuality short of having 'survival gear' to hopefully help them make it through until a rescue comes? Sure there may be some architectual changes that could help limit the amount of damage but when large parts of California are predicted to become an 'island off the new coast' which means that other very large parts will be under water what exactly does anyone think people are going to be able to do to stop that from happening? And what exactly in terms of 'emergency measures' would have to be in place to save many 10's of millions of people in 'real time' from dying. There simply aren't enough planes, trains, boats, helicopters & automobiles much less 'trained people' to take on this task.

    Sure, go ahead & plan as much as possible for 'rescure missions' but any such plan must recognize that 'many 10s of millions of people' will die. That will be tragic but short of moving everyone out of California & Vancouver/BC what more can be done? Perhaps someone can come up with a better model to the point tha maybe, just maybe they'll be able to 'predict' the earthquake with a high degree of accuracy but when someone gives 'odds' of '1 in 3 in the next 50 years' that's not something anyone can plan with.

  65. Re:Meh... or Fusion comparisons by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

    I did say "economical" for a reason. :)

  66. Re:Meh... or Fusion comparisons by lgw · · Score: 1

    Actually, the University of Washington is making real fusion reactors.

    You can make a working fusion reactor in your kitchen. I think there's even a kit you can buy online these days. Economical fusion power is the interesting thing - heck, even a sustainable net-positive-power reactor would be a huge step.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  67. Re:Blame, Recriminations and new Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're talking about a region with very complex infrastructure. When the fault slips it will be impressive. Much of the built environment in populated regions nearby would fall over because they're not designed to withstand even a fraction of an earthquake that size. We are talking bridges, high-rises, houses... I think this article paints a rosy picture of the results and the only saving grace is that none of the major population centers are particularly close to the fault itself or exposed to the ocean where they're at risk of a tsunami.

    We're talking an international disaster area of epic proportions. I wouldn't be surprised if tens of thousands died on top of those lost in the quake and tsunami itself due to difficulty in getting supplies to them with so much transportation infrastructure destroyed.

  68. Back more on topic... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    Well, if this thing *does* happen, I'd like to know approx where along the coast the new beachfront property will be so I can start investing now.

    ;)

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  69. Re:Yet another hoax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask Neal Adams. He thinks subduction itself is a hoax.

  70. Hopefully, many Portland hipsters will die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The gene pool needs cleaning.

    If Ebola doesn't come through, this or the Yellowstone volcano could be the best hope.

  71. High on Meth. Can't Follow Instructions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video from the Victimless Crimes Unit. Can you mod this "Funny and Die" ?
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/15/ricardo-diaz-zeferino-video-of-shooting-by-los-angeles-police-made-public
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/judge-releases-video-of-cops-killing-suspect-despite-pd-objections/

  72. Bill Cosby Loves You. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just ask Whoopie.

  73. BBHMM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quacks don't like accountants.

  74. Re:Nobody will notice or care, outside of the regi by surd1618 · · Score: 1
    This is according to an expert on earthquakes:

    About 10% of great earthquakes trigger a volcanic eruption, and most eruptions are fairly minor, so the volcano risk is small compared to the earthquake risk.

    I live in Olympia, and I like to say that when the big one hits, Mt. Ranier is going to blow, and as the black lightning-filled clouds tower over us in the east, all of the metal bands in town will climb onto the roofs of all of the buildings with all of their equipment and it will be the most Metal day ever. But it looks like experts believe otherwise. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/...

  75. Re:Nobody will notice or care, outside of the regi by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    The Cascadia Fault has no relationship whatsoever to Yellowstone. A Yellowstone eruption is pretty unlikely as it is, but in any case the rupture in Cascadia would not change that.