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.
That's really nice of you to wish death and destruction on millions of people because you see them as "arrogant".
... the quake will show how stunningly unprepared that region will be for the ensuing catastrophe.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.