Komag on 17/4/2006 at 22:24
(
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/news_in_brief/earthquake_study_060409.shtml)
They estimate that as many as 5800 deaths could occur if there was another quake as huge as the massive 7.9 "worst case scenario" quake that happened back in 1906 (100 year anniversary the other day).
So my question is, what happened to MILLIONS dead??? All my life I've been hearing that there will be a huge quake and the west coast will fall off into the ocean and millions of people will die. But only 5800?
Don't get me wrong, that's a lot of people and a terrible loss, very sad, etc, but get real. I mean, 40,000 people die every year in car accidents in the US ((
http://www.atsnn.com/story/116918.html)), and the biggest armageddon "God hate California" quake is only going to off 5800 people? What gives?
SD on 17/4/2006 at 22:29
Haha it's quite funny actually; in California, they pretty much factor earthquakes into the equation when they're building stuff so they don't collapse like a World Trade Centre tower when their integrity is compromised.
Well, if there are no more stupid questions... THREAD HIJACK TIME!!
Inline Image:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/DannyClein/Random/juniorkomagsmall.jpgwith apologies to omega
Komag on 17/4/2006 at 22:33
Haha that's great! {saves pic...}
Dario on 17/4/2006 at 23:04
[back on-topic]
...I dont get the pic. :wot:
I've been waiting for years. The ground shakes very, very often here, and there are periods of time that it shakes about once a day, for long periods of time. (it's quiet at the moment)
I figure that if there was a sudden, massive quake, most of the deaths would come from junk flying off walls, and heavy things falling over. There are just LOTS of houses in California, but the real question that is left unanswered is, "Will it be strong enough to flatten buildings as well?"
It would be a nightmare if that were the case, but I think we can rest assured, by those numbers at least, that only the "old" buildings will collapse (or the numbers would be nearing the hundreds of thousands). The only advantage I could think of is that this would purge away some older buildings, and allow rebuilding of newer ones, but that's just being 'very' optomistic in the face of disaster...
- It can be a fearful thing at times, here, when the ground suddenly jolts extra violently, and you wonder if it'll tip the dominoes, and start the reaction... but as of yet, nothing has happened, so we stupidly try to ignore the fact that one of these days it could happen.
Martin Karne on 17/4/2006 at 23:11
Unless a +9.5 richter hits, then since this fault line is practically in the surface the damage would be catastrophic.
Don't walk, jump away on a pogo stick.
(
http://www.pogosticks.com/) http://www.pogosticks.com/
jstnomega on 17/4/2006 at 23:29
1974 I was working on the 23rd floor of the Bank of America Bldg, 555 California Street, downtown San Fran. (Think Towering Inferno here, filmed on location in that same bldg.) Anyway, one day at around 05:00 PM, I'm sitting in the red light traffic at Pine & California when the nice man on NPR came on to announce that when the BIG ONE finally hits, the broken glass at that intersection would be ten feet deep.
I never drove home to Pacifica that way ever again.
Ko0K on 17/4/2006 at 23:49
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Haha it's quite funny actually; in California, they pretty much factor earthquakes into the equation when they're building stuff so they don't collapse like a World Trade Centre tower when their integrity is compromised.
There are a lot of things factored into the California building code, but the focus is on minimizing deaths and injuries, as opposed to total structural competence, as you said. Anyway, I would hazard a guess that they released those figures, as opposed to saying a "moderate" or "severe" potential for damages and deaths, simply because politicians needed something tangible to work with, unfortunately. As for the estimated time frame, it's most likely based on slip rates of nearby faults and average periods between quakes generated by those faults, which still need a lot of accumulated data before anything remotely close to being conclusive can be obtained. Squeeze a non-homogeneous material (say, an egg) with a vise, and try to guess where the cracks will form and in what pattern. Trying to understand earthquake behaviors is no less complicated than that.
Enchantermon on 18/4/2006 at 00:07
Quote Posted by Komag
(100 year anniversary the other day).
Actually, the anniversary is tomorrow.
tungsten on 18/4/2006 at 01:41
Forget the Richter-scale if you want to estimate damage. Richter describes the magnitude of the quake. How much it really shakes (or how destructive it is) depends an much more (location, depth, composition of the ground you're standing on, duration, etc..). For damage estimation you'll need an intensity-scale, e.g. the Japanese intensity scale (1-7).
The Japanese also "have to do" those estimations which are bullshit. But if you use the same type of calculation several times, you get a relative measure for your safety. When you introduce new safety regulations for buildings, or subways or ... you can estimate the change.
And 5800 dead from a quake is a disaster in a prepared area. People survive, but everything else has to be remade. Your house might not collapse, but it's not safe to stay etc..
