I live in Northern California, virtually on top of the San Andreas fault, and I have some friends that live in Southern California. We know that the big one is coming, and it will hit somewhere in California within the next 20 years or so. But we don’t think about it since if you were to worry about such things you would never be able to sleep at night. I’ve lived here my entire life, but I plan to move out of state in about 10 years, when I retire, to someplace cheaper… but the weather won’t be nearly as nice.
So for all you non-Californians out there, do you think we are crazy to live here knowing that a massive quake could happen at any time? Have you ever been tempted to move to California but decided not to because of the risk of earthquakes?
BTW, I have lived through many earthquakes in my life, including the 1989 Loma Prieta Quake that tossed most of my belongings onto the floor of my condo. I am MUCH MORE afraid of being caught in a Hurricane, Tornado, or Ice Storm… all of which never happen here in California.
I moved here from the east bay about 12 years ago. If I won the lottery, I wouldn’t want to move back until we hear from the San Andreas and Hayward faults. They’re both overdue, and kick out 9 and 8 point earth earthquakes, respectively; if both of them cut loose, a great many buildings in the Bay Area are coming down…
As was illustrated in those “Should we abandon New Orleans?” threads, pretty much everywhere inhabited is vulnerable to earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, blizzards, or whatever other Acts that God feels like tossing down. Then add nuclear plants, crime rates, and other human problems. There ain’t no utopia on the planet.
If you distill it down enough, I think it comes down to the question “is life without risk worth living?”
I live in a place famous for its town-leveling earthquakes and fires, plus there’s those pesky tsunamis that might come from the ocean a few blocks down the hill. I could move, but, well, I don’t want to. I like where I live, and if 10.5 becomes reality, well, I’d look forward to turning the disaster into a renaissance.
I can see the San Andreas fault from my kitchen window. Earthquakes don’t bother me a bit. I’ve lived through every major quake in Southern California in the last 50 years. You prepare, you live your live, you pick up the pieces and go on. No big whoop.
Silenus and Troy both epitomize a typical Californian’s attitude towards earthquakes. They know they are going to happen, but don’t really worry about it since they expect to survive and rebuild… assuming that rebuilding is even necessary.
For example, as large as the Loma Prieta quake was, except if you lived in the Marina district of SF you probably didn’t have much or any damage to your house. And few people died as a direct result of the quake itself.
What do others that don’t live in California think?
That was the attitude of New Orleans residents about the hurricane season, too. A 9.x or a 10.x would be a massive multiple of anything you’ll have experienced in the past.
Hope for the best, expect the worst. And watch the videos of Banda Acheh that report the 30 minutes between the 9.2 and the tsunami.
I live in Chico, you should move here, it’s much safer. The Bay Area is nice, but I hope you have lots of water stored up. When the Hayward fault goes, all you guys will be without water for quite some time. That’s what I’d do if I still lived there. (Hey, say hi to the Cupertino library next time you’re in; I used to work there. That’s what I miss most about the Bay–decent libraries. Oh, and Indian food.)
I live in Florida. Eight hurricanes in two years. My hometown got smashed by Katrina.
You think I’m going to criticize you?
I do have a question. Here in hurricane central you can choose a wise location to live, one that will cause you to be safe from some of the hazards and minimize others.
I’ve always wondered, can you do that in earthquake central? Can you, for instance, build your home on a certain type of geological formation that’s more resistant than plain old dirt?
No. Never. I’ve been to California three times, of which I can remember two. If I’ve been a good person all my life maybe the fate of living in California won’t befall me.
And before you get up in arms about that, think about it. People who live in an area should like it. Much better to have only people who like an area living in it than people who don’t like it living in it. And though I’ve visited California (northern and southern) my reaction was “nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live here”.
Hey, I live on a fault, too. Only most people around here don’t know it. We also get hurricanes. It would never occur to me not to live here because of these things; a tornado is much more frightening to me. There’s some sort of hazard anywhere you want to live.
I think you’re crazy to live in California because of the property values.
Since the odds are far greater that I’ll get hit by a car or shot by a humiliated former student, I don’t sweat The Big One. I have supplies stashed, an escape plan, adequate water, etc. and lots of camping experience. Worrying about a 10.5 earthquake is about as productive as worrying about an asteroid strike, or the Rick Santorum Presidency. :eek:
Yes, lalaith, there are certain areas of Northern California that are rated much better or much worse with regard to damage expected in a major quake. There are detailed earthquake maps that rate your specific neighborhood.
Where I live now is rated medium to high (presumably because of my proximity to the fault) depending on which map you look at. I used to live on bay fill that was prone to liquefaction, which means that my house could sink into the sandy, water filled ground below me. Scary.
Of course there are building techniques that are supposed to mitigate at least some of the risk. I had a house once where the foundation was tied into bedrock so it wasn’t going to shake into pieces no matter what… but there are no guarantees. It all depends on where the slippage is and how much it slips.
BTW, earthquake insurance is expensive and there is usually a $25,000 deductible.
Yes. During Loma Prieta I lived on a hill apparently made of solid rock (North Beach not far from Coit Tower) and when I got home not a single item had fallen from a shelf or even been tipped over. Where I live now is also on solid rock, and the house is strapped and bolted and whatever to the foundation.
On the other hand, I’m planning on selling up and leaving about a week before that big one that’s coming…
I hear this a lot, and it always seems to me to miss the concept of scale entirely. Tornadoes are small, destructive to property but relatively non-life-threatening, and are vanishingly rare outside of severe storms, so if you’re bothered about the small statistical chance of getting hit by one, you can always go to the basement during storms. The largest fatality rate I can remember from a tornado not spawned from a hurricane is maybe 40 people, the average fatality rate from tornadoes has to be some tiny fraction of an individual. I grew up in an area where they were common, and have never seen one, nor had one come closer than 15 miles or so. There’s also warning systems in place throughout the midwest.
On the other hand, an Earthquake, though rarer, has the potential to kill thousands, and if a 9.x or greater one happens, potentially millions. And while the tornado-state residents have their warning systems, too – they’re ignoring them. A single large earthquake has the potential to kill more people than all the tornados in US history.
Now, all that having been said, I think the OP overstated the certainty of “the Big One” being in the next 20 years. I’ve heard estimates ranging from “next 10” to “next 1000” - a sure indication that we just don’t know. I don’t live in California, but I’m in a milder Earthquake zone (near-coastal Oregon). I wouldn’t live in a large California city because I deem the risk to be unacceptable. But – and here’s the important part – I have NO REAL EVIDENCE and NO DATA to support my assessment of the risk, so for all I know I would just be being paranoid.
The claim, however, that the natural disaster fatality risk is equal (or even near-equal) everywhere seems highly suspicious. Consider that Hurricanes, Tsunami’s, Landslides, and even most earthquakes all take place most often near coasts, for example. I’d be very surprised if simply moving inland doesn’t reduce the risk of natural disaster death to 20% or so. Anyone know for sure?
Your chances of being in a massive earthquake are way higher than being whacked by an asteroid - because you live on the San Andreas fault. OK, a 10.5 is unlikely, but please remember - as I’m sure you already know - even an 8.5 is ten times greater than a 7.5. This is not a linear scale. Since I don’t know who Rick Santorum is, I’ll let the comment slide.
Planning for the possible /= expecting the worst. Having some Alka-Seltzer in the cabinet in case you eat a dodgy kebab is common sense. Writing out your will before having some curry isn’t.
My deal with the Almighty is that, in exchange for 300+ sunny days a year, the most beautiful women in the world, every entertainment activity imaginable within 3 hours, great food, and wearing shorts at Christmas, I have to put up with a few earthquakes and a State Government that can’t find it’s ass with both hands. Seems like a reasonable trade to me!
We have some of the strictest building codes in the world. Earthquakes that would level towns elsewhere do relatively minor damage and cost few lives. We have been drilled since we were children about what to do, we all have earthquake kits, and our cities have done everything possible to prepare- including building water resevoirs and comprehensive emergency plans.
Compare that to the rest of America. 75% of Utah’s population lives near the Wasatch Fault, which has a known history if 7.0+ earthquakes. There is a 7%-10% of an 8.0+ (and a 90% chance of a 6.0+) event in the next fifty years in the Mississipi valley. Because of geology of the area, such an earthquake would cause damage across the eastern US. There are faults throughout the densely populated east and less notorious parts of the west coast (Seattle is at great risk.) Most buildings in these places do not comform to the strictest building codes. In the east, the prevelence of older non-retrofitted buildings actually boosts Bostons “earthquake risk” facor above San Franciscos.
And in those areas, a greater percentage of that damage would be lives, not property. We are Japan. The rest of you guys are Turkey. If there is going to be an earthquake, I know where I’d rather be.
I actually thought the thread would be about the high cost of living in California. No, earthquakes would not deter me from moving to California. I’ve been in a minor earthquake, Hurricane Andrew, and countless blizzards. While Dallas doesn’t get too many disasters outside of tornadoes, I never really considered natural disasters in moving here.
The only place I’d probably think about moving to because of natural disasters would be a place like Key West. Seems like there is one hurricane a year which threatens the Keys and the one way in, one way out evacuation would probably get very annoying very fast.
It’s all well and good that CA has such stringent building codes, like Japan’s. OTOH, they only work if they’re followed by honest contractors and enforced by honest, competent inspectors. Speaking of Japan, there’s a huge construction scandal going on concerning a dishonest inspector accepting bribes…
