It seems that with each month I get more and more nervous about the big one... I live in the bay area, but go to school elsewhere, and now whenever I leave home I take things off the walls, off of shelves- sort of put all the valuable, irreplaceable things in "safe" places... but safety may just be an illusion. Oh well, I'm proud Californian and I'll take whatever my state throws at me!
What would the aftermath be after the Big One?
- Thread starter infinix
- Start date
If it happens before the next presidential elections I'm sure the teabaggers will blame it on Obama's socialism weakening the Andreas Fault line or some other such nonsense.
San Andreas does not cause tsunamis directly, if it caused one it would be indirect due to a landslide. Its a slip strike fault.
Its going to take 50 million years for cali to drift anywhere.
Must .. be.. accurate.. !!!
Cause peeps thought it was safe till fukashima. And don't forget, that received a double whammy.
Alright, I obviously didn't think this thing through. I understand that the fault line wouldn't cause parts of Cali to drift in any meaningful time frame that would effect anything.
I also understand that since the epic center of the quake would be in-land, there wouldn't actually be tidal wave hitting CA.
But what IF the Big One causes significant number of volcanoes on the west coast to also erupt? St. Helen comes to mind. Here's a full list.
I imagine the death toll, the environmental impact, and the economic impact would sink the US into another great depression for decades.
I also understand that since the epic center of the quake would be in-land, there wouldn't actually be tidal wave hitting CA.
But what IF the Big One causes significant number of volcanoes on the west coast to also erupt? St. Helen comes to mind. Here's a full list.
I imagine the death toll, the environmental impact, and the economic impact would sink the US into another great depression for decades.
I live about thirty miles north of San Onofre, and from what I understand, the sea wall and surrounding hill the plant sits on was rated to withstand 30-foot-tall tsunamis and the containment domes are built to withstand greater lateral acceleration (something like .67g, IIRC) than what is possible in a quake with the maximum magnitude the nearest fault five miles away is estimated to be capable of. So, it's not like they didn't take those factors into account when designing it. Which is not to say those design parameters can't be exceeded, because it's an estimate, but I feel pretty safe. Plus, it's supposed to be a much safer type of plant design than that at Fukashima.
I thought the off-shore geography under southern California precluded huge tsunamis absent an unbelievably large quake, also partially due to the San Andreas not being a subduction zone. The coast would be ruined. The Central Valley has no faults down the middle--it’s fill for miles and miles down. So it would still be growing food (THE major food producing area in the US and therefore the world), and get all the water instead of sending it to LA and Frisco. Unless the Pacific flooded in from Frisco/Sacramento and the entire Central Valley became a salt-water lake or huge bay.
On a lighter note, housing prices here in Fresno would likely soar. Or be literally “under water."
On a lighter note, housing prices here in Fresno would likely soar. Or be literally “under water."
A quake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone from Oregon to British Columbia could potentially cause a 45 foot tsunami in Crescent City (where the Japanese tsunami hit and killed one guy and sunk/damaged a bunch of boats) and a 10-12 foot one in Southern California. Plus, underwater landslides could cause a tsunami.
Map of tsunami inundation zones in a worst case scenario:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/...ami/Inundation_Maps/Pages/Statewide_Maps.aspx
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-maps-reveal-tsunami-california
The 5 biggest quakes have all been megathrust quakes. The most recent being the Japan Tohoku quake. Megathrust quakes are the ones that make tsunamis.
Which is why I said the San Andreas is not a subduction zone; I didn’t mention Cascadia--whose subduction zone feeds the volcanos up there. And “huge” tsunamis; “huge” is your mentioned 45 foot ones, not 10-12 foot ones. And I said Southern Cal, not Northern Cal. I was talking one thing; you were comparing that to another thing.
Or maybe I’m misinterpreting what appears to be a refutation of my statement.
I thought we were having a friendly discussion about an interesting subject. I wasn't trying to refute anything you said, or I would have said so.
I know you didn't mention the Cascadia Subduction Zone. I did. I just thought it was an interesting bit of information about potential tsunamis in Northern and Southern California from the article I linked to that you might be curious about as a fellow resident here. I guess I was wrong.
And 10-12 feet is plenty big. Check out the map, it could get a good ways inland on some of the low-lying coastal areas (like my house in Huntington Beach).
If it happened, I'd move to Otisburg
I thought we were having a friendly discussion about an interesting subject. I wasn't trying to refute anything you said, or I would have said so.
I know you didn't mention the Cascadia Subduction Zone. I did. I just thought it was an interesting bit of information about potential tsunamis in Northern and Southern California from the article I linked to that you might be curious about as a fellow resident here. I guess I was wrong.
And 10-12 feet is plenty big. Check out the map, it could get a good ways inland on some of the low-lying coastal areas (like my house in Huntington Beach).
You know, I think I’m getting overly defensive lately on this board. Not your fault. My apologies. Your info was interesting. Do you think a large enough Northern Cal tsunami could result in overflowing of the Sacramento levees and at least partially flood the Central Valley? I thought the canyons off the coast “protected” Southern Cal from big waves, though not huge waves.
Huntington Beach is a nice area. I can’t afford to buy there, but I liked visiting my cousin who lives around there.
No worries, just a misunderstanding.
The worst case scenario maps I linked to above showed that the furthest east a potential wave would probably get is around Benicia or Port Chicago to the northeast of Oakland, so I think the Sacramento levees and the Central Valley are okay.
Yeah, I like it, but you're right that it's really expensive. The weather is great most of the year, though, so it's worth it.