Dire SF Earthquake Prediction (David?)
 

Okay, my mom said that they say (scientists) if there's a huge earthquake for SF, the bulk of the financial district could be under 12 feet of glass. Twelve feet!

But then, I don't think that's what happened in the 89 quake. So was it just not big enough? Or were these scientists full of snit?

So i'm thinking - yipes.

Here's my unscientific conclusion... just get the hell out of northern California! That earthquake business would scare the crapola out of me!

I guess there's a lot of glass in the financial district.
It's interesting to read up on the building codes & how they've been revised over the decades. After all, modeling is only modeling. In general, the bigger the quake, the longer the duration of shaking. That's what brings down structures built or refitted to code. The deadliest damage in the 1989 quake occurred on the Nimitz Freeway: the part that collapsed was built on San Francisco Bay mud rather than rock. Mud & softer alluvial soil jiggle like Jell-O in an earthquake, amplifying the intensity of the shaking.

The Loma Prieta quake was a moment magnitude 6.9; the shaking lasted about 15 seconds. Imagine a much larger quake -- say, an M7.8, about the size of the 1906 quake. Shaking lasted about a full minute in San Francisco. Buildings that can withstand 15 seconds might not be able to withstand shaking that lasts for a full minute or more.

Luckily, quakes larger than that are extremely unlikely on any portion of the San Andreas fault zone. There just isn't enough locked fault to unzip.
Southern CA is overdue, too. The best you can do is to learn what kind of soil or rock your residence or your workplace is built on. Site response is the name of the game these days. I live on a 1,000-foot mountain or hillside, made of solid rock. When a quake hits nearby, all I feel usually is a single wrenching jolt, followed by stillness.

Known as "liquifaction".

Okay, the other night I was watching "Birth of a City" about SF - and I thought I heard them say something like: "And so they filled in ....[something something] and the financial district was born!"
:shocked:

Being born and raised in SF, they have been giving dire earthquake predictions since 1979. Nothing new and it sells papers and books. I mean come on, of course it's a safe prediction especially considering the serious fault lines running up and down California.

I survived Loma Prieta as well as countless others, far more survived than did not. Besides everyone knows that anything built on sand is a disaster and tradgedy waiting to happen (bye, bye pretentious Marina district). Multi-million dollar homes on sand land fill. Clever.

It's going to take at least a 7.5 8.0 to really bring down modern SF. Once I was on the Muni underground during one. That was weird. Nice to see everyone remained calm and exited above ground without panic. Course, a 5.0 or 6.0 isn't going to jar too many natives anyway. Leave that to the tourists.

:) Thanks, that calmed me down...:p
I hope the Hayward fault doesn't go, because that one is essentially right next to my house....It hasn't gone since 1856 or something...:shocked:

- I know, the Marina! Bwah! I shouldn't giggle a little, but I am....

That's actually what I am thinking about most of the time. It won't be convenient to move for a few years, though...But I'm pretty scared, too. I'm glad I don't drive over the bridges hardly ever, b/c that is the scariest place to me. The bay bridge collapsed last time.

Oh sweet Amber. The odds of being on a bridge during a earthquake are so remote. I mean really remote. It's not worth stressing about it. Your chances of getting in a car accident on a bridge are much, much higher.

And if you do happen to be on a bridge during a big quake, for smart's sake, don't turn your car around and drive back in a panic like those fools did. Get to treasure island instead...that part of the bridge (on either side) is a more stable part of the bridge. Keep cool and keep your head about you.

But again, chances are it will never happen to you. Never.

Carry on.

Was it the bay bridge that collapsed in '89? Is that the double decker bridge?

God love California, but that's why I live here in flyover land Minnesota. At least all we have to worry about here is tornadoes.:rolleyes:

All we have to worry about? They scare the **** out of me. I hunker down every time we have watches issued. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Mother nature is everywhere. Seems to me devastating tornadoes are far more frequent than a big quake. You can have it. I'll take a quake anyday.

Besides, I rather like a good jolt. It's very exciting...something that won't hurt anyone...like a 5.0 or 6.0.

Yes, exactly. It's the most driven here, too. I also am scared that I will be on BART which is the transit line that goes under the water to SF...nothing happened to it last time, but the thought of being trapped under water during an earthquake scares the mip out of me.

There's also a giant portion of California that is awesome and not in much danger from earthquakes. I grew up in those places....*sighs nostalgically*...

Haven't you said before that your mom is alarmist and sort of paranoid? That said, this kind of catastrophe is always "possible" but you just can't live in fear. If we had an earthquake and I was in the Logan tunnel to the airport, or the Central Artery tunnel through Boston I'd be toast. I think about it sometimes when in there but its like flying in a plane. If it crashes there isn't a thing you can do about it so why waste time worrying?

I can't help worrying. Plus, you are supposed to have all this preparedness stuff. I gotta know what to do...
She's an alarmist, but she doesn't make the stuff up, she just learns more about it and talks about it more than normal people. :laugh: So she's not lying or anything...

id rather live in cali too...earthquakes do scare me thought...the not knowing if it will stop or not :shrug:

Of course she's not lying. Check this out http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...hive/ready.dtl I really hope that it never happens but I know what you mean about preparing. Stupid natural disasters.

Oh...honey! I'm right here and it will stop, they always do.

Course since Amber has been trying to alarm herself to no end...think about this one: getting a nice shaker while making love. Now that's exciting and of course probably would never happen. Again...the odds, the odds.

I think the chances of getting a STD are far greater than getting caught in a quake with your pants down.

oh i once had a train in my backyard when i lived in orange...so cool when the metro would approach, and the ground would begin to shudder...the horns would blast...it got to where we could time our climax right when it would runusover...lovely times...i get a bit hot whenever im near trains now...yeps.

That is...well, hot.

Now think of this scenario: Making love...a quake...continue making love and then watch the evening news telling you about the earthquake you never felt. Yeah...it was that good.

one would then hope for a 9.0 :xoxo:

:p Thanks. I actually think I printed that out before....

That's my guess...

most of them are.

This scare isn't enough to move me out of the greatest city in the country. There are problems everywhere: floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, disgustingly humid weather, boring people, etc.

Live where you want to live and see what happens.

Rude mo fos who will stare at you but never say hi. I'm having "gets along well with others" issues today. :laugh:

I just read that AFA's in SF have the lowest school scores of any AFA's of every urban area in the whole state of California. I read that in an article about how the schools in SF are naturally resegregating....
Nothing to do with earthquakes, I just thought it was interesting...

I didnt know the BART went under the water like that. DUMMY ME. The only thing I've evern been on like that is the Chunnell from England to France. That's about 30 miles thru the tunnell under the English channel.

Damn those pesky scientists! All those theories and testing and stuff. Just stick to faith and the bible and we'll all be fine....


On another subject- I've lived in Southern California my whole life and I would much rather have to go through a thirty second earthquake every ten years or so than have to deal with tornados and hurricanes every year.

It's quite a marvel!

Here's some cool reading:

BART Transbay Tube History

I'm having a big brain fart; what is AFA?

If I had kids, it would be a different story. I'm not sure I would raise them in SF.

I would raise my kids in SF 100%. SF is a great city. I would never want my kids raised in a barnyard, out of touch with the reality. SF is a very safe urban city for the most part and culturally diverse. The Sunset district is about as suburban as suburban gets. Which I would avoid.

Although, I would most likely send my kids to a private school in SF proper as opposed to public.

That was very interesting. Thank you for sharing that article!:thumbsup:

African American. The article was about how though they made desegretation laws (not over a certain percent of students can be a certain ethnic group), the schools are naturally segregating...

I would raise my kids around Berkeley for sure, or the Oakland hills, but not so much SF. I don't want to live in SF anyway, not naturey and bikey enough....

And slightly pricey from what I've heard.....:rolleyes: :nod:

Worth every dime.

Amber--thanks, I don't believe I've ever seen AFA as an acronym for African Americans.

Oh I'm sure it is. I loved it there the couple times I've been. I remember I stayed at this Days Inn near the theater district. got a pretty good deal too. Like 4 nights for just over 400

typing of private...you win...i now know the feeling of neglect...clear your PMs! :xoxo:

Actually, while rent/housing is ridiculously high here, I find nearly everything else to be pretty cheap. I don't own a car and there is plenty of cheap entertainment and a zillion affordable restaurants with excellent, diverse food.