Hacker News Reader

I remember the 1989 Loma Prieta quake in California. It was not chaotic. The TV news was still on, emergency services were doing their jobs, the tap water never stopped working, the power was back on the next morning, and there was not much if any of looting or similar crimes. Fewer than 100 people died, in an area with a population of more than 6 million people at the time.

It's also worth noting that a magnitude 8 earthquake in one part of California will have little effect in other parts. It's a pretty big place. LA could be totally destroyed and we would barely feel it here in San Jose.

I don't take your prediction of "complete chaos" very seriously.

To be fair, Loma Prieta was only a 6.9 on the Richter scale. A magnitude 8.0 quake would be > 10x stronger, slightly bigger than the 1906 SF earthquake.

I think you're right that the effect on California would be pretty ho-hum, though. California prepares for earthquakes; most of the building codes are designed for > magnitude 8 quakes, major companies headquartered here have earthquake drills to maintain continuity of business, schools teach kids what to do in an earthquake, and I'd bet that first responders and hospitals all drill for what to do. The electricity & Internet would likely go down, because PG&E and Comcast seemingly can't keep them running even in the absence of natural disasters. And transportation would be a problem - even the mudslides last winter managed to take out all the roads over the mountain and large sections of highway 1. But I don't think you'd see large-scale chaos or civil disorder, at least in Northern California.

No idea whether you'd see the same in SoCal; aside from them expecting a larger quake, sooner, than the Bay Area, they haven't had one since before urbanization. I suspect their building codes are the same, though, so unless it's Santa Ana wind season they'll probably do okay.

s/Richter scale/moment magnitude scale/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale

  It was not chaotic

Really? Were you anywhere near the epicenter? My youngest sister lived barely a mile from it.

Highway 17, the main link between silicon valley and the coast, was closed for two months. The Bay Bridge was closed for a month. Over 40 buildings in downtown Santa Cruz demolished. 42 dead in the Cypress Structure alone (and my oldest sister just missed being #43)... which was two counties away from the epicenter.

The shaking was worse in Oakland and SF than it was in places closer to the epicenter, like San Jose.

San Jose wasn't close to the epicenter (Nisene Marks), either.

There's an entire coastal mountain range between the epicenter and San Jose, even.

You write: "Every time there is a hurricane, it seems that it catches everyone unaware .. most people don't have any contingency plan or emergency supplies."

I don't think it's quite that pessimistic. I was raised in FL, and know that many people do prepare. To give some concrete numbers:

"An AAA survey released Monday -- the first day of the 2015 Atlantic hurricane season -- finds that 42 percent of Florida and Georgia residents do not make advanced preparations for tropical weather." - https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/aaa-survey-42-dont-prepa...

"AAA released a survey on Thursday finding 81 percent of Floridians are already making preparations for hurricanes, up from 58 percent in 2016." - http://spacecoastdaily.com/2018/06/aaa-report-most-floridian... .

Why the improvement? According to the last link: “Major hurricanes like Harvey and Irma seem to be making residents more aware of the dangers of hurricane season and the need to make advanced preparations,” Futch said.

That said, I haven't found the published survey results and I don't know what "preparations" means. I suspect many are underprepared. Then again, underprepared is different from "don't have any."

> Apart from a certain segment of the population with large gun caches and a year's worth of food stockpiled, most people don't have any contingency plan or emergency supplies.

I'd say that I'm part of the periphery of that community. I certainly don't have a year's worth of food on hand, but I do have enough supplies to make it make it a couple of weeks at home without worry, and a plan to make a short journey to another family member's home if the emergency were to last longer than that.

For every serious "prepper" out there that have supplies for months or years, I suspect that are dozens of us that could at least outlast the immediate emergency and could "self-extract" from a disaster area.

> When California gets hit by a big earthquake (Magnitude 8 level), I can guarantee it's going to be complete chaos, despite the fact that we know it's going to happen.

Based solely on my own observations, I think California would be fine. Their buildings are generally designed for that eventuality, and an earthquake there would be geographically isolated and the disruption would be fairly short.

What really scares me is the New Madrid. I can only imagine the chaos and destruction in places like St. Louis and Memphis should there be a repeat of the 1811/1812 earthquakes.

If it's just for 3 day, it's better to just get a little fasting experience and some water. A week without food is not that bad.

I wouldn't have a huge problem going a few days without food. It would suck, but honestly wouldn't impact my life in a negative way at this point.

My kids, however... even if there were no physical repercussions, the amount of distraction that them being hungry would create would effectively prevent my wife and I from getting anything done.

While it may seem tongue-in-cheek, I'm also serious. Keeping non-productive family members comfortable during a disaster is very important in that it allows the productive members to apply themselves to resolving the situation.

About a decade ago, my wife was breastfeeding our first daughter. She had also gotten ill with some sort of gastrointestinal bug, and her milk supply had all but stopped - during a major ice storm in north Arkansas, which took out our electricity for almost two weeks.

We didn't have an emergency fund at the time and had very little money in the bank. There was plenty of food and water at home, but we ended up driving a dangerous and nerve-wracking 50 or so miles over terrible roads, in an unreliable and unsuitable vehicle (a two-wheel-drive '98 Ford Ranger with nearly bald tires).

It all worked out well - I kept it on the road and we made it to a hotel near a hospital, my wife's illness cleared up, and we didn't even end up needing to see a doctor - but my point is that my dependents forced me into an action that otherwise would have been far too risky to take. Had it just been me, or even just my wife and I, we would have been content to drink our stored water, eat canned food cooked on a camp stove, and sleep on the floor in the living room in front of the gas fireplace. Adding a newborn to that equation changed things drastically.

Fair point. I'm not sure of the practicality of training young children to fast for long periods. I remember trying it for one day and we failed loudly, so 3 seems a strech. And i was 12, which is not so young anymore.

The parent describes a theoretical extreme, but it doesn't happen in reality. When have these things ever happened in wealthy countries? Has anyone ever starved to death during an emergency in modern times? Has there ever been "complete chaos"? I have complete confidence that my neighbors and I can govern ourselves adequately for three days, check on the indigent, and help anyone who needs it.

We can invest endlessly in more contingencies. Perhaps there is a level of emergency preparation that is worthwhile, but 'prepping' for complete chaos, etc. is a waste of time that could be put to much more beneficial uses.

People aren't going to die from 3 days without food, but it will be very uncomfortable. People have died in wealthy countries due to dehydration after natural disasters, it happened in Katrina. People were without fresh water for up to 5 days in that case.

As I said, you should expect to fend for yourself for 3 days. If you have no food or water or medical supplies ready, how do you expect to aid and assist people who need help?

My experiences from New Zealand have led me to believe that if there's a magnitude 8 earthquake under a major city, which is entirely possible, that unless you are seriously injured you will be expected to look after yourself for several days.

When have these things ever happened in wealthy countries?

Puerto Rico?

New Orleans?

I know unacceptable things happened in PR and NO, but did people die from starvation? Was there "complete chaos"?

Read about the situation in New Orleans, during and after Katrina (and especially during the evacuation).

Read about the debate over whether to attribute deaths to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico (the government officially claimed fewer than 100; independent estimates run into the thousands).

I know about those issues, but I don't know the answer to the question at hand:

> did people die from starvation? Was there "complete chaos"?

Unfortunately, I (and other readers) don't have time to verify everyone else's claims; that's why the burden is usually on the person making the claim.

Provide a definition of "complete chaos".