Hacker News Reader

Comment by cultus | Hacker News Reader

This article is misleading and gives a sensationist look at the actual earthquake risk in the NW. It was not well received among seismologists working in the NW. It is not dangerous to live in the NW. Be prepared, yes, but there's no reason to be fearful.

View on HN

I disagree that it's not dangerous. The initial earthquake may only immediately kill a few thousand but the aftermath would be absolutely devastating. It would be the most catastrophic natural disaster and humanitarian crisis in the history of the United States. We know that it is coming and that it is overdue. It would be greater than 911, Katrina, and all the other crises that have occurred that we are still dealing with the aftermath of.

No, there's been plenty of worse disasters. The San Francisco 1906 earthquake, the Galveston hurricane, etc. The cumulative earthquake risk around Seattle is about 1/2 of California. I'm not a seismologist, but I was a geophysicist who knew many seismologists working in the NW. They uniformly thought it was sensationalist.

I'm not saying this isn't a major threat that must be prepared for, but it's not an apocalyptic or existential threat like this article makes it out to be.

According to ALL the scientists I've come across in my research, including ALL official statements from FEMA, the Cascadia Subduction zone M9+ earthquake would cause the greatest natural disaster and humanitarian crisis in American history. The New Yorker article is sensationalist but that doesn't mean that FEMA is wrong about the catastrophic aftermath of this earthquake - they aren't.

I don't mean to downplay your research or stance, but the poster above you mentioned a bit about their credentials. Do you work professionally in a related field that has caused you to talk to/read other scientists regarding this issue?

Without context, "all the scientists I've come across" could be 1 or 200.

Source?

From the former director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network.

https://www.washington.edu/boundless/earthquake-authority/

While that's a useful counterpoint, it doesn't really provide an estimate of the damage that could be done.

I'm thinking of questions like: 1. Are there areas where people currently live that shouldn't be inhabited? 2. What's the worst case death toll?

I realize there's uncertainty, but a more concrete rebuttal would still be better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com