Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaronbrethorst | Hacker News Reader

That is really disturbing, and it reminds me of something I just read the other day.

For any Seattle startup folks, just remember that all of Pioneer Square (and then some...) is a liquefaction zone[1]. Also, don't forget that the Viaduct is a death trap, and you really are better off never setting foot (or wheel, I guess) on it.

[1] http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/03/16/more-sea...

View on HN

> For any Seattle startup folks, just remember that all of Pioneer Square (and then some...) is a liquefaction zone

For that matter, so is a large chunk of the Bay Area.

Whether it's earthquakes, wildfires, bizzards, tornados, hurricanes, etc there is always gouing to be something pretty much wherever you settle.

> For that matter, so is a large chunk of the Bay Area.

More specific?

Anywhere that's reclaimed infill: The Marina, most of Foster City, Treasure Island, parts of Fremont, etc.

Large areas south of market.

liquefaction hazards for SF: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/SHMP/download/pdf/ozn_sf.pdf other PDFs: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/SHMP/html/pdf_maps_no.html

I found it mildly interesting how the liquifaction areas are colored in a pleasant tone of green.

You should also stay in an underground bunker and never go outside, because dude do you have any idea how many asteroids are out there?? The entire surface of the Earth is an Asteroid Impact Zone!

or just stay off the viaduct. that seems far more straightforward :)

Yeah, avoiding the viaduct has always struck me as a sensible precaution.

The 520 bridge is also very vulnerable to earthquakes (the primary reason why it's being replaced).

You mean that bridge that's about a foot above the water level and, when there's a really turbulent storm, can have rough water on one side and calm water on the other, and have waves literally crashing over the cars from the one side of the water?

Nooo, I would have never thought that bridge would be dangerous in an earthquake! </sarcasm>

I'm not intending to mock you, though it's probably coming off that way. Outside of the cool special effects during a storm (seriously, the 'rough water, bridge, calm water' effect is quite eerie), I have no idea why that bridge was built the way it was.

It's about the same with the I-90 bridge too, and you don't even need a storm to see the cool effect of wavy water on the south side and calm on the north side. It always fascinates me when I drive over it. I've only had a spray of water hit my car once so far, I'll make a note to avoid either bridge during an earthquake. ;)

It's actually the non-floating parts of the 520 bridge that are the most vulnerable to an Earthquake.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com