"Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast."
Ouch.
Ouch.
> Perhaps no line in the entire six-thousand-word piece attracted as much attention as this declaration by Kenneth Murphy, head of the fema division responsible for Cascadia: “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.” The first important thing to note about that remark is that, needless to say, Murphy really said it, and stood by it in the fact-checking process—so, clearly, fema is anticipating that the region will be in very grave shape.
> That said, “toast” is not what you would call a precise description, so let me be more specific. What Murphy did not mean is that everyone west of I-5 will be injured or killed; fema’s casualty figures, while horrifying, amount to under one-half of one per cent of the population of the region. Nor did he mean that every structure west of the interstate will fail
I read that as, "we can use I-5 as a distribution backbone if we prioritize its repair because it is very unlikely to suffer too much damage." I also assume that simulations indicate it will not need much repair. Bonus points if we've already re-engineered the sections of I-5 most likely to need repair. It could save time later.
So now we can make a plan around what we're likely to have, and if we have more when the time comes it's gravy.
Basically, don't position all your recovery assets and facilities along the 101. Doesn't mean the 101 won't be there, it only means your plan has a smaller chance of falling apart if you position the facilities you'll need along I-5.
On the other hand...If somebody like Brian Atwater said it, that would really get my attention. He's one of the main geologists who tracked down the geological evidence to date the 1700 Earthquake. The force is strong in that one. [1]
Most of the infill west of I5 in the Seattle area will probably liquefy, but there's mountain ranges to the west of I5 that would take a hell of a quake to toast.
Specifically, the perpetual habitability for humans
There's no natural gas service anywhere else on the WA pacific coast, nor the northern coast of the olympic peninsula (Sequim, Port Angeles), or the west bank of the Hood canal. The entire Olympic Peninsula is without natural gas except for one metro area. They actually have to haul tanks full of the stuff to the paper mill in Port Townsend to use.
The aftermath will suck, however.
The quake itself and tsunami risk is the dangerous part for most people.
Nonetheless, id still be worried about things that will kill me, even if its not in the next 10 seconds. Dead is still dead.
If we're talking about Oregon it gets even weirder since the population centers have a coastal range in between them and seawater. I don't know enough about the various fields involved to know if the Columbia river's level would raise catastrophically in such a scenario.
You sure about that? From Olympia to the Oregon border I-5 sits on the lowest, flattest stretch of land between the coastal range and the cascades. That's why it keeps getting flooded out by the Chehailis river.
To the north, through Whatcom County the route is anything but geologically arbitrary: it's the unique route that required the minimum amount of blasting into Chuckanut rock.
Parent post seems like a pretty city-centric view of the world. The dozen or so miles that pass through Seattle might be arbitrary to within a Seattle-diameter, but that's an irrelevantly small part of the freeway.
The real risk is civil engineering in nature. While the fault is some distance away, it will shake hard and for a long time. Unreinforced masonry will probably be destroyed, and Seattle has a lot of old masonry in some neighborhoods. Some older structures not up to the current seismic code will likely fare poorly. Seattle has had enough local 7+ earthquakes that a distant offshore 8-9 won’t feel too much different, but the shaking time will be much longer. Landslides are undoubtedly a risk.
Portland will likely fare much worse than Seattle. A modern steel or wood-framed building constructed in the last 20 years will very likely survive almost anything, they are built for it. Older steel and wood buildings that are still standing have already been through some earthquakes; not as large but they won’t immediately collapse.
The real problem will be restoring infrastructure in the aftermath.
I don't know if the statement is backed up by science, but its a falsifiable empirical prediction. It is entirely within the realm of science to make predictions that certain geographic regions will have significant structural and human damage in the event of some hypothetical natural disaster.
I agree. But that's not the same as saying it's "toast".
Maybe you think its inappropriately informal, but that is a stylistic concern, not a science concern.
That's debatable. It can mean anything from doomed to in trouble.
IDIOMS FOR TOAST be toast, Slang. to be doomed, ruined, or in trouble:
>Would you object if he said "utterly destroyed" instead?
Yes I would object.
Does it mean everything west of I5 is going to fall into the ocean? All human structures are going to be levelled? Only structures over 2 stories not made out of wood will be levelled? Or just that everything west of I5 will have more damage than everything east.
And I doubt that EVERYTHING east of I5 is going to share the same fate. The I5 is a human made road, not a geographic feature. It doesn't control earthquake outcomes.
Are you saying that ""Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast" has scientific value?
Are you saying that because of someone's tittle they are incapable of saying something hyperbolic?
Do you disagree with my word use? What is a better word?