Hacker News Reader

Comment by 99_00 | Hacker News Reader

This shouldn't be in the article. It's unscientific, non-technically, and pretty much meaningless.

Really?

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.

>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".

Its a colloquialism for destroyed. Would you object if he said "utterly destroyed" instead? It means the same thing.

Maybe you think its inappropriately informal, but that is a stylistic concern, not a science concern.

>Its a colloquialism for destroyed

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.

In Oregon, the land to the west of I-5 is clay silt from the Missoula Floods that came down the Columbia Gorge 13,000 - 15,000 years ago. The clay silt is expected to completely liquefy in the event of a major earthquake.

What impact do you think complete liquefaction will have on people and buildings?

Widespread death and destruction. Seriously, other than the houses on Cooper Mountain, I don't seriously expect anything to still be standing in the Tualatin Basin when the big one hits.

Has there been another earthquake where a populated area sat on geography similar to the Tualatin Basin?

It will look like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NSXmTfASM0

It's not a science paper. It's in the New Yorker. It's supposed to be interesting. It also features great lines such as: "Oh, shit, Goldfinger thought, although not in dread, at first: in amazement. " "As Goldfinger put it, “In the late eighties and early nineties, the paradigm shifted to ‘uh-oh.’ ”" "...magnitude 5.0, magnitude 4.0, magnitude why are the neighbors moving their sofa at midnight"

It is quoted on wikipedia. An online encyclopedia.

I'm not sure I would call statements by a FEMA director "unscientific."

You aren't actually making a point.

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?

I was actually making the point that the FEMA Director for the Pacific Northwest probably knows a lot more about the scenario in question, and that his statement may be grounded very deeply in fact such that it's not hyperbolic at all.

Neither are you

Reply on news.ycombinator.com