Hacker News Reader

Comment by diogenes4 | Hacker News Reader

According to https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/bay-area-earthquak... vs https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big... you're looking at two orders of magnitude difference in terms of the estimate of people affected. I'm not sure what led to the difference but that's striking.

View on HN

That New Yorker article goes viral every few years - it's a well written piece and spins a great yarn, but there's some significant hyperbole and it's sources don't quite back up the claims. Yes, a 9.x will be devastating. No, everything west of i-5 will not be toast.

Good thing I'm 10 miles east from that road of doom, I'm sure I'll be safe ;-).

I'm 10 blocks east, should be fine too. Even if the earthquake somehow gets a couple blocks past I-5 (can't see how that could happen) I'd still have 7-8 blocks as a safety cushion.

One issue though is all the Seattle hospitals are right along I5 so your house might be fine but it’s going to be a disaster for anyone who needs medical care.

"East of I-5, lucky to be alive"

That song just wants to write itself.

You gotta worry about lahars. :)

Not where I am. Mt Rainier can't reach me but maybe the mountains of Mordor could spring up? Maybe a new volcano, would take a while to build up. An earthquake can get me, I'm by one of the freshwater lakes, so there's possible water action that could get me. But probably the land is terrible by the lake, could subside, and then a wave of water will crush and then drown me.

Let us hope if it comes to that, you will be safe somehow.

> it's sources don't quite back up the claims.

I'll admit that FEMA isn't exactly cited in a way that's possible to corroborate, but presumably they're estimating a worst-case scenario and not a median- or average-case scenario. That might explain some of the large divorce in figures.

I'd love to find any actual FEMA publications that back up some of the numbers and claims - so far to the best I can tell is it's mostly from interviews with the regional director, which, while valuable, isn't quite at the level of citation I'd like. If anyone's got a PDF I'd love to retract all my critiques though. :)

The news articles exaggerate things either for effect or didn’t realize quakes diminish with distance. The shaking for mag 9 at Portland is similar to mag 7 nearby. One difference is that quake will go on for minutes making liquefaction worse.

There will be lots of damage in Portland. There are lots of unreinforced masonry that will collapse and kill occupants. Most of the bridges, big and small won’t survive cutting off from outside. Infrastructure will be destroyed and utilities will be out of months. All of those could be upgraded which is why Bay Area would be in better shape.

Also, this is talking about Portland and Seattle. Most of the destruction will be on the coast which is closer to the fault. The tsunami will cause lots of damage, destroying most of the towns and killi;g everyone that doesn’t evacuate to high ground.

The 2011 Japan quake is the best comparison but Portland/Seattle aren’t prepared like Tokyo, and there are minimal tsunami defenses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com