# NW USA: Huge quake in 1700



## Incognito (Dec 2, 2003)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3255120.stm

excerpt:



> *Scientists say old Japanese papers show a huge magnitude nine earthquake struck north-western America 300 years ago. *
> 
> 
> The writings report damage from a five-metre-high tsunami that washed on to the Japan coast on 26 January, 1700. Computer modelling allowed Kenji Satake of the Geological Survey of Japan and colleagues to model the size and source of the quake that created the wave.


Yet another fun reason to live on the west coast of the USA!

I wonder if *littmissattitude* is pretty sick for all the earthquake reports you get over there in Cali, yes?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Dec 4, 2003)

Well, I've been in enough of the things.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





When the February, 1971 Sylmar earthquake struck southern California, we were lived about ten miles as the crow flies from the epicenter.  That was a scary one.  It was early, and woke me up.  I got out of bed while the quake was still happening and promptly got thrown halfway across the room.  After the main quake, the earth shuddered constantly for about an hour.  That was a very strange thing to feel.  There was no structural damage to the house, but we had something broken in every room.  That night or the next, there was a fairly large aftershock that I could hear coming for about five minutes before it actually struck.

The funny thing is, I can't remember ever feeling an earthquake before that.  I've felt lots of them since then, most of them not anywhere near that strong.  Where we live now, we mostly feel quakes from much farther away.  For example, though we are about two and a half or three hours drive from San Francisco, we felt the quake up there when it interrupted the world series and cause so much death and destruction.  I've felt a couple of the larger quakes from southern California, although not strongly at all.  There was one we felt pretty strongly here that was centered over in the hills on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley (the Coalinga quake).  And every once in awhile we feel movement from over on the east side of the Sierra, around Mammoth, which the geologists feel is ripe for some volcanic action.

You actually get used to them after a while.

I didn't feel the L.A./Northridge quake about ten years ago, but if I had been home I probably would have.  As it was, I was visiting a friend in Berkeley and didn't feel a thing.  But the funny thing was, I woke up very early that morning _thinking_ about quakes.  Once I figured out that I hadn't actually felt one, I went back to sleep.  Needless to say, when I found out about it later that day (didn't hear a radio or see a tv until sometime in the afternoon), that kind of spooked me.  It was also scary in that my aunt and cousin live not more than two or three miles from the epicenter of that one.  It took a couple of days for us to get in touch with my aunt.  Again, their house suffered no structural damage, but literally everything breakable in the house broke, and they basically shoveled the house out to clean it up.  They spent the first two or three nights after the quake sleeping in my cousin's van out in the driveway because they were afraid to sleep in the house.

I really don't like earthquakes at all...but I'd rather have them than tornadoes or hurricanes, thanks.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 6, 2003)

Thanks for relating the experiences, littlemiss.

If I were to be frank, however, I have to say that I find it completely mad that anyone would care to live in an earthquake zone. I don't think I would ever want to leave on the West Coast, even if I had the option. 

Then again, I get strangely paranoid about the issue - I'm still looking at finding somewhere to live where I can assure "relative" safety for my family and descendents for the next few hundred years. And geologically active is a priority to miss up on.

Maybe I shuold live in Colorado?


----------



## Thanol (Dec 7, 2003)

J/W couldn't the exact opposite thing happen to Japan, Taiwan or China with a huge tusnami headed for one of those places?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Dec 7, 2003)

I said:
			
		

> Thanks for relating the experiences, littlemiss.
> 
> If I were to be frank, however, I have to say that I find it completely mad that anyone would care to live in an earthquake zone. I don't think I would ever want to leave on the West Coast, even if I had the option.
> 
> ...


Colorado would probably be all right, geologically speaking.  It is generally pretty close to Yellowstone National Park, however.  If the volcanoes there ever decide to let go again, Colorado would likely get an awful lot of ash, depending on wind direction.  It would probably shake quite a bit, as well.

Anyway, geologically active and inactive areas are sort of very general categories that are kind of fluid.  The largest earthquake ever felt in the United States, historically speaking, was in 1811 near New Madrid, Missouri - definitely not the place you think of when you think "earthquake country".  I don't think anywhere is completely "safe" from seismic activity.  Everyone thinks the area I live in is far away from any really dangerous earthquakes faults.  But the truth is, there is a fault that runs about five or six miles north of my house that has the potential for producing a quake up to 7.0 on the Richter scale.  That would be a pretty big quake.  And we are just over the mountains from Mammoth, which is considered a pretty high potential area for volcanic activity sooner rather than later.  If something let go there, we would definitely feel it - and be in store for some ash fall if the wind happened to be blowing the right way.  But, that's life on the Pacific Ring of Fire.  You get used to it.  Really.

But I think that's the key - getting used to it.  I would definitely not want to live in an area prone to hurricanes.  But lots of people live in those areas, and don't really think that much about it unless there is a hurricane predicted to strike their area.  Earthquakes are just a part of life in California.  Most people don't think about them until there is one.


----------



## Incognito (Dec 9, 2003)

Heh - adaptability. 

Btw - typo before - I meant "geologically inactive".

I don't know why, I just have a sense of trying to find somewhere "safe" for my future generations. 

And certainly right, *Thanol* - tsunamis are an accompanying danger of outlying areas. 

I think I have my eye on Africa, despite the rift valley. Somewhere south-east? Maybe that in itself is a different topic for dicussion - where is the "safest" place in the world to live?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Dec 10, 2003)

If you haven't yet, you might want to look at the United States Geolgoical Survey/National Earthquake Information Center site; they've got worldwide maps showing where there is more and less activity. You can find it at http://neic.usgs.gov/.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 10, 2003)

Thanks for that - I'll take a look later.


----------

