Bay Area Earthquake

Aeric said:
I really, really wish more people felt this way, then there wouldn't be so damn many people here. The reality is that I can't think of a nicer state to live in. Example, for the past 3 weeks, in the peak of summer, the temperature where I live has peaked in the high 70's to 80 degrees with very comfortable humidity. Same forecast for the next week. The majority of the rest of the nation normally has high temps and high sticky humidity in the summer, and cold, sometimes frigid temps in the winter. I'll take one earthquake every 5 years or so (I kinda like the rockin' and rollin' anyway), to enjoy constant moderate weather. If it gets to 90 for 2 days it's a "heat wave", and if it drops to 40 at night, it's a "cold snap":lol:. Yeah, we're wussies, so be it!
And as for something other than weather, CA has it all, from desert to redwood forest, to alpine mountains. Countless miles of seashore and tons of freshwater lakes.
In less than half a day I can drive from the Pacific Ocean to my place at Lake Tahoe, arguably the most beautiful lake in the world.
This state is so large and diverse that one could possibly spend the majority of their life exploring it.
Additionally, regardless of how "terrible" people say the political climate is here, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
The one huge negative about the area in which I live is the cost of housing. But the reason for that is the abundance of employment. People like to startup companies where it's nice to live, go figure.
These are a few of the reasons why I laugh when I hear people rip into California, or advise someone to move out of California to where they live.
Click to expand...

Florida. Doesn't have the mountains which I missed being able to see a few days a year, but we have WARM water and the Bahamas right across the way. Mountains are a few days WARM sail to the South.:D
 
California has a pretty hefty yearly state registration for airplanes. But for pure beauty and great climate, it's hard to beat. Just get to where there arent so many people (out of LA and Bay Area) and its pretty great, all around. Really a nice place to fly!
 
Henning said:
Florida. Doesn't have the mountains which I missed being able to see a few days a year, but we have WARM water and the Bahamas right across the way. Mountains are a few days WARM sail to the South.:D
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would be nice to swim in actual comfort in our ocean, but that cool water has a direct influence on the weather I enjoy so much. I've been to Florida, nice beaches but a little sticky for me.
 
Aeric said:
Yeah, it would be nice to swim in actual comfort in our ocean, but that cool water has a direct influence on the weather I enjoy so much. I've been to Florida, nice beaches but a little sticky for me.
Click to expand...

In 10 years living in CA one of the things I always missed was sweating.
 
Henning said:
Florida. Doesn't have the mountains which I missed being able to see a few days a year, but we have WARM water and the Bahamas right across the way. Mountains are a few days WARM sail to the South.:D
Click to expand...

Actually, air quality has improved dramatically around LA over the past few decades. You can see the mountains most of the time now, especially in winter.

It's not at all unusual anymore to descend through Newhall Pass and get a clear view of Burbank, even on the ground. There was a time when that was unheard of.

And you can routinely see the big rocks north of Cucamonga. As a kid, I remember driving out to US 66 (Foothill Blvd.) and not being able to see them.
 
coloradobluesky said:
California has a pretty hefty yearly state registration for airplanes. But for pure beauty and great climate, it's hard to beat. Just get to where there arent so many people (out of LA and Bay Area) and its pretty great, all around. Really a nice place to fly!
Click to expand...
Eh, property tax, comes out to about 1.2% per year on the assessed value. On my 150, that ain't much!:D
 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Earthquake at New Madrid, a 19th-century woodcut from Devens' Our First Century (1877)



New Madrid fault and earthquake-prone region considered at high risk today.


The 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes /nuː ˈmædrɨd/ were an intense intraplate earthquake series beginning with an initial pair of very large earthquakes on December 16, 1811. These earthquakes remain the most powerful earthquakes to hit the eastern United States in recorded history.[1] These events, as well as the seismic zone of their occurrence, were named for the Mississippi River town of New Madrid, then part of the Louisiana Territory, now within Missouri.
There are estimates that the earthquakes were felt strongly over roughly 130,000 square kilometers (50,000 sq mi), and moderately across nearly 3 million square kilometers (1 million square miles). The 1906 San Francisco earthquake, by comparison, was felt moderately over roughly 16,000 km2 (6,200 sq mi).
 
Aeric said:
I've been to Florida, nice beaches but a little sticky for me.
Click to expand...
A little? A little?!?!

The vast majority of the state feels and smells like the inside of a well used, sweaty, 10 year-old work boot.

You couldn't pay me enough, especially considering all the blue-hairs that are blocking the roads for the four months if the year that it's actually bearable outside.

OTOH, I'd move west in a minute...especially Northwest.

I'd actually move to the north coast (OH, MI) before I'd move to the Southeast.

Heck, the weather is too hot in SE MO for me...and this doesn't hold a candle to the Southeast.

But, just as with everything else in life, to each his/her own.
 
Bugs - don't have to cover the backyard in netting to go outside.
 
1600vw said:
I was in the '89 quake living in the Sacramento area. I would not want to be in another.

Most do not know the worst earthquake reported was in the Midwest and we are do for another..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811–12_New_Madrid_earthquakes
Click to expand...

The worst earthquake reported in the US was centered outside Anchorage, AK in 1964.

New Madrid was real bad, but doesn't hold a candle to Anchorage. Seriously.

Where earthquakes cause the most disruption is where they aren't expected.
 
Henning said:
It rolled once back in the 70s and shook St Louis a bit.
Click to expand...

I grew up with earthquakes too, as did you, they weren't (and still aren't) unusual in Eastern and Southeastern Missouri.

An interesting tidbit. If the New Madrid fault ever rumbles hard again the entire NE will be screwed, especially if it blows in the winter.

Almost all** of the natural gas pipelines that serve the Northeast cross the Mississippi within 200 miles of New Madrid and none are built to earthquake standards. At least none of them were about 15 years ago the last time this topic came up with some local geo-type engineers.

**I say "almost all" because I can't remember for sure if it is indeed "all". I think it is indeed "all" but I don't recall for sure.
 
The epicenter of the Loma Prieta quake in 1989 was about 6 miles from our house in south San Jose. No structural damage, but not much was standing inside the house. Speakers launched off shelves, kitchen cupboards emptied, etc. It was a mess. We had just finished a seismic upgrade to the building I was in in Cupertino. Thank goodness. That building would have pancaked without it.

That upgrade was designed by an architect who was killed in the Cypress Street (I-880) freeway collapse in Oakland. And the wife of a 2nd cousin of mine was one of the people pulled out alive (she lost the baby she was carrying). I remember that quake all too well.

Watching a video shot by someone with a quad-copter in Napa one of the scenes is of First Presbyterian Church in Napa. We were members there in the late 1970s and my grandfather was an associate pastor there in the early 1920s when he was a student in seminary. That building was built in 1874. That video, and pictures shared on Facebook by a friend who was a minister there recently, shows stained glass windows gone and internal damage. The wind vane on top of the steeple is an an angle now (can't trust the reading). I suspect there will be some expensive repairs needed. Not as bad as things look for the nearby First Methodist Church, where an end wall detached from the structure and is leaning out, having separated from the end of the roof. Another old building.

Yes, there are differences between a 7.1 (Loma Prieta) and a 6.0 (Napa), but this was the largest quake to hit the Bay Area since Loma Prieta. And, it was at the opposite end of the bay. The loss of life is different, and the area impacted is much smaller. Remember, Loma Prieta caused damage in San Francisco, over 50 miles away. The damage from this one is much more centralized. But, to those impacted, it really doesn't matter. They still have to pick up the pieces.
 
MAKG1 said:
It's not at all unusual anymore to descend through Newhall Pass and get a clear view of Burbank, even on the ground. There was a time when that was unheard of.
Click to expand...


Definitely better than when I was there. 3 miles vis in smog (politely called haze by the Van Nuys tower) was a nice VFR day.
 
denverpilot said:
Have to have them in overcrowded hell-holes, it seems. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, whole world is an overcrowded, closed loop environment, hell-hole. Denver smog in the 60s&70s was some of the most nasty in the country. I'd imagine taking away the CA smog upwind had a some affect on the quality in CO. I would bet you can find Chinese coal dust on CA beaches.
 
MAKG1 said:
New Madrid was real bad, but doesn't hold a candle to Anchorage. Seriously.
.
Click to expand...

The worst earthquakes in USA history, CA doesn't make the top 10:
1. 1964 Grt Alaska Quake 1964 9.2
2. Cascadia subduction zone 1700 9.0
3. Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 8.7
4. Andreanof Islands, Alaska 1957 8.6
5. E of Shumagin Is, Alaska 1938 8.2
6. Unimak Islands, Alaska 1946 8.1
7. Yakutat Bay, Alaska 1899 8.0
8. Denali Fault, Alaska 2002 7.9
9. Gulf of Alaska, Alaska 1987 1 7.9
10. Andreanof Islands, Alaska 1986 0C 7.9
11. Near Cape Yakataga, Alaska 1899 7.9
12. Ka'u District, Is of Hawaii 1868 7.9
13. Fort Tejon, California 1857 7.9
14. Rat Islands, Alaska 2003 7.8
15. Andreanof Islands, Alaska 1996 7.8
16. San Francisco, California 1906 7.8
17. Imperial Valley, California 1892 7.8
18. New Madrid, Missouri 1811 7.7
19. New Madrid, Missouri 1812 7.7
20. New Madrid, Missouri 1812 7.5
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
The worst earthquakes in USA history, CA doesn't make the top 10:
Click to expand...

But Alaska does 9 times….

Frankly, though, the worst natural disaster in Alaska is all the %^(#$%) mosquitoes. Holy living hell, they suck.

For the historical earthquakes, estimating magnitude gets a little iffy. But the point is well taken. California has fairly frequent earthquakes, but the really big ones come from elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...

I didn't know the New Madrid fault busted loose three times.
 
MAKG1 said:
The worst earthquake reported in the US was centered outside Anchorage, AK in 1964.

New Madrid was real bad, but doesn't hold a candle to Anchorage. Seriously.

Where earthquakes cause the most disruption is where they aren't expected.
Click to expand...

Yeah, last summer I saw where the highest wave hit, you can still see the difference in tree line.
 
Henning said:
In short order for the big ones too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no kidding, that's a lot of pent-up pressure.

I've always carried earthquake insurance. Many agents over the years have looked at me like I'm nuts.
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, no kidding, that's a lot of pent-up pressure.

I've always carried earthquake insurance. Many agents over the years have looked at me like I'm nuts.
Click to expand...

What kind of premium do you have to give for that around there?
 
Henning said:
What kind of premium do you have to give for that around there?
Click to expand...

It's goofy. Some insurance companies won't touch it. Others almost give it away. I'd have to check to make sure but I think the earthquake adder on my current insurance was $150 (ish) per year. Cheap.

IIRC all earthquake policies have a 20% deductible...or maybe it's 30%. But 70% coverage is far preferable to 0%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top