The Big One

[critikaldesignz]

Anybody in the Northwest worried about the Big One?

It's supposed to be around a 9.0 earthquake at the epicenter just off the the coast of NW US and SW Canada. The major cities that are going to be affected are Vancouver and Seattle. The western coastline may drop as much as 10 meters and large tsunami waves are likely to occur much like the ones in Christmas 2004. I heard the average time span between each earthquake that occurs there is 300 years (the last one happening in the year 1700.) So we are 6 years overdue.. but it can happen today, tommorow or even 150 years from now. Does anybody have any feedback on this?

 

[Tru Principle]

Well, there's "Big One" rumor that started up for me atleast.. in L.A after we faced that big earthquake in the early 90s. It's suppose to sink California.

blah

 

[critikaldesignz]

From what I know the Juan de Fuca plate runs down to the Bay Area too, but not as far down as L.A. I've been taught that the California "sinking" theories are true, but it's not like Cali's going to drop into an ocean, only around 10% of it is sliding towards the ocean plate, not dropping.

 

[Rukas]

I doubt it would sink California, plates dont move that drastically down or up.

 

[Dante]

I doubt it would sink California, plates dont move that drastically down or up.

the idea is a fault line will widen and bring water from the east back to the western part of california, essentially letting the ocean consume it as opposed to sinking. it's still way extreme...

The notion that part of California will break off was likely inspired by the San Andreas fault. After all, since the fault goes right through California, one part of the state is on the Pacific plate and one is on the North American plate. If those plates are moving in different directions, it make sense that the two pieces of California will move in different directions too.

And this is indeed the case. But, even in a massive shift along the fault, the plates travel an incredibly short distance -- a matter of feet in the most extreme shifts. The tension cannot build up to the point that one entire mass of land will shift many miles in relation to another one, so you will not see any sizable piece of land breaking away from another. Instead, the pieces of land will move away from each other very slowly, taking millions of years to make large scale changes. One end of California may slowly drift so that it is eventually under water, but this can hardly be construed as "sinking into the ocean."

 

[LAZARU$]

Anybody in the Northwest worried about the Big One?

It's supposed to be around a 9.0 earthquake at the epicenter just off the the coast of NW US and SW Canada. The major cities that are going to be affected are Vancouver and Seattle. The western coastline may drop as much as 10 meters and large tsunami waves are likely to occur much like the ones in Christmas 2004. I heard the average time span between each earthquake that occurs there is 300 years (the last one happening in the year 1700.) So we are 6 years overdue.. but it can happen today, tommorow or even 150 years from now. Does anybody have any feedback on this?

let me get some beer cans and start up the flexcapacitor and get your answer

 

[KAMIKAZI]

Yay! Later SiGh!

 

[Rukas]

the idea is a fault line will widen and bring water from the east back to the western part of california, essentially letting the ocean consume it as opposed to sinking. it's still way extreme...

Wont happen.