Earthquakes

[MYXYLPLYX]

Okay, second one of the day and this one actually rattled me a little bit... don't like thinking about whether I have to go wake my kid up and get under cover.

[creep]

Okay, second one of the day and this one actually rattled me a little bit... don't like thinking about whether I have to go wake my kid up and get under cover.

i just asked you in the baseball (??) thread if you just felt that one.

[MYXYLPLYX]

Yeah, I was in the car earlier today and didn't feel it at all (was on my way to Best Buy in SF to pick up TGEA, foreshadowing?!!?) but I'm home now and my living room is on the second floor and this one gave me a good shaking.

Earlier one was 4.0, this one is tentatively a 3.9, both centered near Berkeley.

[mockbee]

I haven't felt a single dang earthquake today that everyone has been talking about.
This afternoon I was on top of a building in Colma and the last one I was sitting on my ass at home in The City.

[Pandemonium]

The funny thing is, today's the annual "California Shakeout" which is a general population readiness drill for earthquake safety.

[kv]

my sister lives in berkley said she was in her bedroom changing when it it...she said books and a vase fell off her selves...and she was faling into her drawer with her pants around her ankles lmao

[el segundo]

Didnt you guys mock and make fun of the east coast two months ago when a 5.9 hit here?

[Juana]

We had one out here a couple days ago. Its probably mother nature just telling us all to simma down now

[ant]

I work in Emeryville and live in Oakland and felt both quakes today. I've felt a couple minor ones when I lived in LA but nothing like today. I was definitely a little freaked out.

[kv]

Didnt you guys mock and make fun of the east coast two months ago when a 5.9 hit here?

yes because it happened in virgina and everyone within 400 miles was crying like new york...that would be like LA crying because of a 5.9 in san fran

[kv]

I work in Emeryville and live in Oakland and felt both quakes today. I've felt a couple minor ones when I lived in LA but nothing like today. I was definitely a little freaked out.

it's because it was right under you...we had a 3.9 that was 2 miles away from me a year or so ago and it felt like a 5-6

[el segundo]

Didnt you guys mock and make fun of the east coast two months ago when a 5.9 hit here?

yes because it happened in virgina and everyone within 400 miles was crying like new york...that would be like LA crying because of a 5.9 in san fran

Do you not realize that everyone crying from VA to NY is about the same size of of the state of California, if not California is not greater in size and scope?

[kv]

yes like la to san fran...like i said

[sinep]

get out of SF soon.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19394_5- ... royed.html

unlike los angeles you guys don't have bedrock.

Back in 2001, before 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced a short list of the three most likely disasters to hit America over the coming years. One was a terrorist attack on New York, another was a hurricane in New Orleans and the third was an earthquake in San Francisco. Note that this was shortly before two of those things actually goddamn happened.


Withholding speculation as to whether FEMA are in fact wizards, that's a pretty "oh shit" moment right there if you live in San Francisco. It also emphasizes the fact that the continued existence of San Francisco is a testament to mankind's ongoing desire to engage in a staring contest against horrible catastrophe.
And let's be clear, this isn't some sensationalist scare tactic -- at some point, an earthquake is going to devastate the city. The United States Geological Survey says that the chances of a quake of at least 6.7 on the Richter scale hitting San Fran in the next 30 years sits at a cozy 99 percent.
And there is nothing we can do about it. It happened in 1906, and in 1989 it gave everyone a preview of what was coming.


Holy Shit! What Can We Do?
Of course, San Franciscans are more than ready for this kind of thing, right? When you know that your city is prone to devastating earthquakes, then you're going to make sure that earthquakes factor into your building ordinances. Well, it's true that the state of California did decide to start earthquake-proofing all their new buildings ... in 1980. So if you're wondering whether your highrise office is going to withstand the inevitable Big One, you'd just better hope that the building doesn't outdate hair metal.



The problem is the fact that most of the Bay Area is built upon a foundation of soft mud that, during an earthquake, is prone to something frighteningly referred to as liquefaction, which is exactly what it sounds like. Estimates say that a quake in the range of a 7.8 on the Richter scale (which is right in the range of what we'd expect -- the 1906 quake was an 8.0) would topple 1,500 buildings and badly damage another 300,000. The government has just started rushing against time to brace the Golden Gate Bridge after reports showed a quake would cause it to utterly collapse.


But what's really standing between San Francisco and avoiding total annihilation is money. With a $25.4 billion budget deficit, the California government wants property owners to retrofit their own damn buildings if they're so scared of earthquakes, a cost that no average person can afford, forcing them into a much cheaper but less effective form of earthquake insurance -- prayer. Never mind that the cost of earthquake-proofing San Francisco would only be around $260 million, compared to the estimated cost of rebuilding after a quake -- $200 billion. But hey, we're not economists.