I am not going to pretend to know more than those that study the potential danger to the west coast, but, activity in the Pacific Ocean doesn't dictate the occurrence of nightmare quakes.
The frequency of quakes in the Pacific could indicate there is actually going to be more quakes and of lesser magnitude. Click here for record of northwest quakes (click here).
Lesser magnitude simply because there are more quakes transmitting energy than storing it for a later calamity.
Of the thirty quakes listed at this webpage, the majority occurred at 10 km depth and primarily offshore. The first one occurred 34 years ago at 5.8 on the Richter scale. That was followed by 30 years ago with the magnitude 6.3 Richter. All the others have been less in magnitude since that event.
The one below occurred at 10 km as well. There is nothing that dictates the worse case scenario. I am sure there are tsunami warning buoys offshore as well. This is an article to the science regarding tsunamis (click here). It illustrates clearly there is a detailed science that accompanies the idea of warning a population to danger.
Not every quake produces a water displacement that results in devastating tsunamis. But, there is sound science that can discuss the most likely scenarios as well as the worst case scenarios.
If one takes the time to look at that webpage the TREND in magnitude and depth is there to find. The first quake at any depth tends to be the worst and the subsequent quakes are of less and less magnitude.
The worst quake in the region was 7.2 magnitude and that occurred ten years ago at 16 km depth. There was one other quake at that depth approximately a year ago with a magnitude of 5.8 Richter. That means two things to me, l. the quake was an adjustment by and in reaction of other quakes at shallower depths and 2. That depth indicates the quakes are rare. Why? Because the deeper the quake the more pressure there is to stabilize the quake by Earth itself. Rock is heavy. A quake at depth carries with it the potential to stop simply by pressure above it alone. But, if 7.2 is the worst quake in recent history, then what are the chances of anything worse and in precise displacement that will cause devastating tsunamis?
Sixteen years ago there was a quake at 40 km depth. That was only 5.8 Richter. I have no doubt a quake at 40 km depth will not translate into enormous displacement above it simply because of the weight of the rock.
Five years after the 40 km occurrence that was a 20 km quake that resulted in 6.3 Richter. It appears from these statistics the closer to the surface the quake the larger the Richter. It makes sense to me.
Is there going to be a quake that will cause cataclysmic damage to the west coast of the USA? That is a good question. I worry more about a Yellowstone Caldera than a destruction of the west coast simply because Yellowstone is inland with very little place to transmit it's energy than in regions of higher population.
Preparedness is always the answer and every year that should be a warning that occurs as if it were the real thing. It is better to be aware than to languish in ignorance. Just one day ago there was a wildfire that consumed cars. People didn't expect such danger and didn't know what to do. We were lucky they all escaped with what could have been their deaths. It is this unknown component to the world we live in that lurks as dangerous.
Practice to anticipated disaster makes for a safer society.
July 15, 2015
By Richard Read
Leave it to The New Yorker (click here) to publish the definitive treatment of horrors bound to spring from a Northwest Cascadia subduction-zone earthquake and tsunami.
Authors of voluminous state task-force reports have labored to catalog the probable effects of the colossal double disaster that experts say will certainly someday — perhaps in our lifetimes — kill thousands, erase Oregon coastal towns and decimate Portland, Seattle and other cities....
The frequency of quakes in the Pacific could indicate there is actually going to be more quakes and of lesser magnitude. Click here for record of northwest quakes (click here).
Lesser magnitude simply because there are more quakes transmitting energy than storing it for a later calamity.
Of the thirty quakes listed at this webpage, the majority occurred at 10 km depth and primarily offshore. The first one occurred 34 years ago at 5.8 on the Richter scale. That was followed by 30 years ago with the magnitude 6.3 Richter. All the others have been less in magnitude since that event.
The one below occurred at 10 km as well. There is nothing that dictates the worse case scenario. I am sure there are tsunami warning buoys offshore as well. This is an article to the science regarding tsunamis (click here). It illustrates clearly there is a detailed science that accompanies the idea of warning a population to danger.5.9 magnitude earthquake
2 months ago
UTC time:
Monday, June 01, 2015 20:11 PM
Your time:
Monday, June 1 2015 4:11 PM
Magnitude Type:
mwb
USGS page:
M 5.9 - Off the coast of Oregon
USGS status:
Reviewed by a seismologist
Reports from the public:
25 people
Not every quake produces a water displacement that results in devastating tsunamis. But, there is sound science that can discuss the most likely scenarios as well as the worst case scenarios.
If one takes the time to look at that webpage the TREND in magnitude and depth is there to find. The first quake at any depth tends to be the worst and the subsequent quakes are of less and less magnitude.
The worst quake in the region was 7.2 magnitude and that occurred ten years ago at 16 km depth. There was one other quake at that depth approximately a year ago with a magnitude of 5.8 Richter. That means two things to me, l. the quake was an adjustment by and in reaction of other quakes at shallower depths and 2. That depth indicates the quakes are rare. Why? Because the deeper the quake the more pressure there is to stabilize the quake by Earth itself. Rock is heavy. A quake at depth carries with it the potential to stop simply by pressure above it alone. But, if 7.2 is the worst quake in recent history, then what are the chances of anything worse and in precise displacement that will cause devastating tsunamis?
Sixteen years ago there was a quake at 40 km depth. That was only 5.8 Richter. I have no doubt a quake at 40 km depth will not translate into enormous displacement above it simply because of the weight of the rock.
Five years after the 40 km occurrence that was a 20 km quake that resulted in 6.3 Richter. It appears from these statistics the closer to the surface the quake the larger the Richter. It makes sense to me.
Preparedness is always the answer and every year that should be a warning that occurs as if it were the real thing. It is better to be aware than to languish in ignorance. Just one day ago there was a wildfire that consumed cars. People didn't expect such danger and didn't know what to do. We were lucky they all escaped with what could have been their deaths. It is this unknown component to the world we live in that lurks as dangerous.
Practice to anticipated disaster makes for a safer society.
July 15, 2015
By Richard Read
Leave it to The New Yorker (click here) to publish the definitive treatment of horrors bound to spring from a Northwest Cascadia subduction-zone earthquake and tsunami.
Authors of voluminous state task-force reports have labored to catalog the probable effects of the colossal double disaster that experts say will certainly someday — perhaps in our lifetimes — kill thousands, erase Oregon coastal towns and decimate Portland, Seattle and other cities....
