What would a 8+ earthquake do to the area? (Seattle, Bainbridge Island: utilities, most dangerous)

[Vinylly]

Originally Posted by E Roy Slade

some say mt Rainer has erupted 500 years ago and could again

Just like Mt. Saint Helens, all the mountains, including Mt. Rainer, Mt. Adams, Mt. Hood, Mt. Baker, The Three Sisters, and Mt. Shasta, all are within the 'Ring of Fire' and could erupt again. None of them are dead.
The problem with Mt. Rainer is that it's so close to the most highly dense population areas in the state. If and when it blows, it would be a catastropic disaster that you would not believe. Very little human life was lost when Mt. Saint Helens blew because it's located much further from high density population areas, which are Vancouver, WA and Portland, OR.
In case you are wondering about Mt. Rainer, from time to time it does let off steam and often there are small quakes. The same goes for Mt. Baker.
The sesimologists from the UW are keeping both mountains closely monitored. However I don't know what good that would do.

[Seacove]

And yet people still live in Orting.

[pw72]

Mt. Rainier is mostly a threat to the Pierce Co. area, Seattle would likely be unscathed.

However, you ask about an 8.0 quake. Wishful thinking. A 9.0 quake is indeed possible in this region, most likely as a subduction quake off the NW coast, so the energy would be somewhat subdued in the Puget Sound region, but damaging nonetheless.

The last great subduction quake occured off the NW coast in 1700. Most scientists expect this event to happen every 300-500 years, so Western Washington is now in that window.

[FantasyFootballGuy]

I saw a special about this on tv one time. An earthquake that big would do so much damage. The Alaskan Way Viaduct would collapse killing many people just like the San Francisco quake back in 1989. Many parts of the Port of Seattle would collapse. Many buildings in Pioneer Square would crumble. It would be a mess. Seattle is due for a big quake like the San Francisco one back in 1989. It's only a matter of time. It could happen tomorrow or it could happen 50 years from now. Who knows? The special I saw on tv also talked about Memphis being due for an earthquake which surprised me. Memphis would be worse than Seattle because Memphis is a poor black city just like New Orleans so it would be like Katrina all over again. Only instead of New Orleans it would be Memphis.

[Gentoo]

I see some comparisons with the Loma Prieta quake here. The focus with that quake was 70 miles south of San Francisco and Oakland. Oakland is where the viaduct collapsed. That quake was a 7.1 or so and lasted 10-15 seconds. A subduction quake will be farther away, but would be closer to a 9.0 and last up to 5 minutes! The damage in Seattle is expected to be quite significant.

[E Roy Slade]

i wonder what causes people to pack in like rats in these big cities and build precarious tunnel like Boston big dig and freeways and yell with road rage

[509]

An 8 or a 9 quake would be pretty bad in terms of life lost.

The other issue in Seattle is the local governments emergency response system. Remember this is a city that stopped garbage collection for three weeks as a result of a snow!! Buses quit running. Snow...now think if it was an earthquake.

Imagine the same situation without power or water and a destroyed transportation system. Food starts running out in three days.

It will take a week for the federal and state government to START bring emergency food and supplies into town.

FEMA recommends three days of food and water on hand for emergencies. I would up that to a week or more in urban areas.

My daughter lives in Seattle and I kept telling her that she does not live in eastern Washington when it comes to government response to emergencies. She believed it after the snow event a few years ago.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 509

An 8 or a 9 quake would be pretty bad in terms of life lost.

The other issue in Seattle is the local governments emergency response system. Remember this is a city that stopped garbage collection for three weeks as a result of a snow!! Buses quit running. Snow...now think if it was an earthquake.

Imagine the same situation without power or water and a destroyed transportation system. Food starts running out in three days.

It will take a week for the federal and state government to START bring emergency food and supplies into town.

FEMA recommends three days of food and water on hand for emergencies. I would up that to a week or more in urban areas.

My daughter lives in Seattle and I kept telling her that she does not live in eastern Washington when it comes to government response to emergencies. She believed it after the snow event a few years ago.

I think Seattle is better able to handle an earthquake than it is snow. In mild climates like Seattle, snow is just not something that can be dealt with in reasonable amounts.

.

[Inkpoe]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I think Seattle is better able to handle an earthquake than it is snow. In mild climates like Seattle, snow is just not something that can be dealt with in reasonable amounts.

That's pretty optimistic, considering that the viaduct been damaged back in 2001 and since been deemed earthquake unsafe. And *now* finally, looks like that situation might be resolved soon... hopefully. I personally wouldn't hold the government's ability here to handle the earthquake situation in high regards.

As for the snow... Seattle could handle it just fine.. if it weren't for the government and the clueless people.

[movingwiththewind]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I think Seattle is better able to handle an earthquake than it is snow. In mild climates like Seattle, snow is just not something that can be dealt with in reasonable amounts.

.

Right. As if Seattle is used to handle an 8 or 9 quake on the everyday basis.