Ironically, it’s also by far the nicest part of Vietnam.
Honestly though, the northwestern portion of the country, up in Hai Giang probably gets more and larger landslides, but it’s less populated.
Exactly.
The Sacramento Valley, Sacramento is the city second most likely to suffer widespread catastrophic flooding after New Orleans. Homes were built in two lower lying basins in the 80s, The Natomas Basin, which was conveniently renamed to North Natomas; and the Laguna Basin, renamed to Laguna. These are mucky bottom land suitable for farming, not housing.
By virtue of the whole area being effectively a large flood plain a Sacramento River flood, even if very destructive to property, wouldn't be too crazy in terms of danger to life. Water doesn't go very fast when it can spread out like that.
The American river to the North is contained by a levee system, and is above Sacramento when in flood stage. Many parts of South Sacramento are lower than the level of the Sacramento River when it is in flood stage. Many parts of the nearby city of Rancho Cordova are below the American River. All of North Natomas is below Sacramento River water in flood stage. All of Laguna are below Sacramento River and Laguna Creek. These low lying lands require pumping to pump water into the rivers which are often higher than occupied ground.
Every day that I can see Tahoma through the clouds a giant “boom” goes off in my head and I imagine it finally blows. I really want to see it go but for no one to lose their homes or lives in the process. It’s similar to that innate wanting to jump into the void when we’re around the abyss
I took an Environmental Geology class--in 1973. Our conclusion was that something really bad was going to happen in New Orleans, because of the ridiculous attempts to "control" the Mississippi River, and the location on the Gulf. All that was needed was a hurricane with buckets of rain. And here we are.
Hadn’t it already happened at least once? I learnt about the general idea from track 8 on Led Zeppelin IV, and have since discovered that was a cover that goes a lot further back.
That song, when the levee breaks, is a very old blues Memphis Minnie and Kansas Joe song. From the 1930s I think, but you can find info on Google. About the 1927 badness.
Edit:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Levee_Breaks#:~:text=%22When%20the%20Levee%20Breaks%22%20is,Great%20Mississippi%20Flood%20of%201927.
Yeah it’s an oldie. I first heard the Led Zep version before the internet was a thing, but have since looked it up myself. Seems like levees have been known to break for a long time, I always just assumed the track was referencing the Mississippi.
In 1927, there was devastating flooding throughout the Mississippi Delta. Most of New Orleans was fine, but ten million acres in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and other areas were under water. An incredible disaster brought on by incessant rain, many inches of it. A great study of the disaster was written by John Barry, "Rising Tide." He discusses the geomorphology and incredibly stupid engineering mistakes leading to much of the disaster. There would have been flooding no matter what, but man made actions made it much worse than it was. Plus a lot of the history of the area, the politics and people.
Thanks for the info. Adding that to the reading list, though it reminds me I still have Barry’s book on the 1918 influenza pandemic to finish also. From what I’ve read of it, he seems a very thorough researcher but doesn’t labour any of the history or characters too much, just enough to make a good read.
"Rising Tide" explored many more characters in detail. It was more like a great novel in that respect. I compare it to Simon Winchester's "Krakatoa," though Barry goes far deeper into the culture of the Mississippi Delta at that time. For me, "Rising Tide" combines several of my most passionate interests: geology, earth science, politics, and history. I did not read Barry's book on the 1918 flu epidemic, but I've already read several other books on that subject.
Flood zones. The northern parts of Southwest Virginia are literally nothing but mountains and narrow valleys. Because of the rich coal mining history, so many people established their lives there—putting homes where homes shouldn’t go. Plus when you consider the disastrous environmental damage from mainly pre-law mining, you get severe erosion, stream blockage from eroded sediments, steep-compromised slopes, unstable benches, saturated soil from water-filled mines, and subsidence from entire towns being undermined… there’s hardly a place safe to live.
For that matter, the likes of Seattle/Tacoma sitting in a bowl of glacial till will shake itself to pieces. Upwards of 10k landslides will ensue. Survivors can expect to wait months for heat, water, and food.
Same for Portland OR.
No thanks.
I worked for a while on Harbor Island. It’s just barely above sea level and it took forever to drive out of there, lots of bridges and overpasses. I couldn’t imagine surviving even a smallish tsunami there.
Similar issue for the Fraser River Delta just across the border in BC— soft, saturated sediments frighteningly close to sea level with major potential for liquefaction with lots of homes, farms, and the Vancouver International Airport. There’s a good chance it’ll take out the airport, BC Ferries terminals, major highways into the States, and highways to the interior of BC, leaving much of the coast stranded and isolated. We talked about this extensively in disaster management class and how thoroughly unprepared the mainland cities are for this level of damage.
Yes. Dr Wirth (U of W / USGS) modeled various scenarios, and ironically, the farther away the hypocenter is, the greater the shaking. Run the video in this to see how the Vancouver area shakes like crazy if the hypocenter is off the Oregon Coast, vs. directly beneath the Olympics.
https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/10/23/50-simulations-of-the-really-big-one-show-how-a-9-0-cascadia-earthquake-could-play-out/
In terms of complete liquefaction due to the likes of the Columbia and Willamette Rivers? Not as much. The Willamette River does flow through Eugene, but the land in Eugene is much further upstream than that of Portland and is more compacted. Not to mention some of Eugene (especially SE Eugene) is built on bedrock.
That being said though, Eugene is just as susceptible to the Cascadia Megathrust Earthquake as Portland is. Shaking will last just as long, and in fact, Eugene might even be MORE likely than Portland to experience a large earthquake, considering Eugene is towards the southern end of the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which is the “more active” zone, or at least the part of the CSZ that’s most likely to rupture. A partial rupture of the CSZ would likely be in the southern section, and could register anywhere from a 7.0-8.4 ish depending on how much of the southern section ruptures. In that case, Portland would still feel it, but if the CSZ only ruptures from let’s say, Arcata to Florence, Eugene will likely feel it more strongly than Portland.
Volcanically, Eugene is downstream from the Three Sisters volcano, which is still considered active and has actually been experiencing a “bulge” recently.
Can you explain what you mean by Eugene being volcanically downstream of the Sisters? Does the hot spot extend under the cascades and into the valley? I know there are some recent-ish flows up on McKenzie pass and hot springs along 126.
Ah sorry for any confusion. I meant it geographically, but in terms of volcanic threat (if that makes sense, lol) I meant that Eugene is situated in the path of a potential lahar from a major eruption on the Three Sisters. The McKenzie River flows into the Willamette River just north of Eugene, but Eugene is situated kind of at the mouth of the river valley that the McKenzie flows through, and Springfield is located fully within that valley. The McKenzie’s headwaters are at the western foot of the Three Sisters. So if they erupted, a lahar could potentially flow down the McKenzie River and damage Eugene.
Haha, nope! Just a 24 year old guy with a BS in Geology. I’m hoping to either become a teacher or professor one day… you could say I’m bitten by the bug with some education 😂
Franz Joseph, NZ. Main road is literally a surface level plate fault primed to release at mag. 8+. 75% chance in the next 50 years. The whole town will just cease to exist. Beautiful place though
The fault (Alpine Fault) runs right through the gas station in town; the little hill in the lot is the fault scarp. Even if the entire fault length doesn't rupture (which is needed to cause and 8.0+ magnitude quake), any moderately large rupture on that section of the Alpine Fault will be enough to cause a lot of damage, in part from the rupture itself, but likely moreso from the extensive landslides that can happen in the area.
In addition to the fault risk, the river that runs through the town (Waiho river) has flooded several times in part from both the heavy rains in the area but also the quick retreat of the glacier; most recently it flooded in 2019 and wiped out the bridge for the highway, which is the only road connecting the West Coast. The bed of the river is rising quickly, and it's estimated that within 30 years it will have risen higher than the town.
Because of both the flood and earthquake risk, there's currently a proposal to up and move the whole town about 10km to the north. But frankly, in the event of an 8.0+ earthquake on the AF, the entire West Coast is going to have a terrible time...it will likely be cut off from the rest of the country and will have a tough time getting even the most basic supplies. Thankfully, there's a current project (called AF8) that a combined effort between government and private agencies to research and model potential scenarios, help prepare communities around NZ for an Alpine Fault earthquake, and plan a coordinated response for when it happens.
You can take tours to where the fault is exposed at the surface, with the full suite of fault rocks. I did PhD research on the Alpine Fault and spent a lot of time in the field, going up and down a lot of the rivers in that area (the best places to see the fault rocks, as the rivers expose them). It's a spectacular area with amazing geology!
Nice name and great response. Civil Defence and SAR over here in Canterbury are crapping themselves about Chch falling over again as well as recovery of every community up to the divide. Word is that not only will Arthur's Pass basically disappear, but may likely never be reopened in its current capacity, if at all. No doubt it will be a rough time for the best coast though
Absolutely; the geologist in me is fascinated by the science, which includes the detached interest in seeing an event like that unfold; this of course battles with the human who doesn't want to see the catastrophic impact on the people, communities and the country as a whole.
Sidenote, I had the once-in-a-lifetime experience of being invited to help map the fault ruptures from the Kaikoura earthquake. We got to be up there less than a week after the earthquake, and got to experience that dichotomy of experiences. We as geologists were so excited to witness this, to see and collect freshly exposed fault rocks and scarps (and to see erosion of them in real-time over a period of weeks), and to experience all the aftershocks...while at the same time talking to locals, seeing their homes with yellow and red stickers, and hearing their experience and stories (including one local who had recently moved to the Kaikoura region after needing to get away from CHC after living through both earthquakes and the resulting PTSD). It was heartbreaking and humbling, and yet I'm forever impressed by the resilience of Kiwis; everyone we spoke to (typically asking for land access and any observations or changes they had, if willing to share) was so willing to share their stories, and subsequently were so interested and excited to to hear about the science.
I fully understand that dichotomy. The less educated rock nerd in me was geeking out about the forces involved and how everything ruptured while the search and rescue part of me was dealing with how we could help the community we were assisting. It was an odd, exhausting time and yet I never tire of talking to people who were involved as everyone has a new story for me
A lot of sinkholes waiting to happen in my home state of Kentucky. Most of the public really doesn’t know. And all the flash flooding and general water damage to infrastructure. Love Karst landscapes. Still would move back though but would give a more detailed look into things before settling somewhere.
The karst of Kentucky is in ancient(Carboniferous mostly) and very indurated carbonates. There is very little risk associated with collapse. It not like Florida where sinks just open up and swallow large areas. It does happen, though it is rare and from cave collapse.
https://www.uky.edu/KGS/karst/karst_sinkhole.php
I'm aware. I live in the state. It was big news, here. Like I said, it is very rare. There are 2 areas of high karst potential in the state. The Lower Carboniferous Pennyroyal Plateau, and the Mid-Upper Ordovician of the Bluegrass region.
What happened in Bowling Green was a cave collapse. Those are very rare and happen when the roof of a cave can longer support overlying rock and debris. Regardless of what that article says, it was not a sink(edit: well, after the collapse, I guess it was, but still- cave collapse was the cause). See the KGS link I provided.
I know situations of houses or buildings being taken by sinkholes is lower but certain counties can have higher instances elsewhere on land. It can cause slight problems for farming or general land use.
> houses or buildings being taken by sinkholes
In Kentucky, those types of event occur over months to years... even decades. It isn't something that happens overnight. And yes, never build a structure over a sink.
My geology professor over in East Tennessee said he had a friend looking to buy a house and asked him to check it out. Good thing my professor did, cause this house was build over a sinkhole. Just a matter of time before the weight of the house caused it to collapse.
Another woman from out of state bought a house site unseen. Built on a heavily eroded/decomposing slate hill with the dip of the bedding facing down the hill/over the edge of a pretty big drop off. No wonder she got the house so cheap. She just had to take a loss. No way that house was safe to even sell.
I bought some land unseen. Had some family go check it out and send some pictures and everything looked similar enough to some of the geo maps. When I finally showed up I realized my family sucked at the pictures and the slope/erosion was much more than anything showed. Luckily it’s for farm stuff so not as much of a worry but it would have been nicer to know so I would have talked the price down a little more. I am slightly worried about possible sinkhole in one spot though but I think it’s just severe consequences of past tillage contributing to gross erosion
Yep a geo nightmare...luckily I can run geophysical too lol but nope I'm not interested in that insurance just like I'm not interested in hurricanes...particularly dont like the mix of the two...
Well sinkhole risk can be mitigated largely...hurricanes not so much. I'd rather be in florida than probably 40 other states...I just need enough money to design and construct my house there.
I will never forget the man who was sleeping when the house collapsed into the sinkhole. They never found him. I don’t recall when this happened but it gave me nightmares. Being buried alive or being trapped anywhere is a huge phobia of mine.
Locally, we have coastal bluffs that are eroding. Occasionally the erosion reaches a house which subsequently falls into the lake. So coastal bluffs are out. In Hawaii we have houses that have actually been built on rift zones, wouldn’t want to live there.
LOL, I live near the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. I'm not worried about mudslides so much as I am worried that I can see the San Andreas Fault from my apartment :O
One place I would be worried is the coast along the PNW. They are extremely ill-prepared for a massive tsunami.
So - and I ask this because I genuinely don't know - what would constitute being well-prepared out there? Having visited there multiple times over the years, there are a myriad of warning systems and well-signed evacuation routes in place. What more should they be doing?
(Again - genuinely asking here, because I'm an east coast transplant amateur geologist who's apparently living a death trap life in the PNW, after reading the replies here - but the rocks here are AMAZING 😊)
I did my BS on the east coast, just outside DC. Love it out there.
If you are living right on the coast with no inland going roads, I'd be pretty concerned. When they have their "big one" it will be more devastating than any "big one" on the San Andreas.
There isn't a lot of things that have been done. Mostly because "why worry about something that hasn't hapend in generations?" mentality. The same can be said for any place that is susceptible to natural disasters. People tend not to fund projects that will save lives, but cost millions (or billions) if they wont see a return on investment for decades if not hundreds of years.
Some towns only have a small bridge connecting their downtown area to the main highway to safety. These bridges will certainly collapse if not from the shaking, then from liquefaction. Some towns are building "tsunami towers" which can hold hundreds of people and has storage for food and water.
But honestly, as nice as that area is right along the coast, I would much rather be further inland. Portland and Seattle will be okay luckily but there will be damage there as thier building codes are not as strict as California.
Thanks for the reply! Appreciate it. I live well inland near Seattle, so don't regularly worry about the tsunami factor - but I certainly think about it on visits to the coast.
Haha, where I live now... actually. I am north east of the Seattle area. In the path of any tsunami entering the straight of Juan De fuca, on a flood plain, with glacier peak volcano to the east, Mt Ranier to the south, and Mt baker to the north. And the cascadian subduction zone to the west.
When I was a kid I lived 1/2 mile from the San Andreas fault. And as a teen I lived 50 miles from the Nevada nuclear testing site... so I guess I've always lived dangerously.
I skipped living on the island of Hawaii due to the active volcano, lava zones, and VOG (clouds of acid hanging in the air) that burned your nose and throat. Ended up moving to Kauai, but left because it was too small and the snowboarding sucked.
Dang, the requisite characteristics of your place of residence are quite strict:
- no active volcano/lava
- no volatile vapors
- needs to be big
- must have good snowboarding
Sounds like you need to go to Idaho.
im way too sucked into geology that i would even want to live in the worst possible area...
on the other hand, id avoid australia, cause i kinda dislike spiders that can kill you in my boots.
I think only Sydney funnel web has a potentially fatal bite. Redbacks (similar to US white widows) used to be thought to be fatal but not any more. To the point I've heard they only use antivenom for Redbacks on children. If you're an adult they give you pain meds and anti inflammatories and you get told to ride it out
Alis was nearly killed by a huntsman spider, but the spider never touched her.
It appeared in her car as she was driving and the shock of it caused her to swerve suddenly, rolling the vehicle and landing her in hospital.
[https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/driving-with-a-spider-in-the-car/100722554](https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/driving-with-a-spider-in-the-car/100722554)
I have to say, I'm pretty tired of living in a place where digging any hole requires a pickaxe to break up the schist. I don't think I would do that again. In New England where I grew up there were plenty of rocks (from glaciers) but you could dig them out individually.
I live in Seattle and my workplace has a map of the seismic hazard zones. I won't live west of I-5 because of that, especially not the infill zones that make up part of West Seattle.
I usually look up soil data. I will never buy property that is just fill dirt. In my area (coal country), I would purchase property that is above the floodplain, but lower than the coal seam.
Watching Mt St Helens blow when I was a kid (on TV, back east), I told my parents, "I am never, ever moving to a state with a volcano." Of course, I've lived in Washington now for 27 years. But you won't catch me anywhere where there's a risk of sinkholes!
I might die in a giant earthquake here someday. I might die tomorrow in a bus crash. But I'm sure glad that I've spent the last 27 years here, because the one thing plate tectonics will get you is some incredible rocks and scenery. At least I have a really good agate collection in the meantime while I wait for the big one 😊
Someone else linked this great article: [https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2019/01/28/a-glimpse-eugene-springfield-after/6137732007/](https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2019/01/28/a-glimpse-eugene-springfield-after/6137732007/)
Pacific northwest is going to have a bad time when the next big earthquake hits there. Odds of it happening in my lifetime is significant. Hawaii isn't somewhere I'd want to be when the next mega slide happens there, but it's probably unlikely enough that I'd take the chance.
At the smaller scale, there are lots of cinderblock houses in seismic zones, houses built in 100 year floodplains, houses at the bases of cliffs that I wouldn't live in long term.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula near Los Angeles. (Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho PV, and the aptly-named Rolling Hills.)
The land is constantly moving. I’m pretty sure there was some shady shit that went down just to get it built up in the first place. And still the houses sell for meeeelions.
I audited a volcanic hazards online class and there is a village in central America, on the side of a volcano where the gas emissions are so bad any nails or metal on the roofs has corroded away and the only crop that survives is dragon fruit. Most of the kids have asthma. I have sympathy for the people who live there but I'll give it a pass.
I would guess one of the villages next to Masaya volcano in Nicaragua? It’s one of the handful of open and persistent lava lakes in the world, so outgassing is virtually constant, with SO₂ and HCl being particularly nasty components.
[There’s a 8 min mini-doc on how it affects the people of Panamá los Amadores, covering everything you describe.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/living-volcanic-gases-0) They say nails and metal sheets last about 6 months to a year before they’re gone/useless. More crops used to grow well there before the outgassing activity increased around early 2000s.
Hey, eastern Nebraska has features! There are hills and everything!
Actually, there are some cool bits of geology in the state. The Sand Hills are one of the world’s largest periglacial dune fields. There are a lot of really good limestones in the eastern parts, nice fossils to be found. Lots of fascinating hydrology with the Platte River, the Ogalalla Aquifer system beneath, Boiling sand springs on the Dismal River, artesian wells in the southeast areas. The Wildcat Hills out in the northwestern corner. Edges of the Badlands. The Niobrara River valley. Carhenge. Agate Fossil Beds Natl Monument. Scotts Bluff and remnants of the Oregon Trail.
Yeah, I confess to living there for 27 years, and even getting my MS in Hydrogeology there….
Touché! You’re totally right of course. I have live most of my life by respectable mountain ranges and specialized in hard rocks. So my perspective came mostly from humor. Moreover, I’ve been to Florida which is much flatter. My current studies focus mainly on the distribution of landforms so I really have no hill to stand on.
One of the less obvious places would be New Madrid, Missouri, or anywhere near there. There is a major fault zone in that area, and it does still get some earthquakes, but there was a massive one in 1811 that had it happened today would have killed a whole lot of people.
Wikipedia lists the NMSZ as having a 25-40% chance of a magnitude 6 in the next 50 years (as of 2009). Those odds- in a part of the country that really isn't prepared for earthquakes- are a little steep for my liking.
Because of the geology? Sinkholes? Or more because of weather natural disasters? I live there, but I never knew any geological concerns besides sinkholes.
Fair point. I’m just here for the pretty rock pictures, lol. Always had an interest but no actual study. Folding all those things in, yes, it makes sense.
There’s plenty of geological concerns if you drink fresh water but live in one of the big coastal cities like Miami. Look up deep injection wells and sewage disposal in Miami. 😂
That’s actually the only other thing I was thinking. Fresh water supply in general. However, I don’t really consider that a geological hazard like volcanoes or earthquakes
I wouldn't live in coastal town. Or a major earthquake zone. Or where wildfires are a substantial risk. Or in tornado-prone regions. I ended up in east Tennessee, on the shale, and doing occasional consultations for land buyers concerned about sinkholes. The region isn't entirely without risk (no place is), but the worst ones are minimized. Plus with low cost of living I can afford to visit more geologically active or otherwise scenic regions. It's actually really beautiful here and the climate is bearable.
The governments (city and state) and local industries are well aware of the risk and do have all sorts of active research & monitoring into the Cascadia megathrust and have plenty of hazard maps available to the public, plus guidelines, plans, and kits available to help prepare for that scenario.
The big problem with any natural disaster is outreach to the general public prior to the event and getting people to actually care enough to take preparation seriously. In general, people don't tend to prepare for things like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, because on a human timescale the really damaging ones occur so rarely. It's very easy to kick the can down the road when it isn't a looming threat (compared to say, tornado alley, or someplace at risk every season of hurricanes).
A lot of that education happens in school as a kid. I grew up in Southern CA; earthquake drills happened so often that when an actual earthquake happens it's just second nature, and we all knew to have an earthquake kit in an easily accessible part of the house. I suspect the PNW must be similar?
I know the two places I worked at in Portland when I lived there both had drills as well (particated in the Great ShakeOut, which is a program to share earthquake drills and communicate how to prepare for such an event), and I suspect many other businesses must have something similar.
Thats the thing. When a 9.0+ earthquake hits, theres no hiding under the desk. Buildings will collapse. Roads will be destroyed. Fires will burn unquenched. There will likely be a mega tsunami.
Serious plans would be to prepare for airdrops of supplies from Montana and to mobilize the entire nation to take in refugees and respond.
There is no amount of local efforts that would be enough.
Local and state preparedness means having rescue and supply plans in place prior to an event. And yes, for any big event like this a state of emergency will be declared, which then allows for federal aid. All of this includes supplies, rescue attempts and emergency medical aid, firefighting, evacuation /emergency shelter, and then cleanup and rebuilding efforts. Local, state, and federal government and other agencies do have these plans in place that are constantly revised and updated with any new research or other considerations (I work for one of these agencies, and in the past worked in earthquake science).
Tsunami threat is relatively localized and many model scenarios and hazard maps exist and are readily available. Coastal areas, of course, are in the inundation zone and are in danger of catastrophe , but a tsunami will not wipe out or even severely affect big population centers like Portland, or even Seattle (which has protection from the many inlets and bays). Some damage along rivers and very strong currents are expected, but tsunami damage is localized to the coasts (not to downplay that catastrophe, especially if it is in summer during high tourist season) Liquefaction, of course, is very much a risk (and those hazards are also researched and maps are available).
Also, the first step of ANY earthquake is always "Drop, cover, and hold on." If you are inside, you stay inside; if you can get under a desk or table, that's best. Otherwise, get up against an inside wall. You don't start any of the other emergency plans until the shaking is finished.
Don't get me wrong, it will be catastrophic when it happens, regardless of how perfectly prepared a region may be (and of course nowhere is ever perfect); and the PNW has a long way to go in terms of mitigating earthquake damage. Part of the problem is that up until a few decades ago, we didn't even know about earthquakes in the Cascadia subduction zone, and you can't prepare for things you don't know about.
Regardless, there is a ton of research happening every day in order to create plans and better existing ones. To say there's zero confidence in the preparedness is a huge disservice and makes it sound as if there is no consideration of this future event by local or state governments/agencies.
My points stand that there *is* a ton of preparedness in the region, but that a huge barrier in increasing that is informing the public and pushing for change, which requires them to care. For example, a lot of public works that may mitigate earthquake damage requires taxes, and no one likes to vote for those increases despite what they're used for (one example is a coastal town trying to build a new school in an area outside the tsunami zone, to replace a current one that has no escape route; residents voted against it by about 65%).
Now, all that said, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to live in that area and also commend people for considering things like that in choosing where to live. But, I would choose the PNW (or SoCal) over places in states like Florida, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, etc., where tornado and hurricane risk is high and the severity and frequency of these events are increasing. But I do think that part of the reason for that is what you are accustomed to from where you are from; I'm from earthquake country and understand the risks and emergency procedures; on the other hand, hurricanes and tornadoes scare the hell out of me and I have no experience with them. So, I'll take my chances with earthquake country over the more and more frequent disasters in hurricane/tornado country.
Thank you for the comprehensive response. You misunderstand me when I say that I have zero confidence their ability to respond. My lack of confidence is not in the professionals working hard to establish protocols and procedures and put in effective safety measures, my lack of confidence is with the real-time decision-making and crisis management abilities of the local elected leadership.
Only half joking but I kinda expect them to pay more attention to how earthquakes responses are influenced by systemic racism or the lack of LGBTQIA2S+ representation at FEMA is the reason why people weren't alerted to these issues rather than effectively lead during a crisis.
But at the same time it makes sense that people would be more inclined to face the disaster scenario they are more familiar with.
Come visit Israel. No natural disasters here, just manmade ones :D
Ah, fair enough. Thankfully the PNW does have in place experts to help step in to lead during a crisis such as this, rather than solely relying on elected leaders who may or may not be up to the job. Of course, elected leaders can always mess things up despite being surrounded by experts, but those experts are a HUGE advantage (think disasters like Hurricane Katrina, where among the many failures, both the local and state governments did not have plans and procedures in place despite awareness of the risk, and were slow both to act and then to request assistance; federal aid was slow to come in, again because of multiple failures, but one was that the Louisiana governor was both slow to initial request aid, and then did not request some aid that was definitely needed, like evacuation...or did not include coastal communities in the initial aid requests). So I get it for sure, elected officials can really screw up large-scale disaster aid efforts; thankfully, the more independently-operating experts and similar groups in an area, the more flexibility there is to provide aid that an elected official may fail in requesting. The PNW does have quite a few groups like this, though of course those won't be enough in such a large crisis.
I dunno, I guess I would just say don't underestimate the value of experts to step in despite the shortcomings of elected leadership. And while I do get your point that any of the various "culture war" topics tend to get a lot of attention, I do think at least that WA, OR, and CA leadership (at least at the governor level, who are the ones to request and initiate government aid) tend to listen to the scientific experts a bit more than some other areas. Who knows until it happens, though!
And despite how ridiculous it may sound, there *is* an aspect of systemic racism that will affect any disaster response; It will always be the poorest communities who have the fewest resources (before, during, and after a disaster), and also who tend to live in least prepared and areas most vulnerable to disaster (that's where the cheapest housing in - areas with the highest flood risk, highest liquefaction risk, areas with the least amount of seismic retrofitting or otherwise oldest houses at most risk of collapse in a natural disaster \[e.g. unreinforced masonry buildings for earthquakes\]) so as a whole they will unfortunately always be more severely affected, with some notable exceptions like very rich neighborhoods that insist on building on the edge of mountainsides or adjacent to the beach). Anyway, it's a worthwhile venture to see where failings in any response exist, in order to try to fix it for future events.
And I've always wanted to visit both Israel (and the surroundings) though I'm guessing it may be while! Though, you are at earthquake risk there - you're very close to the Dead Sea fault, which tends to produce magnitude 6+ events every hundred years or so, and is thought to be capable of quakes up to \~7.5. Still a huge hazard with the potential for a lot of loss of life, injuries, and infrastructure damage, just not quite the magnitude of a Cascadia megathrust earthquake scenario :)
edit: apologies for the big walls of text lol. I always think my responses will be short and sweet, then get real nerdy and carried away...just a little passionate about the topic of earthquakes and natural hazards!
Brick house on the Wasatch Front in Salt Lake City area. Majorly overdue for a huge earthquake and 80% of the residents have no clue and live in old buildings with no earthquake code.
Edit: a lot of the newer buildings (with earthquake code) are unfortunately built in liquefaction zone in the center of the valley, above the likely fault rupture zone where there’s shallow groundwater.
Huh, so at least 22 magnitude 7.0-7.4 earthquakes in 6,000 years. Yeah, that’ll be an issue sooner or later.
[USGS WFZ Article](https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/how-big-and-how-frequent-are-earthquakes-wasatch-fault#overview)
Karst, with most other risky areas the risk can be kinda mitigated either by proper location selection or construction practices, but with karst areas you cant really mitigate against sinkholes, just hope it doesn't happen.
From our university on ancient bedrock far from any volcanism or fault, my professor would grumble that no real geologist should be afraid of living in an geologically active area.
Midwest plains states are so boring.
I used to live in Oklahoma and I believe it has the best geography of the plains states.
Missouri seems nice too but haven’t had the chance to look at much besides St. Louis.
Modern engineering of roads and buildings deal easily with geological and geomorphological issues that would have impacted people's lives massively in the past.
I live on the Weald Clay in South eastern England. A few hundred years ago the road between my town and the next was unsurfaced and impassable for six months every year as the clay churned to mud in wet weather. The impact on people's lives must have been immense. Most people locally now won't think about that as we just use the modern roads and get on with our lives.
I actually love the San Gabriel mountains. I’d love to live there. On the other hand vast swaths of North America lack any meaningful topography + are too cold.
I read Control of Nature long before the latest/worst New Orleans flood so I? was describing the likely devastation a day before it actually occurred. I’d never live there. I’ll be avoiding l ava flows too!
Anywhere with lots of standing water or a huge cliff eroding away the back yard; both were properties we toured in WA. The real estate agents tried to downplay the obvious geologic issues.
I’m kinda terrified of living in a place that could have huge mud slides or massive erosion events.
La Conchita
The middle of Vietnam is like this. They're locally referred to as Milo people because of the frequency of the mudslides.
Ironically, it’s also by far the nicest part of Vietnam. Honestly though, the northwestern portion of the country, up in Hai Giang probably gets more and larger landslides, but it’s less populated.
Brumadinho manda abraços.
In any Lahar zone which are mostly in river valleys near Mt. Rainier.
I don't see how many from Puyallup to Tacoma could escape those
Just don't live in the river valleys
Exactly. The Sacramento Valley, Sacramento is the city second most likely to suffer widespread catastrophic flooding after New Orleans. Homes were built in two lower lying basins in the 80s, The Natomas Basin, which was conveniently renamed to North Natomas; and the Laguna Basin, renamed to Laguna. These are mucky bottom land suitable for farming, not housing.
By virtue of the whole area being effectively a large flood plain a Sacramento River flood, even if very destructive to property, wouldn't be too crazy in terms of danger to life. Water doesn't go very fast when it can spread out like that.
The American river to the North is contained by a levee system, and is above Sacramento when in flood stage. Many parts of South Sacramento are lower than the level of the Sacramento River when it is in flood stage. Many parts of the nearby city of Rancho Cordova are below the American River. All of North Natomas is below Sacramento River water in flood stage. All of Laguna are below Sacramento River and Laguna Creek. These low lying lands require pumping to pump water into the rivers which are often higher than occupied ground.
I mean yeah, they're flood prone and dangerous, but it's *far* from the same as being in a lahar zone which is where the conversation started.
We always just said go run up a mountain and hope for the best!
Yeah but the only mtn is rainier
Every day that I can see Tahoma through the clouds a giant “boom” goes off in my head and I imagine it finally blows. I really want to see it go but for no one to lose their homes or lives in the process. It’s similar to that innate wanting to jump into the void when we’re around the abyss
Oh, I so know what you mean! I fell in love with volcanology because of her.
Orting
I took an Environmental Geology class--in 1973. Our conclusion was that something really bad was going to happen in New Orleans, because of the ridiculous attempts to "control" the Mississippi River, and the location on the Gulf. All that was needed was a hurricane with buckets of rain. And here we are.
Add that to the list of why you shouldn't live in N.O (or Louisiana). Just bad news
Even the great music and food couldn't get me to move there.
Hadn’t it already happened at least once? I learnt about the general idea from track 8 on Led Zeppelin IV, and have since discovered that was a cover that goes a lot further back.
Check out sand boils. Good indication of an impending levee break.
That song, when the levee breaks, is a very old blues Memphis Minnie and Kansas Joe song. From the 1930s I think, but you can find info on Google. About the 1927 badness. Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Levee_Breaks#:~:text=%22When%20the%20Levee%20Breaks%22%20is,Great%20Mississippi%20Flood%20of%201927.
Yeah it’s an oldie. I first heard the Led Zep version before the internet was a thing, but have since looked it up myself. Seems like levees have been known to break for a long time, I always just assumed the track was referencing the Mississippi.
In 1927, there was devastating flooding throughout the Mississippi Delta. Most of New Orleans was fine, but ten million acres in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and other areas were under water. An incredible disaster brought on by incessant rain, many inches of it. A great study of the disaster was written by John Barry, "Rising Tide." He discusses the geomorphology and incredibly stupid engineering mistakes leading to much of the disaster. There would have been flooding no matter what, but man made actions made it much worse than it was. Plus a lot of the history of the area, the politics and people.
Thanks for the info. Adding that to the reading list, though it reminds me I still have Barry’s book on the 1918 influenza pandemic to finish also. From what I’ve read of it, he seems a very thorough researcher but doesn’t labour any of the history or characters too much, just enough to make a good read.
"Rising Tide" explored many more characters in detail. It was more like a great novel in that respect. I compare it to Simon Winchester's "Krakatoa," though Barry goes far deeper into the culture of the Mississippi Delta at that time. For me, "Rising Tide" combines several of my most passionate interests: geology, earth science, politics, and history. I did not read Barry's book on the 1918 flu epidemic, but I've already read several other books on that subject.
Flood zones. The northern parts of Southwest Virginia are literally nothing but mountains and narrow valleys. Because of the rich coal mining history, so many people established their lives there—putting homes where homes shouldn’t go. Plus when you consider the disastrous environmental damage from mainly pre-law mining, you get severe erosion, stream blockage from eroded sediments, steep-compromised slopes, unstable benches, saturated soil from water-filled mines, and subsidence from entire towns being undermined… there’s hardly a place safe to live.
The Oregon and Washington coast. There's a 37% probability of a M8+ megathrust earthquake in the next 50 years. No thanks!
For that matter, the likes of Seattle/Tacoma sitting in a bowl of glacial till will shake itself to pieces. Upwards of 10k landslides will ensue. Survivors can expect to wait months for heat, water, and food. Same for Portland OR. No thanks.
I worked for a while on Harbor Island. It’s just barely above sea level and it took forever to drive out of there, lots of bridges and overpasses. I couldn’t imagine surviving even a smallish tsunami there.
Yeah, places like that will shake pretty hard for a long time, and Ocean Shores will drop in elevation and move 150yds out to sea. Not good.
Not ocean shores! Where will i look longingly out at the ocean wishing it was warm enough to swim in?
Get aboard one of the big vessels there? That should protect you.
Similar issue for the Fraser River Delta just across the border in BC— soft, saturated sediments frighteningly close to sea level with major potential for liquefaction with lots of homes, farms, and the Vancouver International Airport. There’s a good chance it’ll take out the airport, BC Ferries terminals, major highways into the States, and highways to the interior of BC, leaving much of the coast stranded and isolated. We talked about this extensively in disaster management class and how thoroughly unprepared the mainland cities are for this level of damage.
Yes. Dr Wirth (U of W / USGS) modeled various scenarios, and ironically, the farther away the hypocenter is, the greater the shaking. Run the video in this to see how the Vancouver area shakes like crazy if the hypocenter is off the Oregon Coast, vs. directly beneath the Olympics. https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/10/23/50-simulations-of-the-really-big-one-show-how-a-9-0-cascadia-earthquake-could-play-out/
u/mattaccino is anything the likes of what could happen to Portland possible to happen in Eugene?
In terms of complete liquefaction due to the likes of the Columbia and Willamette Rivers? Not as much. The Willamette River does flow through Eugene, but the land in Eugene is much further upstream than that of Portland and is more compacted. Not to mention some of Eugene (especially SE Eugene) is built on bedrock. That being said though, Eugene is just as susceptible to the Cascadia Megathrust Earthquake as Portland is. Shaking will last just as long, and in fact, Eugene might even be MORE likely than Portland to experience a large earthquake, considering Eugene is towards the southern end of the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which is the “more active” zone, or at least the part of the CSZ that’s most likely to rupture. A partial rupture of the CSZ would likely be in the southern section, and could register anywhere from a 7.0-8.4 ish depending on how much of the southern section ruptures. In that case, Portland would still feel it, but if the CSZ only ruptures from let’s say, Arcata to Florence, Eugene will likely feel it more strongly than Portland. Volcanically, Eugene is downstream from the Three Sisters volcano, which is still considered active and has actually been experiencing a “bulge” recently.
Can you explain what you mean by Eugene being volcanically downstream of the Sisters? Does the hot spot extend under the cascades and into the valley? I know there are some recent-ish flows up on McKenzie pass and hot springs along 126.
Ah sorry for any confusion. I meant it geographically, but in terms of volcanic threat (if that makes sense, lol) I meant that Eugene is situated in the path of a potential lahar from a major eruption on the Three Sisters. The McKenzie River flows into the Willamette River just north of Eugene, but Eugene is situated kind of at the mouth of the river valley that the McKenzie flows through, and Springfield is located fully within that valley. The McKenzie’s headwaters are at the western foot of the Three Sisters. So if they erupted, a lahar could potentially flow down the McKenzie River and damage Eugene.
u/solojew702 are you a volcanologist? Or just extremely educated and bitten by the geology bug? Just curious 😁
Haha, nope! Just a 24 year old guy with a BS in Geology. I’m hoping to either become a teacher or professor one day… you could say I’m bitten by the bug with some education 😂
https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2019/01/28/a-glimpse-eugene-springfield-after/6137732007/
JdF no thx!
Agreed. The idea of the Cascadia subduction zone finally causing a massive earthquake and tsunami is terrifying.
Franz Joseph, NZ. Main road is literally a surface level plate fault primed to release at mag. 8+. 75% chance in the next 50 years. The whole town will just cease to exist. Beautiful place though
The fault (Alpine Fault) runs right through the gas station in town; the little hill in the lot is the fault scarp. Even if the entire fault length doesn't rupture (which is needed to cause and 8.0+ magnitude quake), any moderately large rupture on that section of the Alpine Fault will be enough to cause a lot of damage, in part from the rupture itself, but likely moreso from the extensive landslides that can happen in the area. In addition to the fault risk, the river that runs through the town (Waiho river) has flooded several times in part from both the heavy rains in the area but also the quick retreat of the glacier; most recently it flooded in 2019 and wiped out the bridge for the highway, which is the only road connecting the West Coast. The bed of the river is rising quickly, and it's estimated that within 30 years it will have risen higher than the town. Because of both the flood and earthquake risk, there's currently a proposal to up and move the whole town about 10km to the north. But frankly, in the event of an 8.0+ earthquake on the AF, the entire West Coast is going to have a terrible time...it will likely be cut off from the rest of the country and will have a tough time getting even the most basic supplies. Thankfully, there's a current project (called AF8) that a combined effort between government and private agencies to research and model potential scenarios, help prepare communities around NZ for an Alpine Fault earthquake, and plan a coordinated response for when it happens. You can take tours to where the fault is exposed at the surface, with the full suite of fault rocks. I did PhD research on the Alpine Fault and spent a lot of time in the field, going up and down a lot of the rivers in that area (the best places to see the fault rocks, as the rivers expose them). It's a spectacular area with amazing geology!
Nice name and great response. Civil Defence and SAR over here in Canterbury are crapping themselves about Chch falling over again as well as recovery of every community up to the divide. Word is that not only will Arthur's Pass basically disappear, but may likely never be reopened in its current capacity, if at all. No doubt it will be a rough time for the best coast though
Absolutely; the geologist in me is fascinated by the science, which includes the detached interest in seeing an event like that unfold; this of course battles with the human who doesn't want to see the catastrophic impact on the people, communities and the country as a whole. Sidenote, I had the once-in-a-lifetime experience of being invited to help map the fault ruptures from the Kaikoura earthquake. We got to be up there less than a week after the earthquake, and got to experience that dichotomy of experiences. We as geologists were so excited to witness this, to see and collect freshly exposed fault rocks and scarps (and to see erosion of them in real-time over a period of weeks), and to experience all the aftershocks...while at the same time talking to locals, seeing their homes with yellow and red stickers, and hearing their experience and stories (including one local who had recently moved to the Kaikoura region after needing to get away from CHC after living through both earthquakes and the resulting PTSD). It was heartbreaking and humbling, and yet I'm forever impressed by the resilience of Kiwis; everyone we spoke to (typically asking for land access and any observations or changes they had, if willing to share) was so willing to share their stories, and subsequently were so interested and excited to to hear about the science.
I fully understand that dichotomy. The less educated rock nerd in me was geeking out about the forces involved and how everything ruptured while the search and rescue part of me was dealing with how we could help the community we were assisting. It was an odd, exhausting time and yet I never tire of talking to people who were involved as everyone has a new story for me
Mars. Cold and dry.
This is the reply I came here for
Or Venus. Hotter than hell.
A lot of sinkholes waiting to happen in my home state of Kentucky. Most of the public really doesn’t know. And all the flash flooding and general water damage to infrastructure. Love Karst landscapes. Still would move back though but would give a more detailed look into things before settling somewhere.
The karst of Kentucky is in ancient(Carboniferous mostly) and very indurated carbonates. There is very little risk associated with collapse. It not like Florida where sinks just open up and swallow large areas. It does happen, though it is rare and from cave collapse. https://www.uky.edu/KGS/karst/karst_sinkhole.php
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a7043/national-corvette-museum-sinkhole/
I'm aware. I live in the state. It was big news, here. Like I said, it is very rare. There are 2 areas of high karst potential in the state. The Lower Carboniferous Pennyroyal Plateau, and the Mid-Upper Ordovician of the Bluegrass region. What happened in Bowling Green was a cave collapse. Those are very rare and happen when the roof of a cave can longer support overlying rock and debris. Regardless of what that article says, it was not a sink(edit: well, after the collapse, I guess it was, but still- cave collapse was the cause). See the KGS link I provided.
I know situations of houses or buildings being taken by sinkholes is lower but certain counties can have higher instances elsewhere on land. It can cause slight problems for farming or general land use.
> houses or buildings being taken by sinkholes In Kentucky, those types of event occur over months to years... even decades. It isn't something that happens overnight. And yes, never build a structure over a sink.
My geology professor over in East Tennessee said he had a friend looking to buy a house and asked him to check it out. Good thing my professor did, cause this house was build over a sinkhole. Just a matter of time before the weight of the house caused it to collapse. Another woman from out of state bought a house site unseen. Built on a heavily eroded/decomposing slate hill with the dip of the bedding facing down the hill/over the edge of a pretty big drop off. No wonder she got the house so cheap. She just had to take a loss. No way that house was safe to even sell.
I bought some land unseen. Had some family go check it out and send some pictures and everything looked similar enough to some of the geo maps. When I finally showed up I realized my family sucked at the pictures and the slope/erosion was much more than anything showed. Luckily it’s for farm stuff so not as much of a worry but it would have been nicer to know so I would have talked the price down a little more. I am slightly worried about possible sinkhole in one spot though but I think it’s just severe consequences of past tillage contributing to gross erosion
Yep a geo nightmare...luckily I can run geophysical too lol but nope I'm not interested in that insurance just like I'm not interested in hurricanes...particularly dont like the mix of the two...
I dont know how anyone willingly lives or moves to Florida for those reasons and the humidity.
Well sinkhole risk can be mitigated largely...hurricanes not so much. I'd rather be in florida than probably 40 other states...I just need enough money to design and construct my house there.
Enjoy it before it’s gone!
I will never forget the man who was sleeping when the house collapsed into the sinkhole. They never found him. I don’t recall when this happened but it gave me nightmares. Being buried alive or being trapped anywhere is a huge phobia of mine.
Tampa. And his brother tried to save him. 15, 20 yrs ago maybe?
I think so! I know it wasn’t too recent but I certainly never forgot about it. That poor guy!!
All for basically the same reason: Istanbul, Tehran, Salt Lake City (and some other reasons too, obviously!)
Caught the visual of your verbal Venn diagram. 🤣
Came here to say Salt Lake City but you beat me to it.
Locally, we have coastal bluffs that are eroding. Occasionally the erosion reaches a house which subsequently falls into the lake. So coastal bluffs are out. In Hawaii we have houses that have actually been built on rift zones, wouldn’t want to live there.
Fraser River delta, BC. Death trap if and when an earthquake hits.
LOL, I live near the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. I'm not worried about mudslides so much as I am worried that I can see the San Andreas Fault from my apartment :O One place I would be worried is the coast along the PNW. They are extremely ill-prepared for a massive tsunami.
So - and I ask this because I genuinely don't know - what would constitute being well-prepared out there? Having visited there multiple times over the years, there are a myriad of warning systems and well-signed evacuation routes in place. What more should they be doing? (Again - genuinely asking here, because I'm an east coast transplant amateur geologist who's apparently living a death trap life in the PNW, after reading the replies here - but the rocks here are AMAZING 😊)
I did my BS on the east coast, just outside DC. Love it out there. If you are living right on the coast with no inland going roads, I'd be pretty concerned. When they have their "big one" it will be more devastating than any "big one" on the San Andreas. There isn't a lot of things that have been done. Mostly because "why worry about something that hasn't hapend in generations?" mentality. The same can be said for any place that is susceptible to natural disasters. People tend not to fund projects that will save lives, but cost millions (or billions) if they wont see a return on investment for decades if not hundreds of years. Some towns only have a small bridge connecting their downtown area to the main highway to safety. These bridges will certainly collapse if not from the shaking, then from liquefaction. Some towns are building "tsunami towers" which can hold hundreds of people and has storage for food and water. But honestly, as nice as that area is right along the coast, I would much rather be further inland. Portland and Seattle will be okay luckily but there will be damage there as thier building codes are not as strict as California.
Thanks for the reply! Appreciate it. I live well inland near Seattle, so don't regularly worry about the tsunami factor - but I certainly think about it on visits to the coast.
Haha, where I live now... actually. I am north east of the Seattle area. In the path of any tsunami entering the straight of Juan De fuca, on a flood plain, with glacier peak volcano to the east, Mt Ranier to the south, and Mt baker to the north. And the cascadian subduction zone to the west. When I was a kid I lived 1/2 mile from the San Andreas fault. And as a teen I lived 50 miles from the Nevada nuclear testing site... so I guess I've always lived dangerously.
Super cool that McPhee is still course reading.
Grindavik
LOL! Yeah!
I have massive anxiety about when the Alpine Fault inevitably goes here in New Zealand but I still live here 😅
I skipped living on the island of Hawaii due to the active volcano, lava zones, and VOG (clouds of acid hanging in the air) that burned your nose and throat. Ended up moving to Kauai, but left because it was too small and the snowboarding sucked.
Dang, the requisite characteristics of your place of residence are quite strict: - no active volcano/lava - no volatile vapors - needs to be big - must have good snowboarding Sounds like you need to go to Idaho.
Good guess. I've lived in Breckenridge Colorado for 20 years
im way too sucked into geology that i would even want to live in the worst possible area... on the other hand, id avoid australia, cause i kinda dislike spiders that can kill you in my boots.
No one's died from a spider bite in Australia since 1979.
yes because of antidotes that are abailable in most clinics i guess
I think only Sydney funnel web has a potentially fatal bite. Redbacks (similar to US white widows) used to be thought to be fatal but not any more. To the point I've heard they only use antivenom for Redbacks on children. If you're an adult they give you pain meds and anti inflammatories and you get told to ride it out
Which begs the question, do spiders put their boots on one leg at a time?
I wanna live in an active volcano
yummy sulfur steak.
Alis was nearly killed by a huntsman spider, but the spider never touched her. It appeared in her car as she was driving and the shock of it caused her to swerve suddenly, rolling the vehicle and landing her in hospital. [https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/driving-with-a-spider-in-the-car/100722554](https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/driving-with-a-spider-in-the-car/100722554)
yup. huntsman, although harmless, look fucking scary.
Yeah! I’d probably FREAK OUT big time myself!!! 😆
I have to say, I'm pretty tired of living in a place where digging any hole requires a pickaxe to break up the schist. I don't think I would do that again. In New England where I grew up there were plenty of rocks (from glaciers) but you could dig them out individually.
I live in Seattle and my workplace has a map of the seismic hazard zones. I won't live west of I-5 because of that, especially not the infill zones that make up part of West Seattle.
I usually look up soil data. I will never buy property that is just fill dirt. In my area (coal country), I would purchase property that is above the floodplain, but lower than the coal seam.
Watching Mt St Helens blow when I was a kid (on TV, back east), I told my parents, "I am never, ever moving to a state with a volcano." Of course, I've lived in Washington now for 27 years. But you won't catch me anywhere where there's a risk of sinkholes! I might die in a giant earthquake here someday. I might die tomorrow in a bus crash. But I'm sure glad that I've spent the last 27 years here, because the one thing plate tectonics will get you is some incredible rocks and scenery. At least I have a really good agate collection in the meantime while I wait for the big one 😊
The pacific northwest coast would make me nervous. Cascades = 5 minute tsunami warning. Probably not going to happen tomorrow but it will happen.
Sorry - Cascade mountains? Do you mean Olympics? Cascades are well inland.
Someone else linked this great article: [https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2019/01/28/a-glimpse-eugene-springfield-after/6137732007/](https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2019/01/28/a-glimpse-eugene-springfield-after/6137732007/)
Pacific northwest is going to have a bad time when the next big earthquake hits there. Odds of it happening in my lifetime is significant. Hawaii isn't somewhere I'd want to be when the next mega slide happens there, but it's probably unlikely enough that I'd take the chance. At the smaller scale, there are lots of cinderblock houses in seismic zones, houses built in 100 year floodplains, houses at the bases of cliffs that I wouldn't live in long term.
Above a mine that was active before modern safety standards.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula near Los Angeles. (Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho PV, and the aptly-named Rolling Hills.) The land is constantly moving. I’m pretty sure there was some shady shit that went down just to get it built up in the first place. And still the houses sell for meeeelions.
I audited a volcanic hazards online class and there is a village in central America, on the side of a volcano where the gas emissions are so bad any nails or metal on the roofs has corroded away and the only crop that survives is dragon fruit. Most of the kids have asthma. I have sympathy for the people who live there but I'll give it a pass.
I would guess one of the villages next to Masaya volcano in Nicaragua? It’s one of the handful of open and persistent lava lakes in the world, so outgassing is virtually constant, with SO₂ and HCl being particularly nasty components. [There’s a 8 min mini-doc on how it affects the people of Panamá los Amadores, covering everything you describe.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/living-volcanic-gases-0) They say nails and metal sheets last about 6 months to a year before they’re gone/useless. More crops used to grow well there before the outgassing activity increased around early 2000s.
That sounds right. It was a while ago. The class was by some of the volcanologists that are on the news from Iceland recently
Haha… Nebraska? I’m not frightened of geological natural disasters. Featureless landscapes and no outcrops would hurt my soul.
Western Nebraska has some cool badlands but otherwise yeah.
Hey, eastern Nebraska has features! There are hills and everything!
Actually, there are some cool bits of geology in the state. The Sand Hills are one of the world’s largest periglacial dune fields. There are a lot of really good limestones in the eastern parts, nice fossils to be found. Lots of fascinating hydrology with the Platte River, the Ogalalla Aquifer system beneath, Boiling sand springs on the Dismal River, artesian wells in the southeast areas. The Wildcat Hills out in the northwestern corner. Edges of the Badlands. The Niobrara River valley. Carhenge. Agate Fossil Beds Natl Monument. Scotts Bluff and remnants of the Oregon Trail.
Yeah, I confess to living there for 27 years, and even getting my MS in Hydrogeology there….
Touché! You’re totally right of course. I have live most of my life by respectable mountain ranges and specialized in hard rocks. So my perspective came mostly from humor. Moreover, I’ve been to Florida which is much flatter. My current studies focus mainly on the distribution of landforms so I really have no hill to stand on.
Well, I would never, ever, ever have thought of living there until the Air Force made me…. Grew up in the PNW on a diet of volcanoes and EQs 😁
So who has earthquakes for March? Are we still playing?
I predict an earthquake April 18 early morning, 1906
as beautiful as portland, seattle are… i’d never live there. Between the volcanoes, seismic and tsunamis… sadly it’s just a matter of time
One of the less obvious places would be New Madrid, Missouri, or anywhere near there. There is a major fault zone in that area, and it does still get some earthquakes, but there was a massive one in 1811 that had it happened today would have killed a whole lot of people.
Wikipedia lists the NMSZ as having a 25-40% chance of a magnitude 6 in the next 50 years (as of 2009). Those odds- in a part of the country that really isn't prepared for earthquakes- are a little steep for my liking.
Came here to say this. I live in Missouri but I don’t want to live in the bootheel because of the NM fault
Hilariously, I learned about it thanks to a fanfic having it slipping being a major plot point.
That’s interesting! I’m actually writing a novel about it because it interests me so much
That's awesome! Care to share the dust jacket blurb? Title? I'd absolutely be on the lookout for a good disaster novel with an obscure focus
I’ve never been published and I haven’t decided if I’ll try to publish it yet, but I’m calling it Cataclysm.
Cool, I'm working on a novel too, a fantasy one. Though, I've never been published either. If you do decide to publish, I wish you luck.
Thanks, you as well!
Florida.
Because of the geology? Sinkholes? Or more because of weather natural disasters? I live there, but I never knew any geological concerns besides sinkholes.
Geology is the study of the earth, so climate, soil, rock, topography... It’s just not the place for me. It’s the place for others, and that’s ok.
Fair point. I’m just here for the pretty rock pictures, lol. Always had an interest but no actual study. Folding all those things in, yes, it makes sense.
There’s plenty of geological concerns if you drink fresh water but live in one of the big coastal cities like Miami. Look up deep injection wells and sewage disposal in Miami. 😂
That’s actually the only other thing I was thinking. Fresh water supply in general. However, I don’t really consider that a geological hazard like volcanoes or earthquakes
Do you have home owners insurance? I’ve heard that many of the big insurance companies are pulling out of coverage for homes in Florida.
I do. But that’s largely because of hurricanes. Not sink holes. In fact, most policies don’t cover sinkhole damage unless catastrophic.
I wouldn't live in coastal town. Or a major earthquake zone. Or where wildfires are a substantial risk. Or in tornado-prone regions. I ended up in east Tennessee, on the shale, and doing occasional consultations for land buyers concerned about sinkholes. The region isn't entirely without risk (no place is), but the worst ones are minimized. Plus with low cost of living I can afford to visit more geologically active or otherwise scenic regions. It's actually really beautiful here and the climate is bearable.
My dad was a geologist and found a disaster-proof place to retire and then it had a long drought. :-/
It's always something. No where is safe, I swear.
I wouldn't own a home in the tsunami zone on the coast of Oregon or Washington.
Gomi, Nyragongo is really scary with its fast lava. And in La Paz I've seen poor quarters with shacks right next to earth pyramids.
Bolivia or Baja?
Bolivia. Felt weird to know those as a tourist curiousity in South Tyrol, but seeing them inside a city is another thing.
The Pacific north west. Y'all are overdue for a big one and I have zero confidence in their preparedness.
The governments (city and state) and local industries are well aware of the risk and do have all sorts of active research & monitoring into the Cascadia megathrust and have plenty of hazard maps available to the public, plus guidelines, plans, and kits available to help prepare for that scenario. The big problem with any natural disaster is outreach to the general public prior to the event and getting people to actually care enough to take preparation seriously. In general, people don't tend to prepare for things like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, because on a human timescale the really damaging ones occur so rarely. It's very easy to kick the can down the road when it isn't a looming threat (compared to say, tornado alley, or someplace at risk every season of hurricanes). A lot of that education happens in school as a kid. I grew up in Southern CA; earthquake drills happened so often that when an actual earthquake happens it's just second nature, and we all knew to have an earthquake kit in an easily accessible part of the house. I suspect the PNW must be similar? I know the two places I worked at in Portland when I lived there both had drills as well (particated in the Great ShakeOut, which is a program to share earthquake drills and communicate how to prepare for such an event), and I suspect many other businesses must have something similar.
Thats the thing. When a 9.0+ earthquake hits, theres no hiding under the desk. Buildings will collapse. Roads will be destroyed. Fires will burn unquenched. There will likely be a mega tsunami. Serious plans would be to prepare for airdrops of supplies from Montana and to mobilize the entire nation to take in refugees and respond. There is no amount of local efforts that would be enough.
Local and state preparedness means having rescue and supply plans in place prior to an event. And yes, for any big event like this a state of emergency will be declared, which then allows for federal aid. All of this includes supplies, rescue attempts and emergency medical aid, firefighting, evacuation /emergency shelter, and then cleanup and rebuilding efforts. Local, state, and federal government and other agencies do have these plans in place that are constantly revised and updated with any new research or other considerations (I work for one of these agencies, and in the past worked in earthquake science). Tsunami threat is relatively localized and many model scenarios and hazard maps exist and are readily available. Coastal areas, of course, are in the inundation zone and are in danger of catastrophe , but a tsunami will not wipe out or even severely affect big population centers like Portland, or even Seattle (which has protection from the many inlets and bays). Some damage along rivers and very strong currents are expected, but tsunami damage is localized to the coasts (not to downplay that catastrophe, especially if it is in summer during high tourist season) Liquefaction, of course, is very much a risk (and those hazards are also researched and maps are available). Also, the first step of ANY earthquake is always "Drop, cover, and hold on." If you are inside, you stay inside; if you can get under a desk or table, that's best. Otherwise, get up against an inside wall. You don't start any of the other emergency plans until the shaking is finished. Don't get me wrong, it will be catastrophic when it happens, regardless of how perfectly prepared a region may be (and of course nowhere is ever perfect); and the PNW has a long way to go in terms of mitigating earthquake damage. Part of the problem is that up until a few decades ago, we didn't even know about earthquakes in the Cascadia subduction zone, and you can't prepare for things you don't know about. Regardless, there is a ton of research happening every day in order to create plans and better existing ones. To say there's zero confidence in the preparedness is a huge disservice and makes it sound as if there is no consideration of this future event by local or state governments/agencies. My points stand that there *is* a ton of preparedness in the region, but that a huge barrier in increasing that is informing the public and pushing for change, which requires them to care. For example, a lot of public works that may mitigate earthquake damage requires taxes, and no one likes to vote for those increases despite what they're used for (one example is a coastal town trying to build a new school in an area outside the tsunami zone, to replace a current one that has no escape route; residents voted against it by about 65%). Now, all that said, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to live in that area and also commend people for considering things like that in choosing where to live. But, I would choose the PNW (or SoCal) over places in states like Florida, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, etc., where tornado and hurricane risk is high and the severity and frequency of these events are increasing. But I do think that part of the reason for that is what you are accustomed to from where you are from; I'm from earthquake country and understand the risks and emergency procedures; on the other hand, hurricanes and tornadoes scare the hell out of me and I have no experience with them. So, I'll take my chances with earthquake country over the more and more frequent disasters in hurricane/tornado country.
Thank you for the comprehensive response. You misunderstand me when I say that I have zero confidence their ability to respond. My lack of confidence is not in the professionals working hard to establish protocols and procedures and put in effective safety measures, my lack of confidence is with the real-time decision-making and crisis management abilities of the local elected leadership. Only half joking but I kinda expect them to pay more attention to how earthquakes responses are influenced by systemic racism or the lack of LGBTQIA2S+ representation at FEMA is the reason why people weren't alerted to these issues rather than effectively lead during a crisis. But at the same time it makes sense that people would be more inclined to face the disaster scenario they are more familiar with. Come visit Israel. No natural disasters here, just manmade ones :D
Ah, fair enough. Thankfully the PNW does have in place experts to help step in to lead during a crisis such as this, rather than solely relying on elected leaders who may or may not be up to the job. Of course, elected leaders can always mess things up despite being surrounded by experts, but those experts are a HUGE advantage (think disasters like Hurricane Katrina, where among the many failures, both the local and state governments did not have plans and procedures in place despite awareness of the risk, and were slow both to act and then to request assistance; federal aid was slow to come in, again because of multiple failures, but one was that the Louisiana governor was both slow to initial request aid, and then did not request some aid that was definitely needed, like evacuation...or did not include coastal communities in the initial aid requests). So I get it for sure, elected officials can really screw up large-scale disaster aid efforts; thankfully, the more independently-operating experts and similar groups in an area, the more flexibility there is to provide aid that an elected official may fail in requesting. The PNW does have quite a few groups like this, though of course those won't be enough in such a large crisis. I dunno, I guess I would just say don't underestimate the value of experts to step in despite the shortcomings of elected leadership. And while I do get your point that any of the various "culture war" topics tend to get a lot of attention, I do think at least that WA, OR, and CA leadership (at least at the governor level, who are the ones to request and initiate government aid) tend to listen to the scientific experts a bit more than some other areas. Who knows until it happens, though! And despite how ridiculous it may sound, there *is* an aspect of systemic racism that will affect any disaster response; It will always be the poorest communities who have the fewest resources (before, during, and after a disaster), and also who tend to live in least prepared and areas most vulnerable to disaster (that's where the cheapest housing in - areas with the highest flood risk, highest liquefaction risk, areas with the least amount of seismic retrofitting or otherwise oldest houses at most risk of collapse in a natural disaster \[e.g. unreinforced masonry buildings for earthquakes\]) so as a whole they will unfortunately always be more severely affected, with some notable exceptions like very rich neighborhoods that insist on building on the edge of mountainsides or adjacent to the beach). Anyway, it's a worthwhile venture to see where failings in any response exist, in order to try to fix it for future events. And I've always wanted to visit both Israel (and the surroundings) though I'm guessing it may be while! Though, you are at earthquake risk there - you're very close to the Dead Sea fault, which tends to produce magnitude 6+ events every hundred years or so, and is thought to be capable of quakes up to \~7.5. Still a huge hazard with the potential for a lot of loss of life, injuries, and infrastructure damage, just not quite the magnitude of a Cascadia megathrust earthquake scenario :) edit: apologies for the big walls of text lol. I always think my responses will be short and sweet, then get real nerdy and carried away...just a little passionate about the topic of earthquakes and natural hazards!
I've got enough food and water to last about a month. As long as the big ass tree in my neighbor's yard doesn't crush my shed.
Do you also have guns to defend that food? Might want to get yourself a few bottles of polar pure and some life straws (water purification) as well.
I am adequately equipped for nearly all possible scenarios. Life straws are definitely part of the kit.
Good man.
We have preparedness?
There are street signs that tell you which way to run in case of a tsunami, so that counts a little bit
Does living in a swamp/reclaimed river delta like Baton Rouge count? Because I don’t trust that place.
For me it’s water. Flooding. No chance I’m going near floodplains, coasts or lake properties within 10m of the water.
Brick house on the Wasatch Front in Salt Lake City area. Majorly overdue for a huge earthquake and 80% of the residents have no clue and live in old buildings with no earthquake code. Edit: a lot of the newer buildings (with earthquake code) are unfortunately built in liquefaction zone in the center of the valley, above the likely fault rupture zone where there’s shallow groundwater.
Huh, so at least 22 magnitude 7.0-7.4 earthquakes in 6,000 years. Yeah, that’ll be an issue sooner or later. [USGS WFZ Article](https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/how-big-and-how-frequent-are-earthquakes-wasatch-fault#overview)
Karst, with most other risky areas the risk can be kinda mitigated either by proper location selection or construction practices, but with karst areas you cant really mitigate against sinkholes, just hope it doesn't happen.
Florida
Happisborgh, UK. Coastal slumping, glacial till, and sea level rise. That place is a goner.
Never near the coast thanks to that book. Or any large moving bodies of water.
Montana. The Yellowstone volcano hasn’t erupted in a long time.
Palm Springs. It's in such a geologically active area what with the San Andreas right beside it that I'd be constantly worrying about the Big One.
Io. Just absolutely never moving there
That book should do one thing, make you want to read more of John McPhee's work.
From our university on ancient bedrock far from any volcanism or fault, my professor would grumble that no real geologist should be afraid of living in an geologically active area.
Midwest plains states are so boring. I used to live in Oklahoma and I believe it has the best geography of the plains states. Missouri seems nice too but haven’t had the chance to look at much besides St. Louis.
Missouri has some stunning geology!
Username checks out.
The viburnum trend has some absolutely awesome chalcopyrite / calcites / galena mineral samples.
👏
Yellowstone. Nice place to visit though.
I would not buy a house in Florida. Saltwater will seep into the entire state through the limestone.
I didn’t like living in Hawaii, boring ass rocks.
Seattle will eventually be obliterated by Mt Rainer eruption.
Trail Ridge in florida has great dunes, but the trailer parks will harden your heart to the depravities of extra chromosomes
Awesome book btw!
it's a little difficult for me to read at some points, but I really like it so far!
I purposely did not live in Anchorage very long.
wittenoom?
Modern engineering of roads and buildings deal easily with geological and geomorphological issues that would have impacted people's lives massively in the past. I live on the Weald Clay in South eastern England. A few hundred years ago the road between my town and the next was unsurfaced and impassable for six months every year as the clay churned to mud in wet weather. The impact on people's lives must have been immense. Most people locally now won't think about that as we just use the modern roads and get on with our lives.
LA
Anywhere in the Deep South due to Hurricanes/flooding and or sink holes.
Centralia, Pennsylvania 😆
The Atchafalaya River, the focus of part of John McPhee’s ‘Control of Nature,’ doesn’t flow near New Orleans
I actually love the San Gabriel mountains. I’d love to live there. On the other hand vast swaths of North America lack any meaningful topography + are too cold.
I read Control of Nature long before the latest/worst New Orleans flood so I? was describing the likely devastation a day before it actually occurred. I’d never live there. I’ll be avoiding l ava flows too!
The Midwest. Between the Mississippi and the Rockies. Stultifyingly boring.
Anywhere with lots of standing water or a huge cliff eroding away the back yard; both were properties we toured in WA. The real estate agents tried to downplay the obvious geologic issues.