The problem with the Times’s piece is the adjective “Japanese-style.” The article quotes an earthquake expert making the important observation that unlike Japan, where tectonic plates are converging, there is no subduction where plates meet in California. Instead, they slide past one another along a transform fault, and while the horizontal slip can create tsunamis, they are generally not as large as those created by thrust faults in subduction zones, which involve vertical slip and thus greater displacement of water (the article did mention that there is a subduction zone in the Pacific Northwest; an article produced by the U.S. National Science Foundation for U.S. News & World Report said the risks there are “nearly identical” to those in Japan). Another expert quoted in the article estimates that faults in Southern California could generate temblors of magnitude up to 7 to 7.5, well short of the 9.0 mega-quake that shook Japan. So, no, perhaps a “Japanese-style” quake and tsunami are not in the offing, but that statement belies the fact a “California-style” quake could cause plenty of destruction nonetheless.
Another article from Reuters, by Steve Gorman, took a similar tack as the Los Angeles Times, pointing out that the next “big one” in California is “expected to pale next to the Japan quake.” It explained that subduction zones create the world’s most powerful earthquakes and “a 9.0 quake is virtually impossible along the San Andreas” network of strike-slip faults. Unlike the Times, however, it quoted a USGS spokesperson emphasizing that “you don’t need a magnitude 9 to cause extensive damage,” though it was careful to mention that part of the reason for that is that California’s buildings are not as earthquake resistant as those in Japan.
A great piece from the Associated Press had more detail about the Golden State’s feeble infrastructure, pointing out, among other things, that “California’s five-year-old program for helping cash-strapped public schools seismically retrofit their most vulnerable buildings has so far disbursed only a tiny portion of the $200 million set aside under the effort. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, damaged in the 1989 earthquake, still hasn’t been replaced. Thousands of old hospitals and apartment buildings remain despite being at serious risk in a quake.” (The San Diego Union Tribune published a letter from a member of the Structural Engineers Association of California calling on government to work more closely with the group to ensure public safety.)
Henderson’s article for Reuters cited a second 2008 report from the USGS, which concluded that there is 99 percent probability that California will experience one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater quakes in the next thirty years, and a 46 percent chance that it will experience one or more magnitude 7.5 or greater quakes in that time. The report also concluded that about three magnitude 5 or greater quakes will occur in the state per year, and that a magnitude 6 or greater quake will happen about every one-and-a-half years.
Gorman’s article for Reuters reported that a major California earthquake is “long overdue,” although it did not elaborate or provide any supporting evidence. For such detail, one would have to turn to MSNBC.com, which quoted an earthquake expert at the University of California at Davis, John Rundle, explaining that historical analyses show that there is a major temblor along the San Andreas about every 160 years and that the last one was in 1857, 154 years ago. Along the Cascadia subduction zone, which stretches from Vancouver Island to Northern California in the Pacific Northwest (and features the Juan de Fuca plate sliding under the North American plate), there is a major event every about 500 years and the last one was in 1700, 311 years ago (an AFP article, however, quotes a geotechnical engineer at the Oregon Department of Geology who says the fault ruptures more like every 240 years).
The main thing that is right up there just by geography is AP talking about lack of preparation and lack of upgrades to basic functions--schools, hospitals, state and city buildings in many cases--all depending on where the epicenter of the quake is and the size of it.
We don't need both the earthquake and tsunami to make a total catastrophe of an 8.5 or 9.0 earthquake. Just one in that area right up the center of the state would put more than 10 MILLION people or more out of their homes if not first killed.
The curve of California will heighten or lessen the force of a tsunami if it were there in full force. Look at the damage done by the back flow of the one from Japan that hit Santa Cruz through Crescent City. Millions of dollars for each city and that doesn't count the cost of each of the boats hit and damaged or demolished or the fishing vessels in Crescent City. If it had been the total 40' tsunami here there would be no Santa Cruz nor Crescent City. Monterey would most likely have been damaged or destroyed but further south would vary depending on the epicenter. The Sierra Mountains would have saved many towns and cities since they are east of them and the tsunami wouldn't go over the mountain--just up further. San Francisco would have been hit and most of Pier 39 and everything north into downtown would be demolished though the newer and bigger buildings may stand--again depending on the epicenter of the quake.
California's problem is lack of preparedness. There are NO SHELTERS nor stores of food, water or basic medication as Japan had. They did quite well for 4-5 days which to me is amazing. They have fewer people so their numbers are smaller than ours in CA would be. CA doesn't have money set aside and waiting for money from Congress is like waiting for another earthquake--when and where will it end up??? Schools aren't prepared to cover thousands of people, levees could easily collapse and bring water down to flood anything from Napa to Fresno. Lovely thought!!
But the Republicans in the CA have sworn "no more taxes". Such a lovely way to prepare for disasters!!! We definitely are not prepared for one let alone both.
#1 Posted by Patricia, CJR on Tue 22 Mar 2011 at 10:39 PM
I think reporting should use good science, but within a context of "existential" philosophy, as well. The unarguable fact is that no government, even with 100 percent accuracy in its predictions, and availability of the entire Gross National Product can protect inhabitants from a regional catastrophe; people expecting government protection during regional or continental crises are likely the same ones who thought Obama would bring hope and change.
That degree of confidence in government may not be "bad science" but it is definitely "bad History." The inevitable fact is that everyone who is alive today, will one day have died; only the time, place, and manner of the deaths are up for grabs. Judging from the general health of the American public, worries about death from a grand temblor should be somewhat low on the list of fears.
Perhaps good journalism might be to report the catastrophe of the day, make a statement that the government is powerless to improve things, and one might better hope that it stays out of events; and, finally report the "odds" of dying from something much more mundane than a perfect-storm of combined natural and manmade disaster, for example "Odds are that simply wearing your seat-belt, not texting while you drive, and driving sober will do more to prevent your early demise than will moving away from the San Andres Fault."
#2 Posted by BK, CJR on Wed 23 Mar 2011 at 06:57 PM
When a good size earthquake occurs here in California the damage could be far worse than Japan. And not because Japan's engineering is superior. Japan was fortunate that the Tohoku megathrust was not the "Great Tokai earthuake" they have been waiting for the last 25 years. You must understand that the 9.0mw epicenter was 231 miles from Tokyo. Remember Kobe in 1995. It was a lot closer to the city. The 6.9mw quake did far more damage to the infrastructure.
Christchurch New Zealand suffered from the same hubris when it said after the 7.0mw hit in September of 2010. " Oh we won't have damage here like they had in Haiti because or buildings are superior blah blah" etc. And then on February 22 of this year an earthquake of 6.3mw annihilated the downtown area and killed more people than the 7.0mw. It was so bad some people vowed to leave and never come back. Each earthquake is unique.
When, not if, a devastating earthquake strikes say Los Angeles where I live it all depends on location location and did I mention location. Seismologists have stated many times that a >7.5mw near downtown Los Angrles could be worse than the" big one" initiating in the desert and roaring up the San Andreas fault.
When the 6.7mw Northridge earthquake struck In 1994 the vertical peak acceleration was 1.80g. Which was the highest ever recorded until Christchurch had a reading of 2.0g.
You don't necessarily measure earthquakes by magnitude alone. Smaller earthquakes can produce higher intensities which equals greater damage and loss of life especially if they are nearby.
When the next great earthquake, >8.0mw hits Japan it may not cause a tsunami if it's on land but may be devastating to Tokyo. Throw out the " yeah we're ready because our structures are better built and we're more prepared". The 9.0 mw produced peak acceleration of 2.99g. The highest I've seen for any earthquake. We don't want to think about what would have happened if it hit say 25 miles offshore from Tokyo.
o
#3 Posted by Phil, CJR on Fri 25 Mar 2011 at 10:40 AM
Typo: Should say " Oh we won't have damage like they had in Haiti because our buildings are superior blah blah etc".
#4 Posted by Phil, CJR on Fri 25 Mar 2011 at 10:51 AM