*
Several recent articles in the science press have described a study presented at a recent earthquake conference which said that over a long enough time span, losses to the nation from earthquakes will probably at least equal those due to hurricanes – those from earthquakes will be less frequent but larger. One article talking about the report is at:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/earthquakes000920.html
Some excerpts:
In addition to California metropolitan areas, cities
facing the highest potential losses include Memphis;
Seattle; Portland, Ore; New York; Salt Lake City; St.
Louis; Tacoma, Wash.; Las Vegas; Anchorage, Alaska;
Boston; Reno, Nev.; Charleston, S.C.; Albuquerque,
N.M.; Newark, N.J.; Honolulu and Atlanta…
Of the estimated $4.4 billion in annual damage, some
$3.26 billion is attributed to California. The study did not
seek to estimate deaths and injuries from quakes.
In recent years, earthquakes have become most
closely associated with California because of the widely
reported damaging tremors there.
But two temblors that vie for recognition as the most
powerful quakes felt in North America struck elsewhere.
One rocked the New Madrid Fault in Missouri, near its
border with Tennessee, in a series of quakes in 1811-12,
while the second devastated the Anchorage, Alaska area
in 1964.
The New Madrid quake reportedly caused the
Mississippi River to flow backward for a time but there
were few people or buildings in the area at the time.
Today the same quake could severely damage the area
from St. Louis to Memphis.
Other significant quakes outside California include:
Cape Ann, Mass., Nov. 18, 1755, was felt from
Nova Scotia to the Chesapeake Bay with the most
damage in the Boston area.
Charleston, S.C., Aug. 31, 1886, killing 60
people and damaging most of the buildings in the city. It
was felt as far away as New York, Boston, Milwaukee
and Havana, Cuba.
Olympia, Wash., April 13, 1949, killing eight.
Seattle, April 29, 1965, felt over 130,000 square miles.
Replies
*
Is it any wonder the most damage is centered on the metropolitan centers? Also, I would say the bulk of losses expressed in dollars would be in CA. When CA has a catastrophic event it always seem disproportionaly higher than anywhere else in the nation.
This is because, 1)the amount of damage is directly proportionate to the population; 2)it's in CA dollars. (A CA dollar is of greater value than, say, a Mississippi greenback.)
You're right to be concerned though, while this isn't the low lying Ganges Plain or flood ravaged Bangladesh, the increase in population, increase in structures, "lack of currency", and as yet uncharted faults do combine to put us in jeopardy. Plus, because people feel free to build in flood zones or on hillsides near a fault mean it's only a question of time.
By lack of currency, I mean that because an event has not visited upon an area for some time has lulled folks into complaceny.
BTW, you see these kinds of studies every now and then. Interestly, they are always adjusted upward in economic loss, magnitude, and intensity. Among the USGS charts I've kept are one of CA showing epicenters and magnitude of recorded earthquakes and the other is of the 48 contiguous showing the same. Many of the events were an educated guess. (1906 SF quake magnitude is only a guess because Richter hadn't invented his scale yet) Nonetheless, the whole of CA looks nearly like one dark spot.