Posted on 01/16/2010 8:06:31 PM PST by bruinbirdman
Was San Francisco not on the list? It got destroyed by an earthquake in 1906.
Kobe lost over 5000 in the 1995 earthquake.
San Francisco may be a victim soon. They are expecting a 7.0 anytime now. The city is just as vulnerable as it was in 1906.
Boston maybe on that list after Tuesday.
The only reason why cities are destroyed easy is because of very lax building code standards. These cities made mostly mase from brick need rebar.
Actually, it wasn’t so much the 1906 earthquake that destroyed the city of SF so much as the firestorm afterward - a firestorm made all the worse because the corruption of the politicians of that time refused to listen to the fire chief’s requests for an independent water supply for fighting fires. The quake broke water mains and cut off water for fighting fires to most of the city.
The water mains in San Francisco are still vunerable to breaking today from a major quake. The other reason most of the city was destroyed is because of landfill.
Just like the 1994 Northridge quake. It could have been much worse.
I was in LA at the time Northridge and a piece of glass fell on me. I still think LA is better prepared than SF.SF is a gigantic deathtrap.
When the Big One hits any of those cities, deaths will be in the thousands. The Kobe quake, which actually was centered about 15 miles away, killed over 5000 people. A major quake right in Tokyo, Shizuoka, or Nagoya will certainly kill lots more.
In 1906 there was very little “landfill” area. It has been built up greatly since the 1906 quake. Yes, water mains are vulnerable today. Also, the majority of the buildings in SF are not built to code - just after the 1906 quake new building codes were enacted - however, most buildings built after the quake until sometime during the 1950’s did not follow the more restrictive codes. When the next big one hits there’s going to be more devastation than that of the 1906 quake. And, given the state of our economic problems in CA, there’s going to be less ability to battle the resulting fires.
New York City will be in bad shape if theirs hits soon.
San Franscico will be a total complete disaster when the next one hits. The city fire department bought these two huge boats with the ability to pump water out of the the bay because the fear of broken water mains after a quake.
The second largest city in the world didn’t make the list and they have had some big quakes - Mexico City.
Loma Prieta may have “taught” lessons, but it didn’t result in many real changes in SF. Water mains are still inadequate. More than 60% of the buildings in SF will not survive a major quake. The retrofitting of bridges and elevated freeways have not been completed. The state’s economy is not helping either.
A program I recently watched about the 1906 quake and the current state of preparedness in SF indicated that the city’s budget problems might result in the two firefighting boats having to be mothballed.
The epicenter of the 1906 quake was north of Frisco in Sonoma county and it did major damage to towns in Humboldt Couty 200 miles to the north...
Construction standards are very good in US earthquake prone areas.
It would take a much stronger one to get major damage. Not sure what that number is.
1989 Loma Prieta was 7.0 and killed 63 people in San Francisco area.
Yes did a fair amount of damage; things are probably in better shape now
The reason Mexico City suffers of some much damage because it was a lake. The Spanish pumped out the water and left a soft bottom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.