Posted on 01/16/2010 8:06:31 PM PST by bruinbirdman
Not insane. More vulnerable now than then. I recently worked for a few years at SF's Emergency Communications Department. Regular planning and drills are done for the time when the "big one" hits. All the experts are in agreement that it will be bad. SF has a couple mobile communications vehicles (big as semi-trucks) in case their stationary buildings go down. Emergency supplies are stationed in every City-operated office. I had one next to my desk. Expectations are that survivors will be on their own for a while, because lots of infra-structure will crumble in an earthquake greater than 7.0, not to mention greater than 8.0 as in 1906.
Lots more structures than 1906. Tall skyscrapers with thousands of people in each one, squeezed together on bayfill land. Water mains older than 100 years. Old residential structures a hundred years old built with the same pre-1906 standards. More than a million people during the day packed into a 7x7 mile city. The city is indeed more vulnerable than in 1906.
We are overdue here in LA in several areas. We have the Ft Tejon/San Andreas which the last one was 150 years ago and we have a fault running right underneath Downtown LA that has bot moved on over 200 years. That scientists say is our “big one” and expected to do more damage than the one on the San Andreas Fault. Los Angeles moving north-north east at 1/4 an acre is not helping things one bit.
It is amazing that all the mountains in the LA/Southland area were all made from uplifts from earthquakes.
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.