[Dilbert San Diego]

Wasn’t there a big tsunami also after the 1964 Alaska earthquake?

[Iron Munro]

There must be some way democrats can use this information to screw taxpayers out of more money.

[Mr. K]

Bush’s fault.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Surfs up...!

[skimbell]

"...another large Alaskan earthquake could trigger a comparable tsunami on Hawaii's shores in the future, experts said..."

[Ditter]

Were there people living in the Hawaiian islands 500 years ago?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

As usual, they got a whole bunch of details wrong. To start with, the *south* side of Kauai faces south, not towards Alaska. It does, however, point towards New Zealand. About 155,000 years ago, the northeast corner of New Zealand had what is called the Ruatōria Giant Avalanche, a submarine (underwater) collapse of part of its ocean shelf into a trench. Some of the blocks of rock involved were more than 18 kilometers across and traveled 50km underwater. Definitely able to create a tsunami. While such gigantic collapses are rare, smaller ones happen far more often. Even though its tsunami likely hit some or all of Hawaii, its direction of force would be mostly towards South America.

[Nip]

Everyone talks about tsunamis caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity but none talk about tsunamis caused when large sections of islands suddenly breakoff and slide into the sea.

This activity produces an oceanic energy pulse equal to the volume of land that slides into the ocean.

Underwater mapping of the north coast of Hawaii shows several deep sea debris fields off the north coast. These debris fields are immediately off shore the near vertical cliffs of the north shore.

[publius911]

...rare, and likely happen once every thousand years. There's a 0.1 percent chance it could happen in any given year.

Most people absolutely do NOT understand this. And the scaremongers and alarmist hucksters exploit that fact constantly.
What does likely "once every thousand years" mean? That is never clearly explained.

If it happens in 1014 AD and again in 2014 AD, that "likely every thousand years" is true. That statement can only be an average, and accurate, going BACK in time. It is never correct pushing forward into the future.

If was known to happen in 1986 B.C., then again in 1494 A.D,, 1914, 2013 and 2014, the statement. " likely every 1000 years" is still true. Note that it is still true in spite of the fact it happens twice in two consecutive years.