PNW - The Big Earthquake - Another reason to RE?

[CryingInThePool]

So I just read the New Yorker piece on the Cascadia subduction zone and it is terrifying.  On the other hand though it was added insurance against another OMY.    I mean why am I worrying about running out of money at 85 when I can worry about this?  Seriously. 

Even if I lucked out and was out of the country when it hit I'd feel very different about returning to the US if the region and the people I call home was gone. Which would financially mean moving to somewhere with a LCOL then the high and raising Puget Sound area. The worst added safety margin ever?

I tried to think of any friends and family I even have east of I-5 and came up with some second cousins and 2 on the friends front (real friends not FB acquaintances/coworkers and even those 2 spend part of the year here).   I'm not normally a chicken little type but this article just made me realize that in terms of lifestyle allocation I'm entirely invested in this one region; it's my entire life.   I should either get out of the cube to spend more time with people and places that matter or travel so I can diversify my social connections.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one

[use2betrix]

And today I read a "convincing" article saying we'll hit an ice age by 2030. Then an article about how that's not true.

For every article like that you read, there's several arguing against it.

My advice would be to either stay and deal with it and stop worrying, or pick up and leave.

[Erica/NWEdible]

Was going to say you were letting fear get the best of you. Then read the article. Now feeling a bit like, "Oh....well, shit, then."

I'm not moving. I love it here. But probably investing in additional Earthquake preparedness for our own home at least would be smart.

[galliver]

Putting the statistics (1 in 3 chance of big quake in next 50 years) in different terms (assuming the event is purely probabilistic, which admittedly it's probably not), there's a 0.8% chance of one in the next year (or any given year), and you're 99.998% safe any given day.

I still want to move to Seattle. 

Ultimately, there is a possibility of a natural disaster anywhere...in part because the Yellowstone volcano (? Forget if it had a separate name) had a decent chance of obliterating much of the US.  I agree with Erica. Worth reinforcing the house, but otherwise...

[Annamal]

Earthquake preparedness is a really good idea (and so is a tsunami walking plan if you live or work near the ocean).

If you have any way of pushing for aggressive earthquake strengthening/standards for >1 story buildings I would suggest doing that. A lot of people died in Christchurch because of poorly applied standards.

[sol]

Most of that article is just fearmongering.  It's deliberately inflammatory.

Yes, there will be an earthquake in the PNW some day.  Most research suggests that the "full margin" rupture in that article is unlikely, and his impact and recover scenarios are even less likely.  Six months without electricity?  Power was up faster than that in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, and I have a lot more faith in the US power crews than the Indonesian ones. 

I've lived through major California earthquakes.  Power will go out and buildings will fall down and there will be fires and spills and it will generally suck.  But that article makes it sound like the entire region is going to be wiped off the face of the planet, and that I just can't see. 

The science behind this has been well known for a while now, but I'm sure this article will cause some people to up and leave their homes to move to tornado-stricken Oklahoma or crime-ridden New Jersey or somewhere else equally as problematic. 

All of the tsunami simulations project maximum wave heights of like 10 to 20 feet, not the 50+ feet mentioned in this article.  It would still suck for anybody with beachfront property, but it wouldn't be so bad that it would level the city.

[Cressida]

All of the tsunami simulations project maximum wave heights of like 10 to 20 feet, not the 50+ feet mentioned in this article.

Is there a source you're able to share? Just want to hear both sides.

[sol]

All of the tsunami simulations project maximum wave heights of like 10 to 20 feet, not the 50+ feet mentioned in this article.

Is there a source you're able to share? Just want to hear both sides.

Google will find you a bunch if you search for something like "Puget Sound tsunami map".

USGS projections:  http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-047-96/


Snohomish County hazard maps:  http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110311/NEWS01/703119835


Tacoma's hazard analysis is very thorough, says 2 to 3 meters in most places:  http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/vent2981/vent2981.pdf

Bigger waves are of course possible with bigger earthquakes, but there isn't much reason to believe in the "full rupture" 9.0 scenario that author was pushing.  Most of the GPS research suggests that the reason the PNW doesn't see as many earthquakes as California is that the vast majority of our slip is aseismic creep. The plates are always moving, slowly, without the frictional sticking points and subsequent catastrophic release that characterizes the San Andreas.  Big quakes are certainly possible, but they're not necessary the way they are in California.

[sol]

More info from USGS on "megaquakes" if you're still worried.  The take home message here is to stop freaking out so much. 

Tons of good advice and good science from these folks:  http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/megaqk_facts_fantasy.php

[arcangel911]

Here's the thing... I live in Florida and I can't wait to return to the PNW. Earthquakes be damned.

[Annamal]

P.s. making sure large objects are secured to walls is really important (and often overlooked). One poor family lost their toddler to a toppling tv screen during the Christchurch quake.

[RetiredAt63]

I just Googled for Canada, and although there have been several on the West coast, surprisingly few deaths (lots of property damage of course). The one that caused huge loss of life was a man-made tsunami. "The explosion of the Mont Blanc, a French munitions ship anchored outside Halifax harbour during World War One, caused a devastating tsunami. The wave generated by the Halifax Explosion was amplified by the narrowness of the harbour, reaching a height of over ten metres. The explosion and ensuing wave killed over 1900 people, injured 9000 others, and destroyed and damaged thousands of buildings. " (Canadian Geographic). There was also a nasty one in Newfoundland in 1929, so the East Coast is potentially at risk as well.

It was weird driving along the Pacific Rim Highway (#4) and seeing the "tsunami zone hazard" and leaving "tsunami zone hazard" signs.  Somehow made the possibility more real.

[Neustache]

It feels like the whole point of the article was that Japan had it's science, too, and it was considered 'good', but it was wrong, and they were underprepared.  So I guess the USGS stuff doesn't comfort me as much as it would normally, given the comparison to the accepted science Japan had at the time, and how they were woefully unprepared.

I do agree it's a bit of fear mongering...but not sure it should be dismissed completely due to that.   

[nereo]

It feels like the whole point of the article was that Japan had it's science, too, and it was considered 'good', but it was wrong, and they were underprepared.  So I guess the USGS stuff doesn't comfort me as much as it would normally, given the comparison to the accepted science Japan had at the time, and how they were woefully unprepared.

I don't believe that Japan's science was "wrong". A common misconception about science and statistics is that if a rare event happens the science was "wrong". It's virtually impossible to build anything that will survive every kind of disaster at every magnitude (flood, fire, earthquake, tsunami, bombing, etc), so you look at the likelihood of each scenario unfolding and the cost to surviving such a scenario and then make a decision accordingly.  The problem is that cost increases exponentially while the likelihood of any particular event diminishes.  A common practice is to require a structure to be able to survive a 100-year event.  That's fine, but there are stronger events that have an exceedingly small probability of happening.  But that's just it - with probabilities... there's always a chance.

We tend to focus on these highly improbable events because the results are so extreme, but that doesn't mean our estimates of probability were "wrong".  Think of all the earthquake prone areas that have NOT experienced a 9.0+ earthquake (there have only been 5 in the last century).  Think of all the nuclear powerplants that have NOT been hit by a tsunami, or a F5 tornado, or a 100 year flood.
Or - to put it in gambling terms, think of the likelihood that you will be dealt a full-house with no wildcards - about 1 in 700.  If your friend sits down and gets a full-house in the first dozen hands, the probabilities weren't 'wrong;' a rare event just sometimes happens.

[partgypsy]

It feels like the whole point of the article was that Japan had it's science, too, and it was considered 'good', but it was wrong, and they were underprepared.  So I guess the USGS stuff doesn't comfort me as much as it would normally, given the comparison to the accepted science Japan had at the time, and how they were woefully unprepared.

I don't believe that Japan's science was "wrong". A common misconception about science and statistics is that if a rare event happens the science was "wrong". It's virtually impossible to build anything that will survive every kind of disaster at every magnitude (flood, fire, earthquake, tsunami, bombing, etc), so you look at the likelihood of each scenario unfolding and the cost to surviving such a scenario and then make a decision accordingly.  The problem is that cost increases exponentially while the likelihood of any particular event diminishes.  A common practice is to require a structure to be able to survive a 100-year event.  That's fine, but there are stronger events that have an exceedingly small probability of happening.  But that's just it - with probabilities... there's always a chance.

We tend to focus on these highly improbable events because the results are so extreme, but that doesn't mean our estimates of probability were "wrong".  Think of all the earthquake prone areas that have NOT experienced a 9.0+ earthquake (there have only been 5 in the last century).  Think of all the nuclear powerplants that have NOT been hit by a tsunami, or a F5 tornado, or a 100 year flood.
Or - to put it in gambling terms, think of the likelihood that you will be dealt a full-house with no wildcards - about 1 in 700.  If your friend sits down and gets a full-house in the first dozen hands, the probabilities weren't 'wrong;' a rare event just sometimes happens.

I agree. It would be incredibly expensive to overbuild for very rare, catastrophic events. No public/government is going to have the will to spend money on those events. Thankfully they are rare.

[Krolik]

Here's the thing... I live in Florida and I can't wait to return to the PNW. Earthquakes be damned.

Same here :-)

[mancityfan]

I am currently reading a really interesting book called The Science of Fear (Daniel Gardner). The premise is that we have irrational fears that are fed in large part by the media, and that we battle between our "head" and our "gut" responses. The sensational nature of this earthquake scenario would be a prime example of eliciting a fearful response from a reader, which in the end mainly benefits the publication and its advertisers. I am aware that there is a good scientific basis for the chances of a significant earthquake in the PNW. This is hyperbole though. I stopped watching mainstream media news a year or two ago. This was a conscious decision. The final straw for me was the hysterical coverage of Ebola last year.

[Bardo]

It feels like the whole point of the article was that Japan had it's science, too, and it was considered 'good', but it was wrong, and they were underprepared.  So I guess the USGS stuff doesn't comfort me as much as it would normally, given the comparison to the accepted science Japan had at the time, and how they were woefully unprepared.

I don't believe that Japan's science was "wrong". A common misconception about science and statistics is that if a rare event happens the science was "wrong". It's virtually impossible to build anything that will survive every kind of disaster at every magnitude (flood, fire, earthquake, tsunami, bombing, etc), so you look at the likelihood of each scenario unfolding and the cost to surviving such a scenario and then make a decision accordingly.  The problem is that cost increases exponentially while the likelihood of any particular event diminishes.  A common practice is to require a structure to be able to survive a 100-year event.  That's fine, but there are stronger events that have an exceedingly small probability of happening.  But that's just it - with probabilities... there's always a chance.

We tend to focus on these highly improbable events because the results are so extreme, but that doesn't mean our estimates of probability were "wrong".  Think of all the earthquake prone areas that have NOT experienced a 9.0+ earthquake (there have only been 5 in the last century).  Think of all the nuclear powerplants that have NOT been hit by a tsunami, or a F5 tornado, or a 100 year flood.
Or - to put it in gambling terms, think of the likelihood that you will be dealt a full-house with no wildcards - about 1 in 700.  If your friend sits down and gets a full-house in the first dozen hands, the probabilities weren't 'wrong;' a rare event just sometimes happens.

Power distributions often provide fairly good descriptions of the frequency of earthquakes of various magnitudes.  It is difficult in this case however because there are insufficient small earthquakes to calibrate the distribution.  In any event, the magnitude frequency distribution tells you nothing about when an event of a specific magnitude might occur.  The risk is definitely there, but it is a coin flip whether it occurs today or in 300 years.

[nereo]

I am currently reading a really interesting book called The Science of Fear (Daniel Gardner). The premise is that we have irrational fears that are fed in large part by the media, and that we battle between our "head" and our "gut" responses. The sensational nature of this earthquake scenario would be a prime example of eliciting a fearful response from a reader, which in the end mainly benefits the publication and its advertisers. I am aware that there is a good scientific basis for the chances of a significant earthquake in the PNW. This is hyperbole though. I stopped watching mainstream media news a year or two ago. This was a conscious decision. The final straw for me was the hysterical coverage of Ebola last year.

+1.  Despite the CDC's best efforts to assure the public that the likelihood of Ebola infecting a person in the US was incredibly small, people panicked and did incredibly idiotic things like remove teachers from classrooms because they had traveled to a non-infected country 1,000 miles from the epidemic.  Then every year it warns the public that influenza will kill thousands, and so many won't take the necessary precautionary measures.  We freak out over airline travel and security, but every day we do things that are demonstratively more dangerous, like drive to work every day.  We worry about food pesticides, but we are very bad at doing the two simple things (eating right and staying active) that have the greatest effect on our health.

More to the OP's topic, we fret over mega-earthquakes, Cat-5 hurricanes and 100 year floods, but we are very bad at clearing debris from our homes, properly disposing of hazardous household chemicals and keeping things like powertools and cars in good, safe working order.

We worry about the extreme and extremely unlikely events, but ignore the constant and more common dangers.

[Patrick A]

Most of that article is just fearmongering.  It's deliberately inflammatory.

Yes, there will be an earthquake in the PNW some day.  Most research suggests that the "full margin" rupture in that article is unlikely, and his impact and recover scenarios are even less likely.  Six months without electricity?  Power was up faster than that in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, and I have a lot more faith in the US power crews than the Indonesian ones. 

I've lived through major California earthquakes.  Power will go out and buildings will fall down and there will be fires and spills and it will generally suck.  But that article makes it sound like the entire region is going to be wiped off the face of the planet, and that I just can't see. 

The science behind this has been well known for a while now, but I'm sure this article will cause some people to up and leave their homes to move to tornado-stricken Oklahoma or crime-ridden New Jersey or somewhere else equally as problematic. 

All of the tsunami simulations project maximum wave heights of like 10 to 20 feet, not the 50+ feet mentioned in this article.  It would still suck for anybody with beachfront property, but it wouldn't be so bad that it would level the city.

+1

There is a huge amount of fear mongering in that article.  Don't get me wrong, we should definitely take it seriously -- but that article went over the top IMO.  I just bought a house that was built in 1972 (1-2 years before the seismic standards were applied in PNW) so I'll be looking into bolting my house to the foundation and making sure I have a good emergency kit. 

Any tips?

[The_path_less_taken]

Didn't read the article.

Have been through a number of large earthquakes, including the one in SF that broke the bridge...happens quick, aftermath is ugly.

That said...every place has its dangers. Even purchasing an older home, there are things that can be done to mitigate a lot of issues.

I've never understood why we don't all live in steel reinforced concrete homes, that are then prettified by either exterior stonework or tile: fireproof, bugproof, windproof, done right on a super solid foundation....pretty ok in most earthquakes.

(I of course don't live in one...I live in the 70 year old farmhouse that was on this property when I bought it...but if I built that's what I'd build.)

I do think that everyone should have at minimum, three weeks of food and WATER available to them in/near their home. And an exit strategy for serious catastrophe action: "I'm gonna go visit Aunt Edith in Iowa if it all turns to shit."

Other than that...live. It's working so far, right?

[CryingInThePool]

I wasn't suggesting anybody move or not move to PNW (I'm certainly staying put) and I agree that it is fear mongering but my point, given that I brought it up here was how I viewed that fear given my FIRE journey.   

I have a lot of fears around pulling the plug too early that feed OMY and this larger, scarier, unknown when viewed through the prism of my RE and life goals was actually helpful.  I felt better about both the regional and the personal catastrophe by doing the math and thinking through the what ifs. 

[milesdividendmd]

Enjoyable article. 

Reading it reminded me of Kahneman's observation that we tend to overemphasize the probability of risks that are vivid and which make for great narratives and underestimate  mundane (and statistically much more probable) risks with less impressive narratives.

I have no view on the likelyhood of a 9.2 magnitude earthquake/tsunami stemming from the cascadian subduction zone. But as a portlander I can imagine it vividly!

[Bearded Man]

Here's the thing... I live in Florida and I can't wait to return to the PNW. Earthquakes be damned.

Why is that? I live in the PNW (Seattle) and am thinking of moving to Florida.

[WalkingWisp]

I live in Portland, Oregon. 

Finding out about and researching the Cascadia Subduction Zone over the last 3 years or so completely freaked me out.  From what I've seen here in Portland people are far too chill about preparing for this yah-it's-probably-going-to-happen-in-our-lifetime catastrophe.  We need to step it up.  At least prepare to hunker down in your house with some basics, and be able to help your neighbors.

I grew up in Minnesota and only ever had to worry about tornados there.  This 9.0+ earthquake shit was on an entirely new level of crazy.  We also frequently go to Grandma's house out on the Oregon coast. 

But after the initial buzz and scare of what it might mean, I resolved that unrestricted fear doesn't do much.  You just need to prepare your house/family as best you can, and live.  Over the last 3 years, I've done the following and feel much better about it all:

- Had steel simpson ties put in around the foundation (for both vertical and horizontal shaking).
- No frames with glass on walls in bedrooms.
- 30 jugs of water at house.  I'm probably going to up this to 40.
- bought a propane-powered generator that will power the fridge and freezer (which has bulk costco food, always stocked).  Backup propane tanks.  Tanks will be easier to get and pay with cash.
- $500 cash at the house.
- extra dry food for 2 weeks.
- good first aid kits in each of our cars (if we're at home, cars are probably at home, if we're out and about and stuck somewhere when it hits, car will likely be with us).
- flashlights, blankets, battery powered radio, just in case.
- talked with family members what a general plan would be, if we were separated when it hit (bridges in Portland go down, on the wrong side of the river to home, etc).

I probably spent 4k over the years on the above (ties to foundation a big part of that, generator second).  Hopefully we never need any of it.  But if we do, how fucking thankful do you think we'll be we had this in place?  A small amount in the grand scheme of things for an ok insurance policy for my young family.

I'm also planning on getting involved with the neighborhood organizer-group-thingies. 

My .02.

[ncornilsen]

Enjoyable article. 

Reading it reminded me of Kahneman's observation that we tend to overemphasize the probability of risks that are vivid and which make for great narratives and underestimate  mundane (and statistically much more probable) risks with less impressive narratives.

I have no view on the likelyhood of a 9.2 magnitude earthquake/tsunami stemming from the cascadian subduction zone. But as a portlander I can imagine it vividly!

The new sellwood bridge will be all the remains standing, I'd have to think!

[Sibley]

Realistically, nothing's going to change. Eventually, the big earthquake will happen and everyone will be up in arms because nothing was done to prepare.

We built a city in an area at or below sea level. Then we were surprised when it flooded and killed thousands, destroyed half the city, and exposed all sort of problems. New Orleans should not exist, and never should have existed, at least not in that location. The Native Americans certainly knew it - they only built temporary settlements there.

As a species we're good at hindsight but very bad at foresight.

[spud1987]

I agree that it is best not to become too paranoid about the earthquake. But the science seems relatively clear that there is a good chance of a large earthquake in the next 50 years. Maybe not a 50-foot tsunami quake, but still catastrophic. The earthquake is certainly less remote of a risk than Mt Rainer or the Yellowstone caldera exploding in our lifetimes.

I think the proper level of preparedness is to have basic food/water/other necessities to last for a couple of weeks. A "bugout bag" is also a good suggestion, depending on one's proximity to the coast. This is a low-cost, low-risk solution that doesn't rise to the level of a doomsday prepper mentality. Think of it as super cheap life ("life" used quite literally) insurance.

[enigmaT120]

It would suck if I were at work when it happens, as I don't know if any of the bridges over the Willamette near me would hold up.  Salem or Albany.  Maybe the Buena Vista ferry would work, I don't know if it needs electricity.  This time of year I could easily swim the river but I'd hate to try it in the winter.

[dycker1978]

I try to not worry about things that I have no control over.  The weather and natural disasters being one of them.  If it happens I will deal with it the best I can, but I am not going to lose sleep over it.

[missj]

I think it's great to bring these kinds of things to light if for no other reason than to motivate more families to prepare.

People seem to think:  "Oh, well I'll just live off whatever is in the house for a couple of days until the FEMA trucks get here"  which is a bad plan on so many levels. 

First of all,  FEMA says to have 72 hours worth of non-perishable food. Then they say that it can take days or even longer to reach everyone.  Then they say you may be without services such as electricity and water for a week or more.  Ok, so then why do they recommend 72 hours?  Why don't they recommend a week?

Secondly, assuming FEMA can reach your town within 3 days...don't you think it would be waaaaaay safer to not venture out into the mob of hungry, scared, cold, angry people competing for resources to FEED THEIR CHILDREN?  people will do some messed up stuff if they think their child is at risk.    Have you seen those videos of black Friday Christmas shoppers basically rioting at Wal-Mart?  That's to save like $14 on some techno-toy they don't even NEED.  Imagine all those people at the FEMA truck.  Think you're just gonna bring your shotgun or your conceal and carry pistol to defend yourself when you go down to the FEMA truck?  Think again....national guard will set up a permiter and disarm every citizen....and it's doubtful you will get your firearm back.

just keep it simple...spend like $500 on a couple weeks worth of dry food and jugs of water and avoid the entire FEMA chaos.  There are many other scenarios where those same supplies would come in handy, not just earthquakes.

[vern]

I live east of Seattle a bit. 

So when the big one hits, I'll have oceanfront property!  Earthquake arbitrage.

[Cressida]

Here's another take. I remembered that I had read this a few years ago but couldn't locate it until now.

http://www.outsideonline.com/1819046/totally-psyched-full-rip-nine

[MicroRN]

Oh yeah, people were freaking out about this on one of the local pages.  Now, I do lean on the side of having significant emergency supplies.  Our house has lost power for 48 hours from a mild thunderstorm.  It would not take a catastrophic earthquake to leave us without power for an extended period of time.  Without power, our well doesn't work except via generator - which is limited by the available gasoline.  We won't be high priority for emergency crews because we're in a low-density rural area.  We keep water, food, emergency supplies, extra gas cans, propane cylinders, and a have plans for cooking, sanitation, light, warmth and so on.  We also have small emergency kits in each car.  Much of the time, preparation turns disasters into inconveniences. 

EVERYONE should have at least 2 weeks worth of supplies and a plan for how to manage without running water, no matter where you are.  It's not paranoia, it's practicality.  When I lived in KY in 2009, we got a massive ice storm.  Many people had no power for a week in the middle of winter.  In rural areas, some people were without power for longer, and many could not be reached by emergency crews due to downed trees.  Wells dependent on electricity didn't work either.  In VA, we evacuated in the path of a hurricane that caused widespread damage, though it mostly hit the Carolinas.  Again, many people without power or safe drinking water for a while.  Shortly after we moved to CT, we got the tail end of Superstorm Sandy.  While we were only without power for about 24 hrs, areas south of us were out for weeks.  People who prepared for each event were - for the most part - fine. 

[gooki]

My 2 cents. Bike to work. When the shit hits the fan, the rumbling starts, you escape your office, and the cellphone network falls over, you'll be fucking glad to be able to get home to your family in the normal 30 minutes instead of being stuck in grid locked traffic for 6 plus hours. Or at the very least have some running shoes and be prepared to use them.

That and securing large items (bookcases and TVs to the wall), having two weeks supplies, and a home away from home to go to are all very good suggestions.

Earthquake risk is also why I won't invest in a rental property in the same city as the house I own. If both properties get damaged to the point of being unlivable, you won't want to be paying two mortgages, plus rent for five years while you fight your insurance company, and receive no rental income, and you're down to a single income thanks to one your employers shutting up shop. This is a very real scenario for some people in Christchurch.

[Villanelle]

How do you all marry the ideas of 2 weeks of supplies (including water, which takes up a ton of space) and of small homes?  Right now, I have a small basement and could have all that water, though I don't, in part because this is a temporary living situation, and in part because this area in Germany has no real disaster potential. In Japan we had maybe 20 gallons (four 5 gallon containers).  In theory, that's enough for 10 days, but if a quake hit in hot, humid Japanese summer, I doubt it would last that long.  And it took up a lot of space.

I also had a handful of water purification tablets.

Shortly after the quake in Japan, I did hit up all of the vending machines around our house (and there are vending machines roughly every 7 feet in Japan) and I was able to buy more water, and I filled large bowls and other containers while I knew the taps were still safe.  But obviously, depending on the nature of the disaster, that might not be an option.

[SnackDog]

The gloomy weather in Portland and Seattle would bother me a lot more than a bit of shaking.  As long as your house is bolted to the foundation and cripple walls are reinforced you will be fine.  I doubt a tsunami would destroy most western homes - just go upstairs and ride it out.

[RetiredAt63]

Same here.  No power for 3 weeks after the Ice Storm in January 1998.  Cities and farms had higher priority for repairs.  Temperatures in the -20'sC during the day, colder at night.  No functioning well.  No functioning furnace. Major power line towers toppled like dominoes.   We were fine.  I've seen summer power outages from thunderstorms, not fun when it is +30C and high RH.   We are not tornado country (much) but we do get the odd windstorm that can snap residential power poles.
Plus there is an old fault line down the Ottawa River, so anyone in the Ottawa Valley plus Montreal are at risk up to a 5-6 earthquake.  Commercial buildings in Montreal have to be built to a 5.5 earthquake standard. Side note - Mount Royal and most of the Monteregie hills are old volcanoes or plugs.  This area was geologically active.

Basically every area has potential problems, learn the ones for your area and prepare.

Oh yeah, people were freaking out about this on one of the local pages.  Now, I do lean on the side of having significant emergency supplies.  Our house has lost power for 48 hours from a mild thunderstorm.  It would not take a catastrophic earthquake to leave us without power for an extended period of time.  Without power, our well doesn't work except via generator - which is limited by the available gasoline.  We won't be high priority for emergency crews because we're in a low-density rural area.  We keep water, food, emergency supplies, extra gas cans, propane cylinders, and a have plans for cooking, sanitation, light, warmth and so on.  We also have small emergency kits in each car.  Much of the time, preparation turns disasters into inconveniences. 

EVERYONE should have at least 2 weeks worth of supplies and a plan for how to manage without running water, no matter where you are.  It's not paranoia, it's practicality.  When I lived in KY in 2009, we got a massive ice storm.  Many people had no power for a week in the middle of winter.  In rural areas, some people were without power for longer, and many could not be reached by emergency crews due to downed trees.  Wells dependent on electricity didn't work either.  In VA, we evacuated in the path of a hurricane that caused widespread damage, though it mostly hit the Carolinas.  Again, many people without power or safe drinking water for a while.  Shortly after we moved to CT, we got the tail end of Superstorm Sandy.  While we were only without power for about 24 hrs, areas south of us were out for weeks.  People who prepared for each event were - for the most part - fine.

[Erica/NWEdible]

How do you all marry the ideas of 2 weeks of supplies (including water, which takes up a ton of space) and of small homes?  Right now, I have a small basement and could have all that water, though I don't, in part because this is a temporary living situation, and in part because this area in Germany has no real disaster potential. In Japan we had maybe 20 gallons (four 5 gallon containers).  In theory, that's enough for 10 days, but if a quake hit in hot, humid Japanese summer, I doubt it would last that long.  And it took up a lot of space.

I also had a handful of water purification tablets.

Shortly after the quake in Japan, I did hit up all of the vending machines around our house (and there are vending machines roughly every 7 feet in Japan) and I was able to buy more water, and I filled large bowls and other containers while I knew the taps were still safe.  But obviously, depending on the nature of the disaster, that might not be an option.

I'm not in a small home and I still feel like it's hard to store enough water. We do the best we can - about 18 gallons in larger 3 gallon jugs, but plus a couple cases of individual water bottles. In a longer term emergency, there's another 100 gallons or something in the water heater and toilet tanks and other places. That water would be gross, but potable. We have a mechanical water purifier should we need to tap into exterior water sources which are, thankfully, plentiful around our home.

I think if it's possible, the best, most space-efficient strategy is to have a katadyn or life straw or similar on hand, know how to use it, and identify a few places where you could get water reliably near your home in a longer term emergency.

[Allen]

I try to not worry about things that I have no control over.  The weather and natural disasters being one of them.  If it happens I will deal with it the best I can, but I am not going to lose sleep over it.

Weather and natural disasters you actually do have some control over, from a risk mitigation point of view.  Where you choose to live dictates which weather and natural disasters you are likely to be subjected to. 

Not a lot of hurricanes or tornados in Idaho for example.  Hate Earthquakes?  Don't live in Turkey or Japan.  Hate dust storms?  Don't live in Australia.

I do agree there isn't really a place where you are 100% immune from weather and natural disasters, but there are places where you are most certainly going to be impacted directly or indirectly in a normal lifetime and you can avoid them if you want.

[missj]

How do you all marry the ideas of 2 weeks of supplies (including water, which takes up a ton of space) and of small homes?  Right now, I have a small basement and could have all that water, though I don't, in part because this is a temporary living situation, and in part because this area in Germany has no real disaster potential. In Japan we had maybe 20 gallons (four 5 gallon containers).  In theory, that's enough for 10 days, but if a quake hit in hot, humid Japanese summer, I doubt it would last that long.  And it took up a lot of space.

I also had a handful of water purification tablets.

Shortly after the quake in Japan, I did hit up all of the vending machines around our house (and there are vending machines roughly every 7 feet in Japan) and I was able to buy more water, and I filled large bowls and other containers while I knew the taps were still safe.  But obviously, depending on the nature of the disaster, that might not be an option.

a little built in gem for water storage is your hot water tank.  it has something like 40-50 gallons of potable water.  provided it doesn't get damaged in the quake.

another option is to keep calcium hypochlorite crystals (pool shock) which can safely purify thousands of gallons of water, and only takes up less space than a shoe box.  doesn't expire like liquid bleach.  But even with those back up options I think you should still have several gallons of potable water stored in your home or garage.  you might have to make some sacrifices.

[sol]

We've always stored our emergency water in otherwise inaccessible places like crawl spaces.  Mostly in gallon size milk jugs we would otherwise just be throwing away.

[Villanelle]

How do you all marry the ideas of 2 weeks of supplies (including water, which takes up a ton of space) and of small homes?  Right now, I have a small basement and could have all that water, though I don't, in part because this is a temporary living situation, and in part because this area in Germany has no real disaster potential. In Japan we had maybe 20 gallons (four 5 gallon containers).  In theory, that's enough for 10 days, but if a quake hit in hot, humid Japanese summer, I doubt it would last that long.  And it took up a lot of space.

I also had a handful of water purification tablets.

Shortly after the quake in Japan, I did hit up all of the vending machines around our house (and there are vending machines roughly every 7 feet in Japan) and I was able to buy more water, and I filled large bowls and other containers while I knew the taps were still safe.  But obviously, depending on the nature of the disaster, that might not be an option.

a little built in gem for water storage is your hot water tank.  it has something like 40-50 gallons of potable water.  provided it doesn't get damaged in the quake.

another option is to keep calcium hypochlorite crystals (pool shock) which can safely purify thousands of gallons of water, and only takes up less space than a shoe box.  doesn't expire like liquid bleach.  But even with those back up options I think you should still have several gallons of potable water stored in your home or garage.  you might have to make some sacrifices.

This presumes a garage and a non-instant hot water heater.  Or a yard, for that matter.  I'm unlikely to have those things for the next 5 years, at least.

[MicroRN]

How do you all marry the ideas of 2 weeks of supplies (including water, which takes up a ton of space) and of small homes?  Right now, I have a small basement and could have all that water, though I don't, in part because this is a temporary living situation, and in part because this area in Germany has no real disaster potential. In Japan we had maybe 20 gallons (four 5 gallon containers).  In theory, that's enough for 10 days, but if a quake hit in hot, humid Japanese summer, I doubt it would last that long.  And it took up a lot of space.

I also had a handful of water purification tablets.

Shortly after the quake in Japan, I did hit up all of the vending machines around our house (and there are vending machines roughly every 7 feet in Japan) and I was able to buy more water, and I filled large bowls and other containers while I knew the taps were still safe.  But obviously, depending on the nature of the disaster, that might not be an option.

When I lived in KY it was in a 450 sqft apartment.  I had a full bed, and I put it on risers and used underneath for storage.  I used the 2.5gal water jugs from the store for my initial storage, and had some additional 5 gal foldable jerry cans.  If we knew bad weather was coming, I filled the jerry cans.  Camping food (mostly Mountain House freeze-dried) was my emergency food, and my camping gear was my emergency gear.  I went camping or to a horse event at least twice a month.  That way food and water got rotated regularly, and it was stored with useful things like a single burner propane stove, matches, flashlight, battery lantern, emergency blankets, and first aid gear.  That bed on risers held all my water and emergency gear, plus had room for extra storage underneath.  I lifted it high enough to fit a standard 18gal plastic tote.  I also had one of the older water-bottle purifiers that I'd gotten for backpacking.  Nalgene, I think? 

Now our water needs are pretty high, since we have kids, pets, and farm animals.  Fortunately we have a barn, so storage is not a problem.  We also keep bleach and iodine tablets around.  We live very near a lake, and could trek there for water if we absolutely had to. 

[Jack]

I doubt a tsunami would destroy most western homes - just go upstairs and ride it out.

This is a joke, right? It may be different for you in Latin America, but typical North American homes have no chance to survive any significant flood (let alone one with force behind it, such as a river flood or tsunami). Some floods, such as those caused by dam failures, will destroy even masonry structures.

The only exception is structures that are specially reinforced to handle it (e.g. hospitals, schools, fire stations, etc. in places with the appropriate building codes), or structures elevated on pilings so that the flood waters don't actually get high enough to reach anything important.

How do you all marry the ideas of 2 weeks of supplies (including water, which takes up a ton of space) and of small homes?  Right now, I have a small basement and could have all that water, though I don't, in part because this is a temporary living situation, and in part because this area in Germany has no real disaster potential. In Japan we had maybe 20 gallons (four 5 gallon containers).  In theory, that's enough for 10 days, but if a quake hit in hot, humid Japanese summer, I doubt it would last that long.  And it took up a lot of space.

I also had a handful of water purification tablets.

Shortly after the quake in Japan, I did hit up all of the vending machines around our house (and there are vending machines roughly every 7 feet in Japan) and I was able to buy more water, and I filled large bowls and other containers while I knew the taps were still safe.  But obviously, depending on the nature of the disaster, that might not be an option.

a little built in gem for water storage is your hot water tank.  it has something like 40-50 gallons of potable water.  provided it doesn't get damaged in the quake.

another option is to keep calcium hypochlorite crystals (pool shock) which can safely purify thousands of gallons of water, and only takes up less space than a shoe box.  doesn't expire like liquid bleach.  But even with those back up options I think you should still have several gallons of potable water stored in your home or garage.  you might have to make some sacrifices.

This presumes a garage and a non-instant hot water heater.  Or a yard, for that matter.  I'm unlikely to have those things for the next 5 years, at least.

Get appropriately-strong containers (like these, maybe?) and then use them as bed frames, bench supports, table legs, etc. For example, get about 48 of them, put them next to each other in a 6x8 grid, put two pieces of plywood on top, then put your mattress on top of that. Just make sure your floor is strong enough to hold all the weight (2000 lbs just for the water, in this exmaple)!

[Annamal]

My 2 cents. Bike to work. When the shit hits the fan, the rumbling starts, you escape your office, and the cellphone network falls over, you'll be fucking glad to be able to get home to your family in the normal 30 minutes instead of being stuck in grid locked traffic for 6 plus hours. Or at the very least have some running shoes and be prepared to use them.

Good walking shoes are really valuable, I was really grateful to be able to walk home after the second large Wellington quake

I had actually decided to take an afternoon of annual leave and walk home in the sun and was about 10 minutes out of work when it struck (incidentally I never want to be outside in an earthquake again, it is profoundly disconcerting) but everyone got turfed out of work because it needed to be checked again.

[Jack]

My 2 cents. Bike to work. When the shit hits the fan, the rumbling starts, you escape your office, and the cellphone network falls over, you'll be fucking glad to be able to get home to your family in the normal 30 minutes instead of being stuck in grid locked traffic for 6 plus hours. Or at the very least have some running shoes and be prepared to use them.

Good walking shoes are really valuable, I was really grateful to be able to walk home after the second large Wellington quake

I had actually decided to take an afternoon of annual leave and walk home in the sun and was about 10 minutes out of work when it struck (incidentally I never want to be outside in an earthquake again, it is profoundly disconcerting) but everyone got turfed out of work because it needed to be checked again.

Did they also have to use their leave or did you get yours credited back?

[Annamal]

My 2 cents. Bike to work. When the shit hits the fan, the rumbling starts, you escape your office, and the cellphone network falls over, you'll be fucking glad to be able to get home to your family in the normal 30 minutes instead of being stuck in grid locked traffic for 6 plus hours. Or at the very least have some running shoes and be prepared to use them.

Good walking shoes are really valuable, I was really grateful to be able to walk home after the second large Wellington quake

I had actually decided to take an afternoon of annual leave and walk home in the sun and was about 10 minutes out of work when it struck (incidentally I never want to be outside in an earthquake again, it is profoundly disconcerting) but everyone got turfed out of work because it needed to be checked again.

Did they also have to use their leave or did you get yours credited back?

Neither, Work added a  special leave code for anyone not already on leave. Since I was technically on annual leave that afternoon, I didn't get the special leave for that afternoon (since my manager was trying to get me to reduce my leave balance, I didn't really mind).

Having said that, since I didn't have the right kind of computer to work from home, I got the next Monday and part of Tuesday as special leave because the building needed urgent repairs, whereas those who could work from home(and had left their computers switched on for remote access) recorded normal hours. Work was actually really decent to all of us regarding leave balances and public transport.

[wenchsenior]

Realistically, nothing's going to change. Eventually, the big earthquake will happen and everyone will be up in arms because nothing was done to prepare.

We built a city in an area at or below sea level. Then we were surprised when it flooded and killed thousands, destroyed half the city, and exposed all sort of problems. New Orleans should not exist, and never should have existed, at least not in that location. The Native Americans certainly knew it - they only built temporary settlements there.

As a species we're good at hindsight but very bad at foresight.

"GOD BLESS YOU, CAPTAIN HINDSIGHT!!!!"

[milesdividendmd]

This is a nice piece deconstructing the probabilities when it comes to quakes in the cascadia subduction zone.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/8980403/cascadia-earthquake-seattle-oregon?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter