These hurricanes are getting ridiculous.

[sti deede]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

Well I'm glad everyones name is DeeDe.......wtf!!!!

yah blah blah blah. most the building in the bay area would fall to an Earthquake to WILL hit them someday. Sure the building code has been improved, that doesent mean that all the structures (the more then 50%) that where built before earthquake codes have been improved!!!!!!


not to mention but if the weather storms are getting stronger then by god the earthquakes will also!!!!

So Mike.... where would you live? Texas?

[MikeSTI]

Originally Posted by sti deede

So Mike.... where would you live? Texas?

well Dean showing you charts for Nevada, you live in Sacramento.

If my house here sells, then yes I will live in San Antonio

[sti deede]

Reno Sacramento, whats the differance. It all feel the same. Except I can't make it out to the thursday meets.

Good luck with the home sales!

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

real useful post thanks for stopping by

Because blathering about earthquakes getting stronger since the hurricanes are getting stronger is useful too? Which research study did you read that from exactly?

[ScottyS]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

real useful post thanks for stopping by

<<<------ Thinks I.C.E.man's on drugs......haha.

Reno Sacramento, whats the differance. It all feel the same.

Boy, sometimes it sure does. Thankfully we can own semi-auto weapons with 30rd mags and pistol grips here, though. Seriously, I can't wait to leave Reno.
Nice avatar change, Deede. The new one is much prettier.

[sti deede]

Why thank you Scotty.

I wasn't sure if I was ready to get rid of the bunny, but I figured it was time for change.

[doubleurx]

Originally Posted by MattR

In case you missed it on the weather channel.

So Spooln and I are the only one's that caught humor in this. Damn that is funny. I showed that to Matt (my business partner.......he nearly pissed his pants).

Nice work Matt

[Libila]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Texas sucks anyways, trust me. (Sorry Tim. )

I agree, this place does suck.

My sister (a nurse prac.) flew to Houston last night to help out at the hospitals.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

Well I'm glad everyones name is DeeDe.......wtf!!!!

yah blah blah blah. most the building in the bay area would fall to an Earthquake to WILL hit them someday. Sure the building code has been improved, that doesent mean that all the structures (the more then 50%) that where built before earthquake codes have been improved!!!!!!


not to mention but if the weather storms are getting stronger then by god the earthquakes will also!!!!

Um, all large buildings have to be retrofitted to meet *current* earthquake standards.

The 194x building I used to work in in Walnut Creek was given the option of being condemed or retrofitted at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars because much of it was still original brick masonry. They retrofitted it, and now it's got a steel girder skeleton inside holding up all the brick. If a major quake hits it, it'll surely be damaged, but it's not gonna collapse and kill everyone inside.

As far as the weather getting worse... some will argue global warming, some will argue it's just a natural shift in the weather... maybe it's just another side effect of the huge Tsunami earlier this year. Either way, global weather patterns change far quicker than geological patterns. Earthquakes aren't going to suddenly get worse... they've been as bad as they are for the last 100,000 years, if not longer (I'll differ to Scotty, since he's the actual geologist). But basically, as long as we continue to have all the micro-quakes every month, there's no reason to expect large-scale quakes to be more frequent or more powerful than the current 8.0 per 100 years average (or whatever the actual numbers are) that we currently deal with.

I fully expect the west coast to suffer another major quake in the next 50 years, but I certainly don't expect to see 50% of the buildings near the quake collapse, nor would I expect to see more than 100 fatalities. Which is a hell of a lot better than the folks of New Orleans (and the rest of LA/MS) are doing.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

Um, all large buildings have to be retrofitted to meet *current* earthquake standards.

The 194x building I used to work in in Walnut Creek was given the option of being condemed or retrofitted at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars because much of it was still original brick masonry. They retrofitted it, and now it's got a steel girder skeleton inside holding up all the brick. If a major quake hits it, it'll surely be damaged, but it's not gonna collapse and kill everyone inside.

As far as the weather getting worse... some will argue global warming, some will argue it's just a natural shift in the weather... maybe it's just another side effect of the huge Tsunami earlier this year. Either way, global weather patterns change far quicker than geological patterns. Earthquakes aren't going to suddenly get worse... they've been as bad as they are for the last 100,000 years, if not longer (I'll differ to Scotty, since he's the actual geologist). But basically, as long as we continue to have all the micro-quakes every month, there's no reason to expect large-scale quakes to be more frequent or more powerful than the current 8.0 per 100 years average (or whatever the actual numbers are) that we currently deal with.

I fully expect the west coast to suffer another major quake in the next 50 years, but I certainly don't expect to see 50% of the buildings near the quake collapse, nor would I expect to see more than 100 fatalities. Which is a hell of a lot better than the folks of New Orleans (and the rest of LA/MS) are doing.

But earth is only 5,000 years old... duh.

[sp00ln]

Doink, how come you know so much about earthquakes?

[tysonK]

He has a good memory.

[Dean]

Google implants...

[sperry]

Originally Posted by sp00ln

Doink, how come you know so much about earthquakes?

I was in the Bay for Loma Prieta in '89, so I got interested in all that crap as a kid, and like Tyson said, I just remember it. 'Course I'm no authority... geology and the like can be very complicated... if it was simple we'd have earthquake predictions better than "80% chance of a 6.5 or greater in the next 40 years".

Speaking of Loma Prieta, it wasn't really that scary, even at age 12. What was much scarrier was a few years later when we had a "swarm" of quakes on the Hayward fault, located very close to my house. It was like 10 or 15 3.0-4.0 quakes over the course of a few days. One would hit and you'd be like "cool, it'll be a while before the next one"... then after 3 or 4 hours, you started getting a weird feeling in your gut: "when's the next one gonna hit!?" 'Course a bunch of 3.5's is way better than releasing all that energy in a single 8.0!

[sp00ln]

Originally Posted by Dean

Google implants...

hahaha...

[MikeSTI]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

But earth is only 5,000 years old... duh.

and poeple wonder why I take things so personaly. You personaly attack "my statments"

If I could only be one of the cool kids...............

My view is still the same, a major eathquake or hell even a tsunami can and will hit the west coast.

the funny thing is no one disagree's that an earthquake is going to hit, so it must just be me you don't like?

How about one time I post something and we run with it instead of trying to tear down everything I say, or am I not allowed to have my own views and must be pushed down at every oppertunity?

here lets try this -

Do major Earthquakes give a warring?

Can people die from Earthquakes?

Will poeple be displaced from there homes?

It really sucks to be put in a possion where I have to be on the defence while 5 poeple take jabs at me for a little statment, "the west is no safer with the earth quakes and all, that have no warning! ", it really gets old

[sperry]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

and poeple wonder why I take things so personaly. You personaly attack "my statments"

If I could only be one of the cool kids...............

My view is still the same, a major eathquake or hell even a tsunami can and will hit the west coast.

the funny thing is no one disagree's that an earthquake is going to hit, so it must just be me you don't like?

How about one time I post something and we run with it instead of trying to tear down everything I say, or am I not allowed to have my own views and must be pushed down at every oppertunity?

here lets try this -

Do major Earthquakes give a warring?

Can people die from Earthquakes?

It really sucks to be put in a possion where I have to be on the defence while 5 poeple take jabs at me for a little statment, "the west is no safer with the earth quakes and all, that have no warning! ", it really gets old

I will agree that the "5000 year old" crack by Kevin was uncalled for. This wasn't a religious debate.

My point about the eartquakes was simply that even though there's no warning, it's easier to prepare for earthquakes than for massive hurricanes. In the south, even though they know a hurricane is coming, there's not a lot you can do to prevent flood damage. Water is just too unstoppable of a force. Once the levies are breached, many, many people lose their property/lives.

Meanwhile, in an earthquake scenario, as long as your building is up to code, and there's no out of control fire, you've got a very good chance of surviving w/o major damage.

So, you are indeed correct, earthquakes do strike without warning, and can kill you. But I'd rather take my chances living with the threat of a quake, than live in a hurricane prone area, because I think my chances of survivng without life altering/ending consequences are better in quake country.

[MikeSTI]

Originally Posted by sperry

But I'd rather take my chances living with the threat of a quake, than live in a hurricane prone area, because I think my chances of survivng without life altering/ending consequences are better in quake country.

hehe, agreed (manly because we live in Nevada)

I found this in the San Fran Cron. - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...10/SC16QUA.DTL

http://quake.usgs.gov/research/seism...02/losses.html

[doubleurx]

Many buildings were not required to be retrofitted. In fact there are many buildings out there that could suffer major damage. Most of those are limited to the masonry buildings. Were the retrofit issue got triggered was when alterations to the building were proposed by the owners or if they housed anything to do with the public or generated enough occupant load to justify the retrofit. Wood buildings are probably the safest. You know all those school "portable" classrooms with the wood foundations. They look flimsy but actually do very well in earthquakes because of how much the wood can flex. Steel also is very flexible. Masonry bad - steel wood good!

[MikeSTI]

Originally Posted by doubleurx

Many buildings were not required to be retrofitted. In fact there are many buildings out there that could suffer major damage. Most of those are limited to the masonry buildings. Were the retrofit issue got triggered was when alterations to the building were proposed by the owners or if they housed anything to do with the public or generated enough occupant load to justify the retrofit. Wood buildings are probably the safest. You know all those school "portable" classrooms with the wood foundations. They look flimsy but actually do very well in earthquakes because of how much the wood can flex. Steel also is very flexible. Masonry bad - steel wood good!

just to add to that, concrete is bad also. So buildings with parking garages at the bottom would also equal bad

[ScottyS]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

It really sucks to be put in a possion where I have to be on the defence while 5 poeple take jabs at me for a little statment, "the west is no safer with the earth quakes and all, that have no warning! ", it really gets old

I wasn't trying to crack your feelings, Mike, I just found the visual nature of the exchange to be funny, and it made me chuckle.... No doubt I occasionally come across as textually bizarre as well.

I'm just glad earthquakes aren't seasonal.

Seriously, I think the REAL problem with the hurricane bit is going to be the panic every time a cyclone shows up in the Atlantic. The reaction of the population is to me much less predictable and more scary than the approach of a hurricane.

Storms can be prepared for and weathered, but I agree that a singular event such as a earthquake, volcanic eruption, or tsunami is more scary simply from the unpredictability. Again, I'm glad they don't show up every year.

The cyclic nature of climate patterns makes it darn near impossible to tie "global warming" to bigger storms with any honesty...people have gotten to the point where "the inaccuracy of science is accepted, however the best guess of science is still the closest to the truth in every instance". I don't believe that for a minute (and what do I do for a living?).

The earth is only 5000 years old? Totally possible. If God can create a billion galaxies, I think that the task of creating the earth in 6 days and making it look like it was millions of years old would be child's play. I wasn't there, so I can't say...

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

and poeple wonder why I take things so personaly. You personaly attack "my statments"

If I could only be one of the cool kids...............

My view is still the same, a major eathquake or hell even a tsunami can and will hit the west coast.

the funny thing is no one disagree's that an earthquake is going to hit, so it must just be me you don't like?

I never disagreed with what you're saying here, just what you said earlier about earthquakes getting stronger because storms are getting stronger. I could have misinterpreted you, but that's what it sounded like. No doubt another big earthquake could be massively destructive out here, hell where I live we're vulnerable to a tsunami too because we're only a few blocks from the beach and a few feet above sea level. If there's ever a strong earthquake off shore here most of the 5 cities area could be swamped within 20 minutes.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by doubleurx

Masonry bad - steel wood good!

Steel wood > wooden wood

[doubleurx]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Steel wood > wooden wood

Steel wood is aways away from wooden wood.

Steel wool is closer.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by doubleurx

Steel wood is aways away from wooden wood.

Steel wool is closer.

But neither can match the strength of carbonfiberglass.