I am a earthquake seismologist. AMA. 5th anniversary of Louisa Quake

[Anonymous]

I will be around until about 2:45 PM

[Anonymous]

Former DC resident (and was there for the quake! remember watching people walk home across 395 to Virginia.) Now live in Seattle. Any clues I can watch for that would be a sign of the big one?

[Anonymous]

Would you live in California?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former DC resident (and was there for the quake! remember watching people walk home across 395 to Virginia.) Now live in Seattle. Any clues I can watch for that would be a sign of the big one?

Not really any signs. With that said, Seismologists at UW are trying to set up an earthquake early warning system. The idea is sensors close to the earthquake will detect it first, and give a little bit of warning to people further away. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/science/regional-earthquake-early-warning-system-gets-a-funding-boost/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you live in California?

No. There is not enough water there. Earthquakes? Meh. Earthquakes do not kill people. It is things falling on people that kill them. With proper construction, an earthquake is survivable.

[Anonymous]

Is there anywhere you would not live because of earthquakes or other seismic activity (tidal waves, etc)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there anywhere you would not live because of earthquakes or other seismic activity (tidal waves, etc)?

Yes. I would not live real near the coast of any active region. If I were in Pacific Northwest, for example, I would want to be at least 50m above sea level Basically, when the big one hits, there will be as little as 10 minutes to get to higher elevation before a 10 to possibly 40m wave hits. In some places, you just will not have enough time to get to higher ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anywhere you would not live because of earthquakes or other seismic activity (tidal waves, etc)?

Yes. I would not live real near the coast of any active region. If I were in Pacific Northwest, for example, I would want to be at least 50m above sea level Basically, when the big one hits, there will be as little as 10 minutes to get to higher elevation before a 10 to possibly 40m wave hits. In some places, you just will not have enough time to get to higher ground.

PP in Seattle here. Thanks! You're reaffirming my decision to buy our house at one of the higher land points in the area. Now to check the exact elevation ...

[Anonymous]

What drew you to this field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anywhere you would not live because of earthquakes or other seismic activity (tidal waves, etc)?

Yes. I would not live real near the coast of any active region. If I were in Pacific Northwest, for example, I would want to be at least 50m above sea level Basically, when the big one hits, there will be as little as 10 minutes to get to higher elevation before a 10 to possibly 40m wave hits. In some places, you just will not have enough time to get to higher ground.

PP in Seattle here. Thanks! You're reaffirming my decision to buy our house at one of the higher land points in the area. Now to check the exact elevation ...

There is no real tsunami hazard in the Puget Sound. The hazard is in the coast. What scares me with Seattle (and Portland) is not the Megathrust earthquake that people talk about, but the magnitude 7 right under the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What drew you to this field?

I found the problem space fascinating. And it seemed like something where I could help people while using my scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous]

What spot in the country is most vulnerable to 'the big one'? PNW? Northern Cal? somewhere unexpected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What spot in the country is most vulnerable to 'the big one'? PNW? Northern Cal? somewhere unexpected?

Vulnerable is a tough word. The most likely locations for a big (M>7.5) earthquake are Alaska, California, Washington/Oregon These areas will all see one on the next 500 years, possibly sooner.

After that, Hawaii, Nevada, Idaho, Montana.

[Anonymous]

I live in central MI now and we had an earthquake April 2015 strong enough to feel (at least 3.0) . Very unusual - could it be from fracking? If so, how would we know? Would anyone tell us the truth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in central MI now and we had an earthquake April 2015 strong enough to feel (at least 3.0) . Very unusual - could it be from fracking? If so, how would we know? Would anyone tell us the truth?

I am not sure. First, I can not find an earthquake in April 2015; I suspect you meant the May 2, 2015 earthquake. That is in an area where there is oil and/or gas production. But, usually, when fracking is involved, there will be more earthquakes. Furthermore, it is not the fracking that triggers the earthquakes, rather it is the deep water injection of the waste products.