View Full Version : natural disasters
09-25-2002, 03:02 PM
so i am sitting in the middle of this Isidore "tropical storm" (so far pretty lame) and had remembered seeing a special on how Seattle would be destroyed if Mt. Ranier were to erupt.
I have always lives in the southeast, so i dont know anything about things up there...so are there lots of earthquakes/dangers?
the NW seems very innocuous compared to the tornadoes/hurricanes we get here. but feel free to prove me wrong!
09-25-2002, 09:53 PM
Earthquakes, yes, could potentially level Seattle (and Portland for that matter), but Seattle probably won't even be touched by a Rainier eruption (even if it is a really really big one), aside from a significant dusting of ash. Yes, big ugly vicious mudflows will cover every town between the mountain and Puget Sound, but the three major rivers that drain the mountain (Puyallup, Nisqually and Cowlitz) all empty well away from Elliot Bay. Tacoma could get a royal fucking, but Seattle ought to be okay.
Personally, I wouldn't live anywhere else. Too flat (there really isn't anywhere you can avoid natural disasters altogether).
09-25-2002, 10:23 PM
Yeah. for the most part we've been fairly lucky and have a "little earthquake" every year or two. Id rather have one of those every now and then, rather than one big one. The biggest natural disaster we have to worry about up here is maybe a blizzard, but again, not bloody likely. (Unless your talking about Dairy Queen. MMMM !!!!!)
09-25-2002, 10:44 PM
Ya it is completly safe from most natural diasters. I wouldnt live anywhere else I feel lucky that we dont have earthquakes and hurricanes that would suck... Even though lighting and wind kick ass.
09-25-2002, 10:55 PM
Well, those "little" earthquakes are completely unrelated to the one that could potentially wipeout the entire northwest seaboard. Fortunately, since the epicentre would be something like 150 miles off shore, Seattle wouldn't get pounded as hard as, say...someplace like Aberdeen or Astoria (which would both likely be wiped off the map by tsunamis).
Speaking of tsunamis, I saw this cool documentary on discovery about <dr evil>"Super Tsunami"</dr evil> *dun-dun-dun*. Essentially caused when a massive chunk of land slides into the ocean at high speed. There was one of these in a fjord in Alaska about 50 years ago. Part of a mountain collapsed directly into the water so fast that an air pocket formed behind the rock, forcing more water up and out that just the rock would have been able to displace. The resulting wave was 1500 feet tall.
This show was describing a similar situation originating from La Palma (part of the Canary Islands). The theory was that the volcanoes on La Palma were weakening the west side of the island enough that one day, there will be a massive landslide which will be able to send a wave across the Atlantic in something like 8 hours, reaching heights over 3000 feet tall once it hit the eastern seaboard. Scary shit. Not likely to happen any time soon, but scare none the less.
09-26-2002, 08:18 PM
Seattle wouldn't really be destroyed unless it was a Tamboria/Mazama size eruption. Studies on Ranier have shown that its eruptions are not particularly violent compared to other mountains. Chances are it would blanket the entire area (100-300 miles from the volcano) with ash. It could be a lot of ash though. It could also rain rocks up to 100 lb. each.
Lahars would wipe out all the smaller cities around the mountain, though. All you suckers in Puyallup are doomed. :D Core drillings in the Puyallyp Valley have found trees thought to be 300 ft. tall buried close to 700 ft. underground. Crazy. I wonder what other shit is buried down there. Lost civilizations?
Anyway, shit could go down here for sure. We have numerous volcanos. We have the Juan De Fuca Plate which has generated quakes up to 9.2 (est.) in times as recent as the 1700s. We all might have quite a ride awaiting all of us in the future.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.