Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim
They will not collapse during an earthquake, that's fear mongering at its worst.
If people are suddenly scared of LA development, they should really consider demolishing the entire city. Mexico City, Tokyo and SF were built ON faults compared to LA, which has traces of smaller faults, but nothing as substantial as those cities. Halting all progress for faults is going to kill the economy of Los Angeles.
Homeowner associations........grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
|
Given that 9.2 quake they had in Japan, and if you look closely at the damage to the buildings, the majority of them didn't seem to suffer much damage at all, thanks to how earthquake-proof they must have made them.
Don't confuse the damage you see with the effect of the accompanying tsunami, which did most of the damage.
Same with the damage done in Concepcion, Chile, a few years back, which also suffered one of those 9.0+ quakes. Closer to the South Pole?
True or not, the most powerful earthquakes seem to occur the closest you get to the North or South Poles. Witness the strongest quake in North American history, with that 9.2 that shook Alaska back in 1964.
Given that, true or not, what would be the chances of a 9.0+ or even a 8.0+ happening that far from the North or South Pole in the L.A. area? I fear not!
Seattle had a 7.0 shaker back the turn of the century, 2000?, and the greatest damage was to the Capital building, which was built so long, long ago, along with some scattered minor damage. So Seattle must be quite vigilant on their building methods! Portland had best to do the same! The entire Pacific Rim!
I've been to Chile, and that's been my biggest fear going down there, the ungodly shakers they can get there. I was in Concepcion 2 years before that monster quake, and eerily, I just left Santiago, back in the late 80's when they suffered an 8.0 quake. If I had been in either one, I wouldn't have lived to see the damage, as my heart would have stopped!
Prev
[/IMG]
Linear Mode
