Tsunami waves are not like those surf waves, meaning 7 footer crashes on the beach then youre done ....it means the whole freaking sea comes in 7 feet higher
Anyway, here in nyc were prepping for frankenstorm!
I think this needs to be clarified for some people. The waves behave a lot differently.
Also, in Campbell River mid-Island myself and didn't feel anything. Glad to here all the west coast Island cities are alright though.
I was out drinking last night Downtown. Didn't feel a thing, but was concerned getting bits and pieces of informations. Someone told me we were under a tsunami warning too. Ah well. I just hope this let off enough stress that we are good for the next few decades an no one got hurt.
I really think there is a silver lining behind this. Northern pipeline has just shown its major weakness. Something you can't prepare for. They plan on putting it through one the most active seismic zones in the world.
So this is a good thing right? I mean, better off up north than down town Van.
We are talking two different faults. This one was up north in a zone that is quite active. Usually quakes measuring 3.0-6.0 are more common. Though these highers ones though a lot less frequent do happen from time to time. The likely hood of a earthquake epicenter in downtown vancouver is pretty much nilche as the fault line does not pass through their. Even then Vancouvers building codes are top of the line. You wouldn't see the destruction that are seen in various countries. tsunamis would not be able to generate in the straight as it is too small to gain steam. If a major earthquake was to hit the most damage would occur on the west coast of the island which is open to all the pacific but even then we have warning systems for that.
Don't let earthquakes scare you. This is just the way of the earth to maintain its shape like when we burp we are releasing built up air or we start to feel the pressure build. Its just relieving the pressure to make it more comfortable.
Even though some people say earthquakes are becoming more frequent they really arn't. They have maintained steady over the last 100 years
On any given year we usually get 1-2 8.0 or higher. a couple dozen 7.0-7.9. And thousands of anything below that.
Last edited by 1ntrovert*: 10-28-2012 at 03:17 PM.
We are talking two different faults. This one was up north in a zone that is quite active. Usually quakes measuring 3.0-6.0 are more common. Though these highers ones though a lot less frequent do happen from time to time. The likely hood of a earthquake epicenter in downtown vancouver is pretty much nilche as the fault line does not pass through their. Even then Vancouvers building codes are top of the line. You wouldn't see the destruction that are seen in various countries. tsunamis would not be able to generate in the straight as it is too small to gain steam. If a major earthquake was to hit the most damage would occur on the west coast of the island which is open to all the pacific but even then we have warning systems for that.
Don't let earthquakes scare you. This is just the way of the earth to maintain its shape like when we burp we are releasing built up air or we start to feel the pressure build. Its just relieving the pressure to make it more comfortable.
Even though some people say earthquakes are becoming more frequent they really arn't. They have maintained steady over the last 100 years
On any given year we usually get 1-2 8.0 or higher. a couple dozen 7.0-7.9. And thousands of anything below that.
It also really depends on the nature of the quake, this one was quite large for interplate or intraplate earthquake. The really big ones are the subduction zone ones, and you can't get one of those in Vancouver ... however Victoria would be pretty screwed ...
This one was somewhat shallow at 10 miles, but the ugly ones are when you get surface rupture in a populated area ....
Yeah, what we need to be prepared for is the Cascadia Subduction zone quake that happens every 200-500 years. The last one was in 1700 so the next one could happen tomorrow, or could happen 200 years from now. When that bad boy releases it's usually a 9.0 quake or bigger...Some other recent subduction quakes are the Japan quake and the Indian Ocean quake. That's "the big one" that's always talked about.
The reason these quakes are so big is because the size of the plates slipping (I believe). To give you an idea:
It also really depends on the nature of the quake, this one was quite large for interplate or intraplate earthquake. The really big ones are the subduction zone ones, and you can't get one of those in Vancouver ... however Victoria would be pretty screwed ...
This one was somewhat shallow at 10 miles, but the ugly ones are when you get surface rupture in a populated area ....
Even these Subduction zone quakes are not the main damage causer. It almost always is the tsunami that occurs after that completely destroys things in low lying areas and causes the deaths. You look at the Japan quake, while powerful the damage was limited from the actual quake itself. It was the resulting tsunami after that reaked havoc.
So I've never known the answer to this for sure...Obviously with the geography of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island being directly west of it:
Would a tsunami cased by a subduction earthquake southwest of the Island reach the lower mainland or would the island take the brunt of it?
West Coast of the island will take almost all of it. It would hit the west coast then redirect and head south towards victoria but the farther it goes south the weaker it gets and by the time it gets into the straight your talking very minimal risk as it is at a fraction of what it was.
You wouldn't see the damage that you saw in Japan. The west coast of the island is very sparsely populated and has mountain and ridges littered throughout it acting as a shield or diverter. The west coast also has advanced warning systems that would give people at least 30 minutes to get to higher ground along the west coast. west vancouver island is pretty much acting as a shield for the mainland.
Last edited by 1ntrovert*: 10-28-2012 at 04:39 PM.
I've been told the Island could act as a funnel and could carry the tsunami further? Don't know how that works.
I don't know about that. VI is quite mountainous and is physically on the path of the hypothetical earthquake; I suppose some of the waves would "funnel" through Juan de Fuca but then they'd make it to the Puget Sound first, and there would be the Juan de Fuca/Gulf Islands as barriers to the Lower Mainland. I'm no seismologist but I think average sea levels wouldn't rise much by the time it got here; Richmond could be in trouble still though.
Didn't feel anything here, was in the middle of a hockey game when it happened. The Tsunami warning was a bit scary but no major damage in total around the BC coast or where the Earthquake hit so we're deffinately lucky the epicenter of that earthquake wasn't where it was more populated or this could've been pretty tragic.
So yes there is a funneling affect but the east side of the Island + Vancouver actually very protected by geography.
Yeah, looks like we'd get it a bit, but it seems as if the lower mainland, for the most part, has a lot blocking it to help protect it from anything catastrophic.
Aberdeen, Washington looks like it'd be about the worst place to be.
so then it would be the lower mainland getting hit, not Vancouver Island?
No. Look at the model posted. Looks like the worst of it would be along the coastal areas of the US, the west side of Vancouver Island, and the like. The worst hit areas of the lower mainland would probably be Tsawwassen and Richmond because of the lack of elevation and proximity to the water (yay me!), but if it behaved anything like the model none of the lower mainland would seem to get hit nearly as bad as the coastal US or the west end of the Island.
