# 9.3 quake overdue



## PrairieBelle22 (Nov 17, 2006)

If you haven't already, read the stunning article in The New Yorker Magazine entitled The Really Big One about the huge earthquake overdue to cause a devastating tsunami to hit the Pacific NW. The article is well written and appears to be well researched as well. The topic was featured this afternoon on Shepard Smith Reporting on Fox News. The experts say that a wall of water up to 100â high will hit the west cost destroying everything west of Interstate 5, killing 13,000 people and injuring another 27,000, with another 1 million displaced and with FEMA having to provide food and water for another 2.5 million.

Your thoughts?

Belle


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

It was a good article. Earthquakes are a real danger.

But, even significantly smaller quakes can be very destructive. The earthquakes and even tsunamis can absolutely create a catastrophic risk.

But, I will say, I think a danger that is too often ignored is that many places that are at significant risk of earthquakes are simply too under prepared to recover well from the short and long term massive infrastructure damages and dangers that frequently play out in the aftermath.

I was in the northridge earthquake in 94. The weeks and months after were tough, and it was very much about the recovery of infrastructure systems being very difficult.

Anywhere with a dense population that gets hit, really runs some high risks in dealing with the aftermath. Some places are worse than others.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

That was a really excellent in-depth article. I am not even sure what you can do to prep for a scenario like that besides move. 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

I have a bad feeling that it will happen at the worst possible time. The old "don't hit a man when he is down, kick him it's easier" will apply. I think about the depression, and then dust bowl.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

A 100ft high tsunami would not hit me. I am about 10 miles (?) inland. There are mountains just inland in most of California north of San Francisco. And I think much of Oregon and Washington.
But there is no doubt that most of the major population areas are in areas vunerable to tsumani and will not be able to evacuate. However, if I remember rightly, many of those cities are hilly and the tsunami would not reach them. 
Also, even one bridge down stops all traffic on a highway. Most ports would be damaged- it doesn't take much of a tsunami to do that. Slides would probably close most westward roads over the Coastal Mountains, so supplies would need to be flown in for a month or two.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> That was a really excellent in-depth article.* I am not even sure what you can do to prep for a scenario like that besides move.*
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one


I lived in two places I was glad to leave. One was Mississippi. I got tired of watching the tornado warnings scroll across the TV. One hit the project where I worked. The other was the Jersey shore which is subject to hurricanes.

I don't miss either. Anyone living in an area of the Pacific Northwest which is subject to an earthquake generated tsunami is betting against the house when they've no chance of winning.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Darren said:


> I lived in two places I was glad to leave. One was Mississippi. I got tired of watching the tornado warnings scroll across the TV. One hit the project where I worked. The other was the Jersey shore which is subject to hurricanes.
> 
> I don't miss either. Anyone living in an area of the Pacific Northwest which is subject to an earthquake generated tsunami is betting against the house when they're no chance of winning.


If a tsunami reaches 1500 ft above sea level, I doubt there will be many safe places even in the midwest.
Actually it is more a choice - as my grand parent's picture standing in front of a sign after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake showed- 'It could be worse. We might have had to move to Oakland." They were quite aware of the nature if their choices.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

where I want to said:


> If a tsunami reaches 1500 ft above sea level, I doubt there will be many safe places even in the midwest.
> Actually it is more a choice - as my grand parent's picture standing in front of a sign after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake showed- 'It could be worse. We might have had to move to Oakland." They were quite aware of the nature if their choices.


It won't get over the Rockies. Sea coast areas will be, I'd say toast, but it will be the water logged analogy.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Darren said:


> It won't get over the Rockies. Sea coast areas will be, I'd say toast, but it will be the water logged analogy.


It won't get over the coastal hills. Here about 10 miles of flat on average with a large reach up river valleys.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

It was an interesting article. 

I know there are dangers no matter where one locates. But it did reaffirm my own thoughts that I do not want to live on either coast or in a city. (Just my thoughts for me.) 

Somehow, I do think that there will be more natural disasters that will tend to be felt particularly heavily around the major port cities as the coming years play out. I can't help but think that decades of smog have affected the atmosphere and weather patterns and that decades of pumping oil and water out of the ground (not to mention quite a few nuke blasts) have had an effect on the structures under the earth and dumping chemicals of numerous kinds onto the earth doesn't seem like a really good thing either. No, it didn't happen all at one time, but it seems reasonable that there may be a cumulative thing happening that we're starting to see the effects of. Hurricanes / tornadoes, droughts, wildfires, mudslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, weird seasons, temperature extremes, water contamination, smog, heavy metal pollution, crazy strains of viruses and influenza, odd occurrences of both fish and animals dying for no apparent reason... 

While I despise the politics of "global warming", I do not like some of what mankind has done to the planet we call home. Sorta feels like some of the chickens of yesteryear are coming home to roost.

Only my own opinions, at least at the time I type this.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> It won't get over the Rockies. Sea coast areas will be, I'd say toast, but it will be the water logged analogy.


It wouldn't be anywhere near the Rockies. Do you have any idea how far in land they are? Or how many ranges, like the Cascades are much farther west than then the Rockies?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

BlackFeather said:


> I have a bad feeling that it will happen at the worst possible time. The old "don't hit a man when he is down, kick him it's easier" will apply. I think about the depression, and then dust bowl.


I have thought about that too. Imagine if we had the New Madrid fault finally go off and then this one in the Pacific NW. That would annihilate this country financially.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm not that familiar with West Coast typography. I know coastal areas will be destroyed by the tsunami a 9.3 would generate.



Patchouli said:


> I have thought about that too. Imagine if we had the New Madrid fault finally go off and then this one in the Pacific NW. That would annihilate this country financially.


If the New Madrid cause the Mississippi River to follow the Atchafalaya, quite a few industries will be disrupted. The refineries at Baton Rouge will no longer be able to ship by barge.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Darren said:


> I'm not that familiar with West Coast typography. I know coastal areas will be destroyed by the tsunami a 9.3 would generate.
> 
> 
> 
> If the New Madrid cause the Mississippi River to follow the Atchafalaya, quite a few industries will be disrupted. The refineries at Baton Rouge will no longer be able to ship by barge.


Heh heh- I know I am usually struck by the amount of flat in pictures people post on this site. I often have to drag my eyes back to the buildings or whatever the pictures as posted to show because all that flat is hypnotic. 
Our classifieds house for sale ads for land put in things like "developed house site" meaning a flat dug into the side of the hill or "extensive views" meaning a house clinging in the side of a mountain so you can see over the trees.
I remember a contractor coming to do some work at my place announcing he was surprised that there was this much flat here. And not one square inch here is flat. You just don't need to hold onto branches to walk anywhere.

But a good size tsumani would hit many places. Just not everywhere any more than it did in Japan. Certain towns face a sea beds prone to tsunamis hitting them, like Crescent City, while others have a deep shelf off shore that will limit damage. There are lots of cliffs right at ocean's edge or headlands to break it up.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

I've read the article and think it was spot-on. The research is quite solid that the historic frequency of such events over the past ten thousand years is every 250 years with it having been 315 since the last one (in 1700). The only thing not documented was whether that series of 41 massive quakes perhaps had some clustering of events interspersed with lengthy (like 1000-year) gaps of not having any "big ones." In any event, this looks to be a much more immediate and realistic threat to the country's economic status quo (I won't say "health" lol) than fears of say Yellowstone going off, and as the article says, would almost certainly involve massively more ground movement and tsunami generation than a "big one" on the San Andreas. 

People in that region even on higher elevations and not having structure damage from the 30' or so of lateral earth movement in the worst areas would find themselves in grid-down conditions. Power lines and net access might be restored fairly quickly through inland areas but outside of that, water and sewer lines would be goners, most highway bridges and overpasses collapsed. Considering past cascading failures of the electric grid across US regions originating from initially rather minor storm damages, I'm not so confident there wouldn't be vast consequences nationwide immediately to the grid as well.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Given the regionalization of the grid system, damage to the grid should be contained. That doesn't mean that nearby states like Kalifornia won't have issues when they lose a source of power.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There is a precedent- the 1964 9.3 in Alaska. Even big earthquakes are erratic in their effects. The shock waves going through the earth hit places differently. 
We had a series of three earthquakes here where the largest was over a 7. At my house, one dish that I had propped on a window sill fell onto an overstuffed chair and the items in my panty shifted to the front where the child proof latches held the doors shut. 3 blocks away, chimneys were down everywhere and a couple of houses came off their foundations. Even a small quake can be bad if close and shallow and the ground is poor. 
A 9 over a large area, if the fault does trigger everywhere simultaneously, will cause lots of damage. Especially further north, where earthquake building codes and retrofitting is not common. And in urban areas where there is simply more stuff to fall on people and infrastructure to fail. But it will only be "Hollywood" worthy in some places.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Where I want to is right about damage being nonsensical sometimes.

If you've not been in quake country, the best I think I can describe the aftermath problems is this.

If you picture what tornado aftermath can look like, you know that two streets or houses can be vastly different, destroyed vd seemingly untouched.

So responder s, nonmedical, can usually eyeball seeing where there are structural and utility damage that requires response. So, their assessments are faster and they can more easily isolate where shutting down systems is required for safety and where they can leaving things running.

In an earthquake, those responders can't see all the damage that has happened easily, whether it's structural roads, bridges, buildings, etc. Or, underground power, gas, water, sewer, etc.

So they frequently gave to struggle just to get everything shutdown for safety. Then, its often a cat and mouse game of trying to fire areas back up and observing if anything seems amiss, because there not guaranteed ways to assess everything underground without sometimes literally digging it up. And, that is not doable most of the time.

Sinkholes, gas leaks etc become serious unpredictable risks. So, the population limos along pretty severely sometimes trying to get back up and running.

No or limited services for any utilities, even gas stations gas immediate effects that last long after the shaking and/or tsunami are gone, even though either or both are also devastating sometimes.

As far as socal risks go. I can tell you, the biggest problem that scares the bejesus outta me for those folks, is that if the grid goes offline for too long, there's no way to walk out reasonably.

There's oceans to the west, Mexico to the south, desert to the east, and although the valleys to the north appear fertile, they're not because their water sources are manufactured irrigation.

So, you gave pretty grueling conditions to contend with uf you ever need to walk any great distance to evacuate.

Thus is one of many reasons we left.

So, where we're at now, ky, can gave tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, heat, blizzards, etc. So, we haven't escaped risk. But, the population is smaller, and if something devastating happens and we survive, we can walk out in any direction for even a couple hundred miles if needed with a reasonable shot at surviving the trip to evacuate. At least far so more than we could have ever done in socal.

I find that very comforting


----------



## Snowfan (Nov 6, 2011)

It sounded really bad till you mentioned a federal agency (FEMA) getting involved. Now it sounds worse. All the more reason to be prepared.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

where I want to said:


> If a tsunami reaches 1500 ft above sea level, I doubt there will be many safe places even in the midwest.
> Actually it is more a choice - as my grand parent's picture standing in front of a sign after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake showed- 'It could be worse. We might have had to move to Oakland." They were quite aware of the nature if their choices.


A tsunami hit Alaska.... 1720 feet.. 1958.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...C5235BC4B6DCB142377C294629D83&selectedIndex=4


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Well, that's pretty scary. But since we face open ocean, it is unlikely that a wave that big could build here. That one was caused by a large fall of rock in a narrow fjord type bay. It's we hat I said before-that a tsunami trapped in narrow places can build to 2 or 3 times the tsunami height.
However there have been recorded 200 foot waves here without benefit of a tsunami, so who really knows.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Heh heh- I know I am usually struck by the amount of flat in pictures people post on this site. I often have to drag my eyes back to the buildings or whatever the pictures as posted to show because all that flat is hypnotic.
> *Our classifieds house for sale ads for land put in things like "developed house site" meaning a flat dug into the side of the hill or "extensive views" meaning a house clinging in the side of a mountain so you can see over the trees.*
> I remember a contractor coming to do some work at my place announcing he was surprised that there was this much flat here. And not one square inch here is flat. You just don't need to hold onto branches to walk anywhere...


Know what you mean. Here, the key phrase to watch out for is "rolling hills".


----------



## terri9630 (Mar 12, 2012)

sustainabilly said:


> Know what you mean. Here, the key phrase to watch out for is "rolling hills".


Were in a valley surrounded by mountains. If all a place can say is that it has a "mountain view", it's a dump or bare ground.


----------



## mousebandit (Feb 14, 2007)

I'm late to the party but want to resurrect this thread. As I type, were in Portland Oregon area, packing to head home to sw Oregon next weekend. I've finally read the New Yorker article and watched the Fox News report. I think there's some faulty hyperbole in there as to effects, but I do believe that there is a good probability of this happening. As long as there isn't significant change to the topography of the coast range, I don't see a tsunami of nearly any feasible height, cresting those mountains. Not even sure how much surge would come up over them via the rivers. Coastal cities wiped out, yes, likely. Past the range towards I5, I don't think so. But, that said, there was some discussion in the article about liquefaction of the ground, and then talk about the mountains that have risen up as a result of the building pressure caused by the plates being locked, about those mountains flattening out, when the pressure us relieved in the earthquake / fault rupture. 

So, my friends, do we think they're saying it's possible for the coast range to lose enough elevation to protect the "interior"? And where are these areas susceptible to liquefaction? 

And, how would an event like this impact underground water, the springs and water tables for wells, and the flow of creeks and rivers?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

You may want to read the New Yorker article more closely. (I don't watch Fox News, so I don't know what they said and won't speak to that.) The New Yorker article quoted a FEMA representative as saying that everything east of I-5 would be "toast." However, the representative did not attribute the damage *solely* to the tsunami, but to shaking *and* the tsunami. The tsunami is expected to be as high as 100 feet, but of course that isn't going to breach the Coast Range. 

Damage for those of us living in the Coast Range and east over to I-5 will be caused by liquifaction by dams that are not built to withstand 5-6 minutes of sustained shaking, which will cause extensive flooding and damage to other infrastructure. And yes, we will still be "toast," even if that damage is not caused by the tsunami. Virtually every bridge and dam will give way. In other words, you won't be able to use the roads, won't be able to find fuel -- and that's if you don't get flooded and wiped out by the water released when those dams give way. Many cities and towns are in those prospective flood zones.

The mountains will not "flatten out," but will lose between 3-12 feet in elevation. The further inland you are, the less elevation you will lose. Still, even 3 feet is a lot. (But not enough to be worried about the tsunami, unless you're on the lower part of the west side of the Coast Range.)

You can look up proposed liquefaction maps in Oregon by county. Also maps that show potential landslide and/or flooding concerns.

I also recommend you read the book, Full Rip 9.0, by Seattle Times science reporter Sandi Doughton. I personally think it should be required reading for anyone who lives in the PNW.

http://www.amazon.com/Full-Rip-9-0-Earthquake-Pacific-Northwest/dp/1570617899

Expect your well to collapse. As for creek and river flows, they will change, but who can say how? Hopefully none of us will find out, but best to have as many sources of water identified as you can within walking distance of where you live.


----------



## mousebandit (Feb 14, 2007)

Thanks, raeven. That's very useful info. Will get the book, and check the maps. I had no idea there were such maps. We've done a lot of prepping already, but there are a few things that I'm just now thinking about with respect to a large quake like this, like the well collapsing, etc. any further references you want to throw my way, I will appreciate and check out.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I think you will like the book. It's a fascinating read, starting with how the Cascadia fault line was first discovered (not all that long ago!), and then the scientific realization as more and more evidence piled on about what a seismically active area this actually is. As I recently heard it put, we're not a seismically quiet area. We're in a seismically active area that has been in a long period of quiet. *When* it lets go, it will be one for the books. Given that we've already exceeded 75% of the time spans in between regularly-occurring rips on Cascadia, it's a fair assumption that one may occur within our lifetimes. You're wise to prepare for it, and I hope others will, too. That said, we're not "overdue" for the Very Big One and won't be within our lifetimes.

Here's another article by the New Yorker that follows on from the original article. It talks about preparedness and the rather unexpectedly enormous response to the original article: 

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-to-stay-safe-when-the-big-one-comes

I'm very glad they did the follow-up piece. They are a good and responsible publication, and the very best thing to come out of the original article is the wake-up call to the PNW as a whole to start getting prepared in the way Japan is generally prepared for big quakes. Our biggest problem is we've ignored it for far too long.

There is also some excellent preparedness advice in the second article. I'm sure you will have already thought of most of those things, but reminders are always good.


----------



## mousebandit (Feb 14, 2007)

Good follow up article. I had thought a little about structures, and my "house", which is actually a very old mobile home that's been built on and around, is probably very vulnerable. We do however have two tree houses on the property. One small and low, one big and high. I'm thinking the big one has the best chance of staying together and could be utilized for a shelter afterwards. Any thoughts on that?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Raeven, thank you for that second article. It was one of the better pieces. 
The inundation zone is larger than people might think. It might be possible to say to one's self that if a tsunami hits that is forty feet high, then I'm safe if I'm 60 feet above sea level. But watching all those videos, what can happen is that a Tsunami can build, carrying debris, with waves amplifying til it can build more than 3 times the height of the tsunami. And those waves can be pressed up rivers and across flats much farther than most would expect.
I have come to check almost automatically, since following the Japan tsunami, for where I can get up higher fast. Driving may not be an option.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mousebandit said:


> Good follow up article. I had thought a little about structures, and my "house", which is actually a very old mobile home that's been built on and around, is probably very vulnerable. We do however have two tree houses on the property. One small and low, one big and high. I'm thinking the big one has the best chance of staying together and could be utilized for a shelter afterwards. Any thoughts on that?


Depends on the tree. And how the structure is attached. I was in a "roller" that lasted about 2 minutes- enough time to to get out side and watch telephone poles sway back and forth a lot. I never heard or saw a tree come down but something in the tree would be subject to quite a whiplash.


----------



## mousebandit (Feb 14, 2007)

Where I Want To Be: yes, I can see that the trees might come down or even that the structural members of the treehouse could become projectiles. My little piece of heaven is far enough over the coast range that I'm confident tsunami won't be my big concern. Flooding perhaps, from the surge push up the Rogue, and then Illinois rivers, but that would be a lot of distance, a lot of elevation (2000-3000 feet over the range, then miles interior and around to us). IIRC, you're closer to the coastline, so you'll need to focus on both quake and tsunami effects, I would think. 

I also have a power line running across my property that I'm not happy about, and I think it's a big transformer thingy on it. I am pretty sure there's a buried power line from the transformer back to a box of some sort on the adjacent property at the back of ours, and that they're running like 50K volts through it. THat will be high on my property list to start squawking about getting it re-routed, once I'm home. They have a direct line to that box nowadays, that doesn't run through my property, so I don't see any need to keep it on our parcel. Hopefully, they'll agree, haha!


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Quakes themselves are pretty survivable, as a rule. If you can keep out of the way of falling objects and shattering glass, you'll likely be ok. Me, I'm in a decent spot to ride out the initial quake. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around 5-6 *minutes* of shaking. I've personally been through a 6.3 shake, 23 miles from the epicenter... that quake lasted only 15 seconds or so, and it felt like forever. I giggle a little when I think about all the advice regarding where to shelter until the shaking stops. I can't imagine moving around much at all. It would be like walking in a fun house at an amusement park.

If it helps, you can even calculate more or less from where the waves of the event will come: The shake will occur west to east. That will tell you a lot about which way land will likely slide and where the stressors will be on your shelter. My house faces northwest, for example, and so the west-to-east seismic waves will hit my home on the diagonal. Based on that, I now park my car in a different spot than I used to. Hey, I might have to live in it for awhile!

WIWT, despite living a stone's throw from the ocean for 20 years in California, I was always pretty cavalier about tsunamis. That is, until I happened to be suffering from insomnia on the night of the Japanese quake (was in Oregon by then). I had just flicked on the news in time to see the helicopter crews film that tsunami hitting the mainland in real time. I can't describe the feeling of horror I underwent as I watched. There was no getting away from that thing. It rolled relentlessly inland, destroying every single thing in its path, for... well, what seemed like forever. It overtook people running for their lives, vehicles, buildings... destruction on a nearly unimaginable scale. Left a deep impression.

They say you can always tell a seismic geologist's car along the coast in Oregon: They are the ones parked facing the road to facilitate the quickest getaway. Now on my rare visits to the coast, I park that way, too. Agree, driving may not -- probably won't -- be an option. And I don't think most people appreciate how terribly discombobulated they will be after a 5-6 minute earthquake. Which one were you in that lasted 2 minutes? I'm not aware of any in California that have lasted that long, not even Loma Prieta or Northridge (had friends and family that went through both of those).

mousebandit, I wouldn't try to ride out the quake in the tree, but I think it would be a fine place to plan to shelter in after surviving the quake. Generally trees are resilient in quakes. You seldom see them fallen over in the aftermath. Good thing, too, since I live in a forest of rather large trees, many of which could destroy my house were they to fall onto it.

LOL, I've read one of the safest places to be in the Seattle area when the quake hits is in the Space Needle. Bet that will be a fun ride...!!


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Oh, here's another bit of fun earthquake trivia: Quakes always send out a sub-sonic wave of energy before they hit. We can't sense it, but our animals can. So if your dogs start barking like crazy or the house cat slumps to her belly and starts crawling for the exit for no reason you can discern, pay attention. That's a good time to get to the place where you plan to ride out the quake. I watched my animals do it over and over again in advance of the aftershocks, after the San Simeon quake I went through. You can expect the actual quake to hit about 30 seconds later.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Raeven- I live in Humbodt Co. Where three plates grind together. Lots of earthquakes. 
When you hear about the Richter Scales, it is talking about power released by the quake. If it's really deep, it can be high on the scale but not felt as badly on the surface. The one I mentioned was deep and was felt as a rolling motion. The ones close and/or shallow can be much lower on the scale yet much more damaging. The further away, the more roll is what I heard. 
The largest one I felt here was part of a series of three, being 7.2. Lots of miscellaneous damage- chimneys down, a few older houses off foundations, etc. Almost no damage at my house. Not true 3 or 4 blocks away.


----------



## mousebandit (Feb 14, 2007)

I've only been in small quakes- the largest of which was a 5.? in the east sf bay when I was a kid. It was the rolling type, and I don't know how long it lasted, but it seemed like forever, of course. 

That's excellent info about the direction of the movement, I'll be assessing my place with that in mind. I've been gone for almost 18 months now, but moving home this weekend. It'll be just me and the 4 little ones during the week, with hubby coming home on the weekends. He's got to stay up here (Portland area) for the foreseeable future. The odds of him making it home on foot, solo, are sgnificantly higher than our probably-zero odds of all of us making it home with 4 small children, so we're heading out now. 

There's a big propane tank (600 gallons) that's got me concerned. It's empty, or dang near, but I intend to fill it up when I get home. However, it sits directly (like 15 feet) behind the old mobile home, and behind means due east, so it would be a big target for the house moving off it's foundations, whatever those are (probably blocks, certainly not strapped down to anything). The hubby can show me how to shut it off, if I can get to it, but if it's buried under/in the remains of the mobile home, that worries me. I'm thinking I may just not fill it up or at least not fire it up immediately, and rough it for hot water for a month or so, until I've had more time to think about it. 

I do feel a sense of urgency about things. The fact that there have been no/almost none earthquakes in the continental US over the last 48 hours is pretty much unprecendented. Generally, worldwide, silence in the earthquake realm is not a good thing. 

I intend to have our priority items ready to go at the house, and then start "prepping" the things I don't have ready - lots more water storage, last components for the well hand-pump in case the well still provides potable water, crash course in running the generator and chain saw, more fuel and oil for both of those. And that propane tank. Thinking about that propane tank. 

I *think* most or at least many of our other preps are solid. Oh, finding a couple of good german shepherds is also an immediate "prep", LOL! 

I got that book on kindle, Raeven. Will read it tonight after I've packed all I can. My buddy is bringing me more boxes right now, so I'll have a good amount to do before bed.


----------



## terri9630 (Mar 12, 2012)

A propane tank shuts off like a outdoor water faucet, as long as the valve isn't damaged.


----------



## mousebandit (Feb 14, 2007)

My concern with the propane tank is that the remains of the house could be on top of it, making it difficult to get to, and the proximity of that dad-gummed transformer. 

Just checked the usgs map this morning, and the last 36 hours have been really, really silent in the continental US. Pretty concerning.

Raevan - started reading that book last night - the Full Rip one. WOW! I am amazed that no one has been talking about it since the NYorker article came out. EXCELLENT book, super well-written, I was up way too late reading it. I will be recommending that to everyone I know. I also ordered a paperback copy, LOL. I still love "real" books, haha. It did strike me that the area of the subduction zone that appears to have received twice-as-frequent shakes corresponds pretty well with the STate of Jefferson. ;-)

The hubby is on his way back from Montana right now, and I got to talk with him a little this morning about the "silence of the quakes" situation. We talked a little about prep plans.  

Hopefully we'll still be going home this weekend.


----------

