1906 Earthquake

[Jim]

Today is the 100th anniversary of the San Francisco Earthquake.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5337518

(new link to main page)

[NEOWatcher]

Today is the 100th anniversary of the San Francisco Earthquake.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5337518

(new link to main page)
No kidding... I'm tired of hearing about it already. (If that sounds a little sharp, sorry.)

[Kullat Nunu]

The three likeliest great catastrophes in the US according to FEMA:

*Major terrorist attack on New York City
*Hurricane breaking the levees of New Orleans
*Major earthquake in San Francisco

:shifty:

[sarongsong]

"...I think we can safely say that 3,200 were killed in the San Francisco fire...over 28,000 buildings burned; 490 full blocks burned to the ground, and 32 blocks partially burned to ground," the author said...200,000 people were left homeless...About 580 firefighters...were ordered to take a stand at Van Ness [Avenue]. They saved the Western Addition and the rest of San Francisco..." San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/16/EBG3864ALV1.DTL)
View of the city taken from a tethered balloon (http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/info/1906/images/sf06.city.html)

[TriangleMan]

Despite the enormity of the San Fran quake it is only #41 on this Wikipedia list of most devastating earthquakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll) (measured by loss of life). Compared to many quakes the loss of life was mininal. However remembering the anniversary will hopefully remind people who live in earthquake zones to ensure that they are adequately prepared in case a large earthquake hits their area.

[NEOWatcher]

The three likeliest great catastrophes in the US according to FEMA:

*Major terrorist attack on New York City
*Hurricane breaking the levees of New Orleans
*Major earthquake in San Francisco

:shifty:

:clap:
That can be taken many ways.


I don't mind the awareness because this is an anniversary of a major event, but this is not the only place it can happen. Do we save SF in leiu of LA or other quake prone areas? Do we consider quake areas over tsunami risk, tornadic risk, asteroid risk, volcanic risk, etc?
What size quake do we consider? Are we safe if we brace ourselves for an 8.0? 8.5?
This seems to be what is going on in the media. "we must prevent a SF disaster :eek:, be scared".
It's a natural disaster, it's going to happen, they've happened in the past, and all we can do is take reasonable steps to lessen the effects (maybe even some not so reasonable steps). It's natural, and it's a disaster.

I'm interested in the "handful" of SF-06 survivers that were at the celebration. The articles I read had no details.

[01101001]

I'm interested in the "handful" of SF-06 survivers that were at the celebration. The articles I read had no details.

I awoke to SF Mayor Newsom interviewing 10 survivors at some observance. Many were hilarious as alert, wise oldsters can tend to be. (Some, though, were barely hanging in there -- not surprising at ages over 100 -- but their presence was welcome, too.) I read that some 17 survivors were located, more than the usual handful hauled out each year, probably due to the significance of the anniversary.

Norma Norwood, a mere 99 and not so much a quake survivor as a quake product -- conceived in a tent for for the homeless in Golden Gate Park -- was memorable. "It was cold. My parents were cuddling. That's how you make babies. [...] I was raised by prostitutes!" she proclaimed. (Her father eventually ran a saloon, and during the daytime certain women were available to watch after little Norma.)

I like that one woman, who said she had moved to Los Angeles, was roundly booed -- with love. It's a SF thing. She took it in stride.

Some survivors are mentioned in the San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/peninsula/14267445.htm). There'll probably be more reports as the day ages.

[Gillianren]

I watched an interesting special once about the great 1906 earthquake--apparently, it's also responsible for the greatest case of mass insurance fraud known.

See, earthquakes, as an Act of God, are not covered by most insurance plans (still!). However, fire was and is. Quite a lot of people claimed their houses were destroyed by fire when in fact they'd already been destroyed by the earthquake. According to the show I watched (I believe it was Unsolved History, on Discovery), this means that there's a very misleading belief in what parts of the city are "safe" because they didn't take significant damage 100 years ago. This means that the casualty figures from the next one are going to be far, far higher than most people realize--especially since they actually made the codes laxer to encourage rebuilding. (Obviously, they've since been made much, much stiffer.)

[NEOWatcher]

I watched an interesting special once about the great 1906 earthquake--apparently, it's also responsible for the greatest case of mass insurance fraud known.

See, earthquakes, as an Act of God, are not covered by most insurance plans (still!). However, fire was and is. Quite a lot of people claimed their houses were destroyed by fire when in fact they'd already been destroyed by the earthquake. According to the show I watched (I believe it was Unsolved History, on Discovery), this means that there's a very misleading belief in what parts of the city are "safe" because they didn't take significant damage 100 years ago. This means that the casualty figures from the next one are going to be far, far higher than most people realize--especially since they actually made the codes laxer to encourage rebuilding. (Obviously, they've since been made much, much stiffer.)
Not so different now. That's one of the battles being faught with N.O. I think its discussed elsewhere on the board, and I don't feel like searching. Anyway the battle is whether the water damage is caused by flooding, or by the storm.

[teddyv]

I watched an interesting special once about the great 1906 earthquake--apparently, it's also responsible for the greatest case of mass insurance fraud known.

See, earthquakes, as an Act of God, are not covered by most insurance plans (still!). However, fire was and is. Quite a lot of people claimed their houses were destroyed by fire when in fact they'd already been destroyed by the earthquake. According to the show I watched (I believe it was Unsolved History, on Discovery), this means that there's a very misleading belief in what parts of the city are "safe" because they didn't take significant damage 100 years ago. This means that the casualty figures from the next one are going to be far, far higher than most people realize--especially since they actually made the codes laxer to encourage rebuilding. (Obviously, they've since been made much, much stiffer.)

(A bit OT) Reminds of what a tour guide in Hawaii (big island) told our group that houses are not insured for being destroyed by lava flows, but if they start burning before the lava destroys the house, it can be claimed as a fire.