The Really Big One

vivatifosi

Having read the above on the USA I decided to read up on Canada. While both countries could do more, in Canada they are working to reinforce a lot of older buildings, carbon fibre for example can be used for thus but is expensive.

The modelling for Canada suggests that the west of Vancouver Island would be worst affected. It would shield Vancouver city from the worst of a tsunami and also reduce the quake effects. An earthquake on 9 on the west of Vancouver Island would hit Victoria BC as an 8 and Vancouver as a 7, so the worst of the quake would hit low population centres compared to the north west of the USA.

On a separate note, it's interesting to see the work poorer country, Chile, is doing to mitigate similar disasters...
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/chile-earthquake-how-loss-of-life-damage-was-minimized-1.2595662

MFW_ASAP

Jonbvn wrote: »

If Yellowstone goes up, I suggest we all assume the crash position.

Will this impact London house prices?

cells

Generali wrote: »

There is more that could be done, for example bringing the building code up to recognise the risks the area faces and moving schools to higher ground.

Clearly you can't just abandon Seattle but there is plenty that could be done to mitigate the risk. That people can simply continue to put up buildings that will likely kill the inhabitants if a known disaster happens (it's when not if) then that's just plain dumb.

There is surely some cost analysis done to the risk as there is to most risks

Cars would be banned if risks were to be towards zero but the cost of banning cars is seen as greater than the 40,000 annial deaths (and maybe 10x that in injuries) in the USA

Mistermeaner

cells wrote: »

How do you tell a city worth msybe $1Trillion that you want it to decay and die slowly so it can avoid dieing fast some decades or centuries later

You call it blackpool and frack near it

Generali

cells wrote: »

There is surely some cost analysis done to the risk as there is to most risks

Cars would be banned if risks were to be towards zero but the cost of banning cars is seen as greater than the 40,000 annial deaths (and maybe 10x that in injuries) in the USA

Perfectly true and I'm not going to attempt some sort of simplistic cost:benefit analysis as it would be facile and a bit pointless.

The Chilean example viva posted is an interesting example about how a relatively poor country has learned lessons and managed to mitigate risks. One of the lessons I take from the article in my OP is that risks haven't been mitigated because memories are short.