On 11 Sep 2005 16:28:01 -0700, richardfangnail@excite.com wrote:
>When people talk about the next big quake, why do they always talk
>about SF and not LA? SF is right on a fault, I know, but then they had
>a big quake in 1994 in LA. Couldn't there theoretically be a huge one
>in LA?
SF is not on a fault, but it is quite close to the San Andreas
Fault. LA is quite far from the San Andreas Fault, and a quake on
the SAF at its closest point to LA will not be as bad as a quake
on the SAF at its closest point to SF. SF is also less than ten
or so miles from the Hayward Fault, whihc is the one expected to
be the source of the next Pretty Damn Big One.
On the other hand the LA metro area is riven with a plenitude of
lesser faults, including a number of "hidden" faults.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |