"Hatunen" wrote in message
news:kok9i1da9kfbr2qivndl613jugbudjduve@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
For SF Bay area cities and earthquake shaking intensity.
http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/pickcity.html
|