On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 06:48:03 GMT, "PTravel"
wrote:
>
>"Hatunen" wrote in message
>news:knv9i1tgap174il6mme3k6gi0fb970vrtt@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:51:07 GMT, "PTravel"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> >news:1126481281.651342.177150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >Of course (and, in fact, they have as recently as 1994).
>>
>> 1994 wasn't a huge earthquake.
>
>It depends on how you define huge.
Sooner or later LA will have an earthquake that will define
"huge" for you.
>I was 6 miles from the epicenter. My
>house survived (with large cracks in the wall and nothing inside left
>standing). Others in my neighborhood weren't as lucky -- their buildings
>collapsed and/or burned.
Then you better be prepared for the Huge One.
Residents of LA and SF make a big mistgake if they think
surviving Northridge or Loma Prieta means they are ready for The
Big One.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |