There's a 99% chance that, within the next 30 years, there will be an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.7 in either Northern California or Southern California (perhaps both). How much loss of life are we looking at in each case, and which structures are at the highest risk in both places (Nor. California and So. California)?
It really depends upon where the earthquake hits, its epicenter. If it were to hit a major city they are prepaired as best they can ber for it so the loss of life should be low. The newer buildings have been built very strong and can stand a 7.0 quake without falling apart. So wherever the quake hits is the key to your question.
Err... you guys do understand that there was a magnitude 7.2 earthquake in southern California/northern BC like 6 weeks ago, right? We're still getting afterhsocks that rattle buildings. And by the way, it didn't produce much of a death toll.
haha... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! maybe they meant 16.7! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's because of the population of the Salton Sea basin....close to zero. Strike-slip quakes like those along the SAF don't cause tsunamis. But if a megathrust earthquake happens along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (N Cauliflowernia-Queen Charlotte Islands) a tsunami will be generated, the magnitude of which will be determined by the amount of vertical displacement of the seafloor. Given the warning network, and the subconscious imagery of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, People will probably get a wiggle on for higher ground after a big thump in Cascadia. Nonetheless, a place like Puget Sound would amplify the magnitude of the wave if the right wave volume were to be directed into the sound. Generally, it's a good idea to consider your evacuation route.
