Earthquakes & Earthquake Safety?

The Ender

...So, Vancouver Island is a little bit prone to tremors. We get an almost pleasant little vibration in Qualicum about twice a month; the first few times it was a bit of a scare, but I'm starting to become acclimatized to it.


The thing is, in the event that a tremor ever develops into a full-blown 'quake, I'm not sure what to do. The safety advice I've read is conflicting; private non-profit organizations like to advocate getting under a table, whereas the province recommends trying to just cover your head and get to the center of a room as soon as possible. Both sources recommend staying indoors, and never ever trying to run outside.

...I'm confused as to why? Isn't it much safer in an open outdoor area than in a building, which might collapse around you? I understand that the idea of getting under a table / covering your head is to protect you from falling debris, but I don't think most tables in here would stand up to the roof beams coming down on top of them. Plus... I'd be trapped under the table even if it did hold-up, right?

On a separate but related note, does anyone know roughly how much time you have from feeling a small tremor to it developing into a large earthquake, usually?

Captain Marcus

If you're in a field, the outdoors is safer. If you live in a city, the buildings around you are tall and covered with shatterable windows, not to mention the presence of easily-snapped power lines.

edit- also if you're in a building it'll probably be built to withstand a small earthquake without collapsing, if that's the code for Vancouver.

PedroAsani

Tables are recommended since they are designed to be sturdy, and so will shield you from debris and falling objects. Doorways is the traditional advice, and works well in countries with largely brick construction. However, in the US with the cheaper timber construction, it isn't a great idea.

Obviously, a glass table isn't recommended. BTW, got a First Aid Kit? Ask a doctor, nurse or paramedic what should really be in there.

As to time, there isn't much you can do without having equipment on standby. You can't notice an earthquake coming, and even if you watch for weird animal behaviour, you will likely only have enough time to think "Why are they doing tha..."<EARTHQUAKE>"Oh, that's why".

Preparation beforehand is a good idea, if you have the time, money and inclination. After a large quake, it is likely that areas hit but not destroyed by the quake will be without mains water, power and gas. So having a supply of those whilst you wait for things to be rebuilt is a good idea.

Being able to shut off your water, power and gas manually is also something you will want to look into. If a pipe or wire in your house was shaken loose at the same time everything was cut off, then you evacuate to a hotel whilst they fix things, it is possible that reconnection will fill the house with gas/water or start an electrical fire. So learn how to turn them off. Once the mains are reconnected, get everything inspected before you turn them back on.

Evacuation: Do you have somewhere you can go after an earthquake? What will you need to take with you? Will you be able to get there if the road is a cracked/pockmarked/vanished hellscape?

Disaster Planning is a huge subject, and these are just a few pointers. Hopefully it's enough for you to look into getting prepared.

zepherin

I was in a meeting where we discussed a disaster plan for an earthquake. About a month after we had the DC earthquake

"what disaster plan did you have in place for the earthquake last month?"
"we planned on there not being an earthquake."

Pinfeldorf

I'm not sure you're going to be getting anything higher than a 4.5 or so in Vancouver, which all the houses in the area should be able to withstand sufficiently. Unless you're in a stilted house on a cliff in an area prone to mudslides and things like that, your main concern is to be safe from falling debris. Under a table or inside a doorway are what they always harped on us in Seattle as kids, so that's what I'd say, as Vancouver and Seattle are pretty close geographically. In the 25 years I lived in Seattle the worst quake we had was a 4.4, I think that one was in the very latter part of 2000 or early 2001. It was a rolling quake and at no point did I feel threatened or unsafe, just a little shaken.

The Ender

Pinfeldorf wrote: »

I'm not sure you're going to be getting anything higher than a 4.5 or so in Vancouver, which all the houses in the area should be able to withstand sufficiently. Unless you're in a stilted house on a cliff in an area prone to mudslides and things like that, your main concern is to be safe from falling debris. Under a table or inside a doorway are what they always harped on us in Seattle as kids, so that's what I'd say, as Vancouver and Seattle are pretty close geographically. In the 25 years I lived in Seattle the worst quake we had was a 4.4, I think that one was in the very latter part of 2000 or early 2001. It was a rolling quake and at no point did I feel threatened or unsafe, just a little shaken.

The island gets bigger shakes than the mainland, being closer to Cascadia; here's the seismic data for the last couple of months.

There was also a larger 7~ quake in the 40s.

PedroAsani

Pinfeldorf wrote: »

I'm not sure you're going to be getting anything higher than a 4.5 or so in Vancouver, which all the houses in the area should be able to withstand sufficiently. Unless you're in a stilted house on a cliff in an area prone to mudslides and things like that, your main concern is to be safe from falling debris. Under a table or inside a doorway are what they always harped on us in Seattle as kids, so that's what I'd say, as Vancouver and Seattle are pretty close geographically. In the 25 years I lived in Seattle the worst quake we had was a 4.4, I think that one was in the very latter part of 2000 or early 2001. It was a rolling quake and at no point did I feel threatened or unsafe, just a little shaken.

The problem with using a single lifetime to suggest a maximum for earthquakes is that it is a statistically negligible sampling size. Try a few hundred years and you have a better idea, but given that the Richter, Mercalli and EMS scales are recent inventions.

Seattle has had earthquakes verified up to 7.3, with 7.0 and 6.5 being two other strong notable quakes.

Don't forget that Seattle also has Mt. Rainier, a stratovolcano considered one of the most dangerous in the world.

Hirocon

The entire region is in the Cascadia Subduction Zone which is potentially overdue for a colossal, >9.0 megathrust earthquake. I live near Seattle and it keeps me up at night. If I didn't have a great job here, I'd move far away from the coast.

MichaelLC

Having a post-quake plan is probably the best, since pre/during is just 'don't get crushed'.

Things like a first aid kit, a hatchet, some basic camping supplies, and a big piss off, mate can be useful.

Skeith

I grew up in San Francisco, so I got hit with all the "what to do in/after a quake" stuff imaginable. The basic kit was some canned goods with an opener in the same bag, bandages, gauze, tape (for the gauze as well as duct tape), a good knife, a multi-tool, a flashlight/lantern with extra batteries and a gallon or two of water per person. The rule of thumb they gave us was to assume that we'd be on our own for two or three days, hence all the water.

saltiness

The Ender wrote: »

On a separate but related note, does anyone know roughly how much time you have from feeling a small tremor to it developing into a large earthquake, usually?

In my experience from living in San Francisco for 30 years this is not how earthquakes work. Generally the shaking is the same throughout the event, maybe half a second or so of buildup but I don't remember any earthquake that started with a slight rumble and then developed into a 5.0 or whatever over the course of several seconds.

PedroAsani

saltiness wrote: »

The Ender wrote: »

On a separate but related note, does anyone know roughly how much time you have from feeling a small tremor to it developing into a large earthquake, usually?

In my experience from living in San Francisco for 30 years this is not how earthquakes work. Generally the shaking is the same throughout the event, maybe half a second or so of buildup but I don't remember any earthquake that started with a slight rumble and then developed into a 5.0 or whatever over the course of several seconds.

Well, in the book "Emergency" by Neil Strauss, he talks about keeping his CB radio tuned to a warning station frequency that can provide a few seconds advance warning which is why I alluded to it earlier. I haven't done it myself, but from his description it seems to work pretty well. You get enough time to take cover before the quake actually starts, rather than having to dive under the table during it.

Papillon

PedroAsani wrote: »

Doorways is the traditional advice, and works well in countries with largely brick construction. However, in the US with the cheaper timber construction, it isn't a great idea.

From what I remember the problem is more the door slamming shut on your fingers/face in the middle of the earthquake.

And I think the get into a sheltered place (corner of a room, under a table, etc.) is because during a quake you're most likely to get injured by shattered windows, falling ceiling tiles, and stuff like that, which a table will protect you from.

PedroAsani

Papillon wrote: »

PedroAsani wrote: »

Doorways is the traditional advice, and works well in countries with largely brick construction. However, in the US with the cheaper timber construction, it isn't a great idea.

From what I remember the problem is more the door slamming shut on your fingers/face in the middle of the earthquake.

And I think the get into a sheltered place (corner of a room, under a table, etc.) is because during a quake you're most likely to get injured by shattered windows, falling ceiling tiles, and stuff like that, which a table will protect you from.

Getting hit by a door was a secondary concern to having the ceiling fall on you. In brick houses, the doorway will typically have a concrete lintel or an RSJ which is going to bear the load of the storey above, making it one of the areas in a house likely to be standing after the quake, and a good place to be.

Donovan Puppyfucker

The safest possible place to be in case of an earthquake is the International Space Station.

Holler

Pinfeldorf wrote: »

In the 25 years I lived in Seattle the worst quake we had was a 4.4, I think that one was in the very latter part of 2000 or early 2001. It was a rolling quake and at no point did I feel threatened or unsafe, just a little shaken.

Sounds like you are thinking of the Nisqually quake, a magnitude 6.8 quake that did $2 billion dollars in damage. Only 400 people were injured and no one was killed as a direct result of the shaking, however, someone pretty easily could have been if they decided to run outside their office to get to "safety" outside:

Plus, as others have mentioned, Seattle is overdue for a massive earthquake. It may not happen in my lifetime, but if it does, as someone who takes the viaduct and Aurora bridge home from an office that is built on land susceptible to liquefaction in the event of major shaking, a large quake would have a SIGNIFICANT impact on my life and is something I consider my preparedness for almost daily.

At any rate, what I keep on tap is:
-A huge jug of water, enough to keep me going for at least 4 days (I can't believe how many people don't keep this on hand. earthquake area or no, this is the MOST BASIC thing that you will need in any number of emergency scenarios)
-Canned food (with opener) and granola bars/other foods with a long shelf life
-Flashlights with spare batteries
-Radio with spare batteries
-First aid kit
-Pack of cards (obviously not essential, but if I'm going to be without power or pushed out of my home, having something like that would probably be helpful)
I keep all of this next to my regular camping gear, which includes a tent, emergency matches/signals/space blankets, and a camping stove with some extra canisters of fuel.

For everything on here with an expiration date (food/batteries/certain first aid supplies), I set reminders on my calendar to remind me at intervals when its approaching it's expiration date. Then I just buy new stuff, and eat/use/toss whatever else.

I also keep the following in my car at all times:
-A warm coat, change of clothes, poncho, and shoes I could comfortably walk a very long way in
-Space blanket it the glove compartment
-Flashlight with spare batteries
-First aid kit
-Emergency snacks, which I switch out when I do my regular emergency kit

This is as much for if I break down as anything else, but I'm always surprised at how few of my friends keep this kind of shit in their car and assume they will always have a fully charged phone with excellent reception.

TychoCelchuuu

Holler wrote: »

Pinfeldorf wrote: »

In the 25 years I lived in Seattle the worst quake we had was a 4.4, I think that one was in the very latter part of 2000 or early 2001. It was a rolling quake and at no point did I feel threatened or unsafe, just a little shaken.

You're thinking of the Nisqually quake, which was actually

Tragically, @Holler died in an earthquake before finishing this post.

saltiness

PedroAsani wrote: »

saltiness wrote: »

The Ender wrote: »

On a separate but related note, does anyone know roughly how much time you have from feeling a small tremor to it developing into a large earthquake, usually?

In my experience from living in San Francisco for 30 years this is not how earthquakes work. Generally the shaking is the same throughout the event, maybe half a second or so of buildup but I don't remember any earthquake that started with a slight rumble and then developed into a 5.0 or whatever over the course of several seconds.

Well, in the book "Emergency" by Neil Strauss, he talks about keeping his CB radio tuned to a warning station frequency that can provide a few seconds advance warning which is why I alluded to it earlier. I haven't done it myself, but from his description it seems to work pretty well. You get enough time to take cover before the quake actually starts, rather than having to dive under the table during it.

This is probably referring to the fact that earthquake waves travel much more slowly than radio waves so when an earthquake with an epicenter several miles from you occurs, an automatic emergency system can notify you via radio or even on your phone that the earthquake waves are coming your way. IIRC Japan already has a cell phone notification system in place for this.

The Wolfman

I've lived on Vancouver Island for almost 15 years now. And I gotta be honest, I have never felt or noticed an earthquake. Ever. I have no idea if it's because I'm just that damn thick and dumb that I don't notice them, or that I have felt them, but have attributed them to something else, like a passing semi truck or something.

I know we get them. People have come up to me and said "Did you feel that earthquake a while ago?". And my response is always "What earthquake?".

Papillon

The Wolfman wrote: »

I've lived on Vancouver Island for almost 15 years now. And I gotta be honest, I have never felt or noticed an earthquake. Ever. I have no idea if it's because I'm just that damn thick and dumb that I don't notice them, or that I have felt them, but have attributed them to something else, like a passing semi truck or something.

I know we get them. People have come up to me and said "Did you feel that earthquake a while ago?". And my response is always "What earthquake?".

I live in Vancouver, and I can completely understand not noticing the earthquakes we get. I've felt one or two, but it's always been at a barely perceptible level to the point where I'm never really sure if I've felt something until I confirm with co-workers or something.