Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

normalabby t1_j8lsk2q wrote

Reply to comment by PhuckSJWs in Was Western Washington’s infrastructure the reason the Nisqually quake had no direct fatalities? by yungcarwashy

But important to note there was liquefaction in SODO. It's a bit amusing to read this and think someone was surprised to find evidence of liquefaction in an area like SODO that is loose fill. It's a given, today. https://www.washington.edu/news/2001/04/17/damaged-chimneys-and-unexpected-liquefaction-from-nisqually-temblor-yield-earthquake-insights-uw-scientists-say/

12

PhuckSJWs t1_j8lt7kl wrote

For sure, there WAS liquefaction, but it was very limited and low impact and almost entirely in the industrial areas south of downtown where it is mostly just garbage till soil on top of old tidal flats.

given the widescale "terraforming" the settlers did to the original Seattle hills to level out the city, it (liquefaction) was extremely limited in location and impact. we will not be so lucky with a closer and shallower quake.

5

normalabby t1_j8lu7ng wrote

No disagreement on a differently located quake, just want to make sure we're not telling folks all the glacial till this region is built on is cushioning us. It didn't make the Nisqually less intense, the distance did. Someone would've felt the Nisqually more anywhere in the Puget Sound region that's on top of glacial till more than riding it out on bedrock, in the few places that exists.

5

normalabby t1_j8lssc3 wrote

For how long the Earth has existed it's amazing how much our understanding has grown in just 70 years. Tectonic plates are a relatively recent discovery, thanks to ocean exploration.

2