|
0.18% chance a Tsunami will kill us this year
|
05-16-2016, 07:09 PM
Yes true Tom.. but if something did happen in alaska.. we'd have four hours to pack up and move out.
If the slump went... there would be time to grab your coat and that's about it. Edit to add... us folks in Hilo and Kona anyway. 
05-16-2016, 07:25 PM
Not sure I'd be grabbing my coat if the slump happened suddenly. It would cause a massive earthquake and am not sure I'd be alive to even think about evacuating! My point was, however, we're likely to get days, weeks or even months of warnings about a massive Hilina landslide.
05-16-2016, 07:35 PM
We would hope..
I can't find much info on it but the incident in 1975 when it slid 11 feet caused a tsunami ... I wonder did they have any warning. 'The Hilina Slump can and will move much faster. At 4:48 AM, November 29, 1975, a 37-mile-wide section suddenly dropped 11½ feet and slid seaward 26 feet. The result was a magnitude-7.2 quake and a 48-foot-high tsunami.' 
05-16-2016, 08:20 PM
We live on an island 100 miles in diameter with two 13 thousand foot mountains. Not to be too callous about it, but if you can't get to highground in four hours, maybe you weren't meant to? Just saying.
05-17-2016, 02:18 AM
quote:Short answer: no... Apparently, the 1868 Ka'u 7.9 event was kind enough to proved a sequence of mild "warning" shocks but that is more the exception than the rule. A lot of people have been looking for reliable earthquake precursors (including fore-shocks) and so far none have been found. Unfortunately, even precursory small earthquakes can't be distinguished from simple mild activity - until after the fact. That was at issue with the L'Aquila earthquake in 2009 (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/w...exonerated). We have no way to determine whether small earthquakes will lead to more small earthquakes or very large ones. 
05-17-2016, 10:09 AM
An Alaskan Earthquake would take four hours to arrive in the islands, and would have devastating effects in the port cities and other low lying areas. But it would probably cause more property damage than loss of life.
A future event similar to the Hilina Slump, if comparably moderate in intensity would give far less warning, providing little or no time for evacuation so may result in greater fatalities than a larger Alaskan quake. This is the one I'd be worried about though, from The Wiki (my bold): Hawaii Sharp cliffs and associated ocean debris at the Kohala Volcano, Lanai and Molokai indicate that landslides from the flank of the Kilauea and Mauna Loa volcanoes in Hawaii may have triggered past megatsunamis, most recently at 120,000 BP.[27][28][29] A future tsunami event is also possible, with the tsunami potentially reaching up to about 1 kilometre (3,300 ft) in height.[30][31] According to the documentary National Geographic's Ultimate Disaster: Tsunami, if a big landslide occurred at Mauna Loa or the Hilina Slump, a 30 metres (98 ft) tsunami would take only thirty minutes to reach Honolulu, Hawaii. There, hundreds of thousands of people could be killed as the tsunami could level Honolulu and travel 25 kilometres (16 mi) inland. Also, the West Coast of America and the entire Pacific Rim could potentially be affected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami Oscar Wilde's Last Words: "Either this wallpaper goes, or I do."
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
05-17-2016, 12:59 PM
terracore, did you mean eighteen percent chance, or point 18 percent chance (eighteen hundredths of a percent).I'm assuming you meant 18% - no need for the decimal point. It's either/or when writing a percentage.
05-17-2016, 01:16 PM
It's 9% chance in 50 years so 9/50 = .18%. Percentages can have decimals.
Not sure you can do that with probabilities but I don't see why not. I'll sleep well regardless. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
