Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on We're All Gonna Die!

1

What this means is that neglecting our infrastructure is slightly stupider than we thought it was.

Posted by elenchos | April 22, 2008 5:19 PM
2

the lovely emergency broadcast system for WA interrupted my stream from KUOW this morning, first saying it was a test then adding "if you are participating in the earthquake preparedness activity, duck under your table now" or something along those lines. haven't heard that one before.

Posted by skye | April 22, 2008 5:20 PM
3

"We're all gonna die"

Truer words, Annie, were never spoken.

Posted by PopTart | April 22, 2008 5:41 PM
4

Personally, I'm far more concerned about the stochastic mud flow triggered by the quake ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 22, 2008 6:00 PM
5

Perhaps you mean "pyroclastic"? Unless you're referring to the innate indeterminacy of lahars?

Posted by stan | April 22, 2008 10:02 PM
6
Posted by Greg | April 22, 2008 10:06 PM
7

Our retarded friend @4 has a point. And not just the one on top of his head.

Lahars are the big danger around here. They don't even need an earthquake or volcanic eruption to peel off the flanks of Rainier. The whole valley leading into Commencement Bay has a lahar danger equivalent to a 100 year flood plane. They've just been really, really lucky that it hasn't happened in the 160 years of local recorded history.

Lake Washington, Renton, and Kent were an arm of Puget Sound until a lahar about 1100 years ago overtopped the White River valley and flowed down the Green River valley.

If you ever hear that the Pierce County lahar warning system has been activated, and you live less than 100 feet above any of the rivers that drain off Rainier, head for the motherfucking hills

Posted by Big Sven | April 22, 2008 11:00 PM
8

@6 Gee, thanks for that happy bedtime reading. Despite its grim nature it is a very comprehensive, well researched, and well written paper. And I hope that there are people busily implementing the "call to action" tasks.

OK, one thing bothered me about the paper, besides the sheer terror of facing the reality that it could happen. Statistically, shouldn't at least one person in the "real people" scenarios have died? Like the woman on the West Seattle bridge, or maybe the chocolate lady? Or the guy in his new truck?

Posted by PopTart | April 22, 2008 11:06 PM
9

@7 - hey, it's not like we're looking at 500,000 dead people and 250,000 burn victims ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 23, 2008 12:25 AM
10

WiS@9- which scenario has 500k dead?

Posted by Big Sven | April 23, 2008 7:24 AM
11

@8: Politicians will only take this seriously if we, the voters, force them to.

Posted by Greg | April 23, 2008 8:51 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).