Earthquake and tsunami facts.

For the mouse hovering: The following contains information about earthquakes and tsunamis to reassure the readers, specially those who live along the Pacific coast.

I know it's off topic but as people are concerned and even Blizzard themselves have a sticky I think it's safe and helpful to post about this, being that I'm Chilean and as such have experienced a large earthquake myself, and that I happen to be, I wouldn't say an expert, but my college formation includes natural risk evaluation. Experts who may be here are invited to post.

The first concern I would like to adress is the possibility of a tsunami along the Pacific coast. Now, the most likelly is that in most of the places where it will hit it will be of no harm to anyone who is not right next to the sea. There's no reason to be concerned, however, it is advised that if you live directly next to the ocean, that you spend the day elsewhere.

Long range tsunamis usually are not cause great damage, and this one should not affect long range coasts much more than the Chilean earthquake did last year, however, coasts that are directly exposed to the wave train are more susceptible. This mean, par example, California will recieve taller waves than with the Chilean earthquake. That said, it's unlikelly the majority of population will even notice there was a tsunami, only people directly next to the coast will notice something, and most likelly it won't be quite espectacular as you imagine.

Tall buildings that aren't made of wood basically always resist tsunamis, and if you're in the third or so floor (the buildings aren't buit at sea level) you should be fine even in the case of a close focus tsunami, however it could trap you for hours there, and then the building would be sorrounded by debris, so it's not adviced to stay.

Remember the area of effect of a tsunami is relativelly small, specially if it originates far away. However the effect is accentuated in closed bays, so if you live in one it's further adviced to avoid being there by the time the tsunami is espected.



Now, the other concern I hear a lot is "Cali is next!", and even "Blizz HQ are in California!" related to that. So let's put facts straight, ok?

For the earquake itself, California is not nessesarily next, there couldbe a hundred earthquakes before any hit California, it could happen right now or it could in a hundred years. However, it will happen, and the more time passes the more likelly it is that it will happen soon and the larger it will be, because energy is accumulated over time at a constant speed. This is like procastrinating, the more you do it, the harsher the consecuences. This means that the sooner there is an earthquake, the better.

Now, not all of the subduction zones arround the pacific are the same. There's very seismic zones like cental Chile and Japan, and other zones that are not that seismic like say, Mexico's west coast. California is of a middle seismicity. Though it has had several earthquakes over the years, none have been really strong. Big earthquakes like the one in Malasia in 2004 (I think), Chile last year or this one in Japan have plenty of precedents of similar magnitude, so it's unlikelly an earthquake over 7 or 7.5 will hit california in the time of a human life.

The San Andreas fault, shich is the one thing many people are concerned about, is the main issue, but you have to remember it's a strike-slip fault, these are much less dangerous than other faults unless you happen to live in a building that has one half in one side and annother half in the other. Additionally, and probably most importantly, the efectsof the San Andreas fault and the subduction movements are likelly not come toguether.

Finally, as many seismologists say, earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do. The reason earthquakes are so destructive in some places is because the architecture was not concieved for earthquakes. In california, (and oregon) to my understanding, architects and engeneers are more than prepared to build buildings resistant to earthquakes, and they're forced to do so by regultions and because if the buildings were to fall and kill people they would face murder charges. Any building built after 1960 should be safe unless it wasn't designed by an architect.

The most dangerous buildings you could be in is an old masonry one floor house. Bricks are the least resistant material unless it's merelly partition, but in California houses are built with reinforced concrete frames, which should be fine other than X shaped fissures in the walls.


I'll finish with my personal experience with the earthquake last year.

Frankly, the biggest part of the earthquake is the innitial scare and then a lot of frustration because services like watern power and cellphones don't work, and in our case, looting made it so there was nothing to eat. However, as you might have seen from indoors shoots of the earthquake in Japan, the destruction is not as much as you'd espect after you felt such a large quake. It's an enlightning experience and made many get closer to their neighboors.

So don't worry, it's not as bad as it looks like from afar, unless you have bad luck, but you could also be run over by a car if that's a concern.