Let me begin by saying I really hate social media. If you agree, please click the facebook “like”, “share”, and “data mine me” buttons at the bottom of this article.
The New Yorker recently ran an article titled “The Earthquake That Will Devastate Seattle“. That wasn’t the title when you viewed the article on their site- that was the title that The New Yorker put in the metadata on their page so that it would have that title in search engines. The visible title of the article on the page was “The Really Big One”. This means the New Yorker gets to capture clicks from an alarmist headline, while having plausible deniability once you read the article. To see what I mean, go to the article, then bookmark it- that’s when you’ll see the hidden headline appear.
Next, the article includes an oft-repeated quote that says “our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast”. Very catchy and totally misleading, and the article did nothing to temper the statement. The New Yorker made a fortune in advertising dollars as all the eyeballs wandered over there, and then to rub salt in the wound people keep sharing the article with us media folks here in the Northwest.
So here’s my lame attempt to correct the article from my powerful perch at Wallyhood world headquarters. New York media elite, take note! Earthquakes create two separate sorts of trouble- shaking and tsunamis. If Cascadia goes, tsunamis will only be along the Pacific coast and will pose no threat to Seattle. The article just states Seattle will be devastated, or toast, then talks up tsunamis. It’s only natural to draw a connection to tsunamis where we live, but that’s not the case from Cascadia.
As for shaking, Cascadia is far enough away from Seattle that shaking will be greatly moderated by the time it reaches Seattle. At it’s closest, Cascadia is 167 miles from Seattle, so the quake effects in Seattle will be somewhat like what Tokyo experienced from the 2011 earthquake off Sendai. The quake will be long lasting (a few minutes), but my understanding is that it will also feel like its magnitude is less than JMA 6 in our area (see the graphic).
The main risk will be liquefaction of soil and harmonic frequencies that can be amplified by the length of time the shaking will be going on. That means trouble for downtown, but not for Wallingford, and downtown will be a ton safer once the seawall is rebuilt. Putting aside the viaduct and seawall, which both could fail in a range of earthquake scenarios, we’ll likely be back to functioning within a week (communications working, water, that sort of stuff).
Finally, the last failure of the article is that there is, in fact, a fault that does threaten to kill us in the thousands, but it’s not Cascadia. The Seattle Fault goes directly under downtown and through Elliot Bay, so all those bad things the article says about Cascadia actually apply to the Seattle Fault. That fault can rupture with about a 7.0, but it will be shallow and violent, similar to the Haitian Earthquake in Port-au-prince. A tsunami in Puget Sound could happen from that quake, along with a lot of destruction to any building that isn’t constructed very well.
The Seattle Fault doesn’t rupture with any predictable frequency or amplitude though, it’s just part of the crumple zone that we’re in. Unlike in California where earthquakes follow a fairly predictable and frequent pattern along clear fault lines, out here our earthquakes are less frequent but all over the place. Imagine two plates grinding past each other (California) vs plates crumpling as they push into each other (the Northwest).
Does it matter that the New Yorker conflated Seattle with the Pacific coast and talked about the wrong fault line? Does it matter that everything they printed had been far better reported by the Seattle Times and even Wikipedia and Crosscut and even Wallyhood long before? Does it matter that they intentionally inserted clickbait and people shared the article and they made tons of money in advertising dollars because of it? OK, the truth is it doesn’t matter very much, but for someone who writes stuff it sure is frustrating to watch.
In terms of local media, Crosscut nobly tried to temper the article with their own coverage. The Seattle Times science writer wrote a fantastic book on earthquakes in the Northwest, called Full Rip 9.0, so the paper has been pathetically running headlines saying “hey, give us the eyeballs and advertising dollars, we’re the ones that deserve them!” Here’s an authoritative PDF that studied cascadia impacts from CREW, which seems to be the official group studying Cascadia (thanks Kyle!) On the flip side, the Stranger performed their solemn duty to hype stupid stuff, so they went ahead and republished the worst inaccuracies as quickly as possible.
Addendum from 7/18 at 11:30, thanks to Kyle for pointing me towards USGS shakemaps: Below is a USGS shakemap for the Cascadia fault, so it’s is a better reflection of shaking intensity than my attempts up above:
Compared to the Seattle Fault shakemap:
Damage listings are on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. In prose form:
Level 6 (e.g. Cascadia in Wallingford): Felt by all. People walk unsteadily. Many frightened. Windows crack. Dishes, glassware, knickknacks, and books fall off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster, adobe buildings, and some poorly built masonry buildings cracked. Trees and bushes shake visibly.
Level 7 (e.g. Seattle Fault in Green Lake): Difficult to stand or walk. Noticed by drivers of cars. Furniture broken. Damage to poorly built masonry buildings. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices, unbraced parapets and porches. Some cracks in better masonry buildings. Waves on ponds.
Level 8 (e.g. Seattle Fault in Wallingford): Steering of cars affected. Extensive damage to unreinforced masonry buildings, including partial collapse. Fall of some masonry walls. Twisting, falling of chimneys and monuments. Wood-frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted; loose partition walls thrown out. Tree branches broken.
Level 9 (e.g. Seattle Fault downtown): General panic. Damage to masonry buildings ranges from collapse to serious damage unless modern design. Wood-frame structures rack, and, if not bolted, shifted off foundations. Underground pipes broken.
You really should back up your assertions with citations, Eric. Especially when criticizing other media so authoritatively.
The article is mostly based on Full Rip 9.0, which is something you need to buy or get from the library, or else I would have used links.
Au contrair, your article Eric is full of nothing but bologna. Try looking into historical indian legends about EQs in both the coastal and interior. Tales of 20′ whitecaps, parts of Mercer Island sloughing off…
The minimalist attempt to say all is well actually does more harm than good in my opinion. In the 2011 quake, Japan was so prepared that they regularly drill and hand out supplies for the citizenry. WE.DO.NOTHING but light up little scrolling LED signs on Fire stations, and little quips on Cable TV. That alone means that anything over a 7.0 is going to be devastating.
I would love to find the sites you mentioned concerning seiches or tsunamis in the northwest. My great great grandmother experienced what she called a tidal wave on Three Tree Point in the mid to late 1800’s. I’ve read before of the seiches in Lake Washington, but can’t find it now. Native Americans had plenty to say about that, and I believe them.
Thanks!!! Stevie
I concur. Using citation is a means of illustrating for us how you arrived to your conclusions. It allows us to ‘retrace your steps’ so to speak. You’ll gain a more respectable audience that way…
Shaking intensity (the graphic) isn’t magnitude, and vice versa. The graphic looks like it uses the JMA intensity scale, which isn’t common on this side of the Pacific. While shaking in Seattle would be sharper from a M7.0 on the Seattle Fault vs the M9.0 on Cascadia, the effects of long-duration motions aren’t well captured by building codes.
An organization called CREW has developed overviews of the potential effects of various earthquake scenarios. Their Cascadia scenario is covered here: http://crew.org/sites/default/files/cascadia_subduction_scenario_2013.pdf
While the expected damage would be worse along the coast and in Oregon, the interdependence of the region means things won’t be back to normal in a few weeks.
Thanks, that’s correct, I clarified in the article and added a link, then discovered USGS shakemaps and added an addendum to the article. Wish I had found those up front! The good thing is that they back up what the article said in the first place.
Full rip and interviews with seismologists that I’ve seen downplay the impacts in Seattle for Cascadia based on distance, which makes sense if you look at the graphic. Our placement is orthogonal to the fault line and similar to the arrow drawn on the graphic, so on that basis we’d be JMA 4, but I didn’t want to underplay the risk so I said less than 6.
That PDF is a great source, I added it to the tail end of the article. Thanks!
The earthquake that killed 5000 people and collapsed 412 buildings in Mexico City in 1989 was an 8.0. The epicenter was not just 167 miles from Mexico City it was much further, 220 miles. The size of a earthquake on the Cascadia Fault may be a 9.0 or larger. That is ten times as strong as the Mexico City event.
In 1989 a little quake of 6.9 called Loma Prieta brought down a freeway in Oakland. The distance was 57 miles, about one third the distance from Seattle to Cascadia. I call it little because it was less than 1% of the force that is expected from Cascadia. The greater distance will reduce the shaking we feel. But we should still experience a earthquake eleven times greater than Oakland experienced from Loma Prieta.
I think it is too simple to just use one earthquake, like the 2011 Japanese, to predict what a will happen when our fault ruptures. On the other hand with this article we can all feel more at ease while we line up the deck chairs on our Titanic.
Thanks Peter. See the USGS shakemaps in the updated article, they are a better indication of possible shaking intensity than the Japan quake comparison, although the outcomes are similar.
If I recall rightly there’s a big fault line that runs right through downtown NYC that could easily hit with magnitude 6 if not 7. Old “inactive” fault? It has been a long time but with climate change distributing water weight around the world from polar ice melt, it could produce new stresses on undiscovered and old faults we don’t know about. The jury is out on this but we have had a number of M. 9 quakes in the last twenty years, an uptick?
Eric, are you a seismologist?
I recommend a book that seems to have been left out of every mention, mag, blog, and TV coverage: THE NEXT TSUNAMI: LIVING ON A RESTLESS COAST, by Bonnie Henderson. The author did impeccablle investigative journalism, interviewed and got to know all of the “important” people, scientists, policymakers, community leaders, and also went to Japan several times to research there. Her book was published by OSU Press in 2014, and received outstanding reviews.
Thanks for the info. I just downloaded “THE NEXT TSUNAMI: LIVING ON A RESTLESS COAST”, by Bonnie Henderson to my Kindle.
I love Seattle but I don’t think I will love it so much after a massive earthquake hits. That is why I am working on moving away within four years. Hope I am not too late getting started.
Who cares about Seattle only?! What about Portland. Where we appear to have no equivalent blogosphere to correct the New Yawker wrong.
Oh, the humanity.
Criminy!
http://nwdata.geol.pdx.edu/DOGAMI/IMS-16/
Specifically:
Portland Hills Fault 6.8: http://nwdata.geol.pdx.edu/DOGAMI/IMS-15/m68_pga.jpg
Cascadia 9.0: http://nwdata.geol.pdx.edu/DOGAMI/IMS-16/Maps/Images/m90_pga.jpg
The gist:
Same story as Seattle with much more severe local ground shaking in the case of the weaker, but nearby and shallow fault… but with zero tsunami threat (where for Seattle, a potential landslide in the Puget Sound does pose some nonzero tsunami risk).
Enjoy. 😉
A few points to ponder:
* The Cascadia rupture could spawn landslide-induced tsunamis in Lake Union and Lake Washington
* Seiche hazards in Lake Union are very high, especially during a long megathrust quake (think Lake Union sloshing like a bathtub back and forth for hours or days, destroying structures and unmooring boats and homes)
* The article’s title was Seattle-centric, but the article was not. Yes, local shaking in Seattle will be stronger in a Seattle-fault quake, but not in Portland. Likewise, if the Portland Hills thrust fault rips, PDX is going to shake like crazy, but Seattle will be fine.
* Lastly, the Cascadia Fault also goes “directly under downtown Seattle”, and recent research suggests the surface of rupture will extend much closer to Seattle than previously thought (see Tim Melbourne’ CWU research).
Stephen, no, the Cascadia Fault does not go directly under downtown Seattle. It is out in the Pacific Ocean. https://washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ger_hazards_quakeblks.gif
The Cascadia faults three-dimensional, and most certainly does go ‘right under’ Seattle, just not at the surface. The full rip Cascadia quake is now thought to cause offset along a much closer section of the subterranean section of the fault than previously thought:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/new-studies-put-potential-megaquake-closer-to-seattle/
Maybe he means Juan de Fuca plate that is already working its way under the continental plate and with an earthquake in the off-shore Cascadian subduction zone, the Juan de Fuca plate will be shoved up faster and farther.
Two things:
1) Here’s a simulation of the inundation of downtown Seattle (actually the industrial district) by a Seattle Fault (not Cascadia) quake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zENABRWTSs Harbor Island is completely submerged; think fuel spills. North/south transportation cut off for months. Glub, glub!
2) You say “earthquakes create two separate sorts of trouble – shaking and tsunamis.” That’s not all, though. The real story is what the shaking does to the infrastructure of modern civilization. A major quake will will break the systems that supply water, electricity, natural gas, telephone communication, the Internet, medical services, banking, and countless other utilities and processes that we rely on for our survival.
From Shulz’ article we learn that after a Cascadia quake a million people will need shelter and two-and-a-half million will need food and water. A million buildings will be compromised. It will take a month to three months to restore electricity, a month to a year to restore drinking water and sewers, six months to a year to restore major highways, and eighteen months to restore health-care facilities.
Sounds like “toast” to me!
How do you run a modern civilization without buildings, electricity, water, roads, and health-care? You don’t. You call in the Army, presumably, because the armed forces are the only institution with resources even vaguely commensurate with the impacts. Then you start the long, dirty, miserable, expensive, and exhausting process of recovery, which will take ten years or more (based on Kobe).
I’m not leaving Seattle, but it makes no sense to minimize what we’re facing. It’s the end of civilization as we know it on the West Coast. And if we do come back, we’ll be a changed place.
The restoration of services might take a lot longer than you think. That is a best-case scenario. The good thing is that Seattle is located in the US. Imagine an earthquake this size on the coast of East Africa where I live…. Forget about it!!!!
If you want to make a point, and I suspect you do have something to add, try editing out the sour grapes. The NY’er article, even if it conflated some of the science, has had a huge effect in waking people up to a very real danger. That is a good thing. If you have something to add to that, well then, just add it.
Has it really? Like what’s changed??
Awareness. That’s where solutions begin, with the knowledge that there is a situation.
I just received an email from my local CERT non-profit, certified emergency response team, about the next training. This is where hot air remains hot air or where seriousness compels action. I’m not prepared. If I learn what to do and do it, then compassion and responsibility dictate that I should help my neighbors. Isn’t that what life is all about anyway?
Scientists have repeatedly said the eventual subduction zone quake will be like the Nisqually quake but the shaking will last for over a minute unlike that one. Frankly, I think they are trying to misdirect fear off them. NYC is target number one of terrorists. That is the more likely scenario in the near term. Ground Zero was dubbed upon the WTC memorial. Makes me wonder if that was an unfortunate premonition.
Thank you, Kyle, for supplying the link to the CREW information. Really, everybody responding here should read the pdf. I saw its publication date was 2013, and more has been learned since then. Reading the CREW info completely through is necessary. I can’t imagine 4-6 minutes of high-intensity earthquake. Even for those of us fortunate enough to be living inland, the disruptions of basic services alone would spell crisis.
Frankie says BE PREPARED!
There is a better shake map for a 9.0 Cascadia subduction zone quake that details Seattle and tries to model where local geology will amplify ground movements.
I think it is correct to say that a Cascadia megathrust quake will do less damage to Seattle than a 7+ rupture on the Seattle fault. But there is a huge risk of regional damage that will overwhelm other critical systems. How many bridges over our major waterways can withstand that kind of damage? We may be isolated for some time, even if most of the buildings are standing.
Is this the map you’re thinking of?
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/urban/seattle/
That one does include more soil factors, but is also a probability-based calculation of many, many different earthquake simulations.
What about another horrible Mudslide, like the one that demolished the homes and the lives in it within seconds. Surely some people are somewhat concerned about that happening in “The One.”
Here are a couple of landslide susceptibility maps. Both show Wallingford on pretty good stuff.
http://pnsn.org/outreach/hazard-maps-and-scenarios/eq-hazard-maps/landslide
http://www.citylab.com/weather/2013/10/seattles-hills-could-slide-water-during-next-earthquake/7311/
(Note this one is based on a Seattle Fault rupture, not Cascadia)
Whatever the scenario people need to be prepared and they are not even close by any means these days. Example I grew up here in the Northwest and every year we had to begin each year with an emergency food pack for school and enough for 3 days and it was required. My children didn’t have this requirement so I made them carry it in their backpacks everyday and now my granddaughter. We’ve gotten lazy and that’s why its gonna be a nightmare instead of an emergency. Seattle, Oregon, and everyone else need to be held responsible for the lack of education and preparedness. Who cares about the amount of time we shake or who’s going to the worse end of things when the truth is, if prepared it will be less devastating to us all.
Thanks everyone for caring to chime in on this! I’m originally from Nashville, and if it makes ya’ll feel better, I think we’re all safer here than we would be there, where nobody is even talking about the New Madrid fault, which could cause extensive soil liquefaction in heavily populated, unprepared communities near the Mississippi (especially St. Louis and Memphis). Ironically, that one could even be felt in the New Yorker offices. The fact is, nobody really understands earthquakes and what they could do to which places. I thought the NY article was somewhat a bunch of silly fear mongering, but I am going to upgrade my ranch home, just in case, so it at least had that positive effect.
Thanks to all who posted additional material here — particularly the CREW report. Much appreciated!
I was impressed with The New Yorker article, and the Crosscut article, in different ways. The New Yorker article covered a number of basic (but often little-known to Americans) info on what inherent facts and perils from major quakes. And, separate from that, the detective story behind discovering the Puget Sound quake in ~1700 (and the Cascadia fault) is fascinating.
However, the article also sloughed over a lot detail for those living in the area; and it wasn’t specific about what dangers would result from a quake, and what from a tsunami. The Crosscut article, I think, is a very good remedy to that; the experts answers to specific questions give you a better idea of what *specifically* we can expect around here.
As Bruce Clark says above, both articles were a wake-up call to me. If nothing else, getting supplies for a 7-10 day period without food, water or electricity seems to be a pretty good foundation for getting through something like this. (Another is, getting to know your neighbors; in a situation like this, we will all be in it together!)
Eric (and everyone if you haven’t already) you should read this
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthquake_experts_ask_us_anything_about
Could Cascadia trigger the Seattle fault? I mean, if they’re both under pressure, what’s to say that the larger release won’t cause the smaller one to give way also? And one thing I remember from years back but haven’t seen any of these articles mention, Rainier is just dormant. Couldn’t one of those, maybe not a coastal earthquake, but couldn’t an earthquake trigger it to erupt?
We all live in the ring of fire on the west coast and the most dangerous fault line the san Andreas runs right through Washington oh don’t forget Mt.Rainer an active volcano that can cause fault lines to crack. I’m not a professional this is just my opinion. Let’s all prepare for the coming of christ.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, Eric, and say (despite their use of hyperbolic click bait) I trust The New Yorker (with their extensive fact-checking team) and the multiple seismologists who confirmed much of what the New Yorker published on Reddit’s ‘Ask Me Anything’ more than your article, which fails to provide citations or even your seismology credentials.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthquake_experts_ask_us_anything_about
Focusing on the epicenter means nothing when it comes to the kind of quake this will be. Despite it being off the coast; the ground deep below our feet will move as well. Tsunamis aren’t the scariest thing about an event like this. It’s the ground turning into quick sand. The shaking will go on long enough to break loose the ground and cave in any open areas below the ground. Doesn’t matter how solid it looks right now, because it can happen anywhere.
Infastructure will be the focus of damage. Every bridge in Portland has a D grade for safety. I’m willing to bet that this event is the reason behind stopping the build of the new I5 bridge from Portland to Vancouver. Doesn’t make sense to spend 3 billion on something when an event like this is so due for arrival. Might as well wait till it happens and get more government funding because the old bridge probably won’t make it through the quake anyway
Thank you for writing your perspective and sharing it! I appreciate all the work you do to bring content and conversation to the neighborhood.
i wrote to the author of THE NEXT TSUNAMI, Bonnie Henderson. In response to The New Yorker article she wrote: ” Excellent article about seismicity of the Pacific Northwest coast …I would quibble only with the notion that it is overdue…all we can really say is that we are within the window,” She goes on to suggest that with tax dollars and federal aid we do the obvious and prioritize preparations, beginning with changes to, often relocating, structures on the coast, which alone will save “hundreds of thousands of people attempting to flee the tsunamis.” She commends this article and others for giving us “memories” of the future quake in order to prepare.
When viewing any maps with projected risk, it’s important to learn which fault it is representing – Cascadia (offshore) or Seattle (right under downtown.Seattle). They are two different types of faults capable of different types of shaking and geologic impact, so they are apples to oranges.
Here’s a map of the landslide risk areas, if an earthquake were to occur on the Seattle fault when the ground is saturated after a lot of rain.
http://www.landscapeandurbanism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2022470147.jpg
Tsunamis
Here are some maps simulating a Cascadia-generated tsunami’s impact on the coast: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/on-nw-coast-potential-for-tsunami-waves-up-to-100-feet-now-seems-possible/
For comparison, here’s a map for a rupture on the Seattle fault. Still plenty of damage, but much smaller wave height.:
http://wa-dnr.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ger_ofr2003-14_tsunami_hazard_elliottbay.pdf
Here’s a video of how the waves would slosh back and forth in Elliott bay (no wave heights given) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2AGlhuCQ-A
Here are a TON of maps by the Department of Natural resources. Browse away — too many to list.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/geologic-hazard-maps
Lastly, my personal favorite, the WS DOT video that was used to support the viaduct and seawall replacement project. It simulates a ~7.0 earthquake on the Seattle fault. I love showing this to visiting guests. 🙂
Seems all the retrofitting in the area won’t matter much when the nuclear plant is destroyed. Perhaps that outa be the first order of business?
It doesn’t matter where you live. Being alive in this planet is a risk every day we are alive. There is no stopping nature. If you are all worried, you can exit Stage East and leave the PNW. Just remember, leaving one set of possible natural disasters here just means you’ll be getting a whole new set of disasters where ever you live.
I find it odd that so many people make the argument to stay in Seattle because there are risks everywhere else too. A person who moved away from Seattle to avoid the earthquake risk does not believe they are moving to a place with no risks at all. Yet many people make that argument to support their position of taking no action.
If I lived in Syria I would prefer the risks in Seattle to the risks there. Wouldn’t it be silly to tell a Syrian that they should stay in Syria because there are risks everywhere?
The Playdo Insitute has always felt The New Yorker was first and foremost a fashion magazine, even when it treats so called “serious” issues. Any publication which thinks Roz Chast is funny, in fact, any publication which publishes Roz Chast, must be either trying to set a trend or following one. As to Cascadia, The New Yorker has come late to the disaster game and one has to think the author of this emendation is correct: by changing the online title, they’re trying to raise their readership and hence, their ad revenue. The Playdo Institute felt the article itself was borderline unreadable in that it follows the ingrained New Yorker tendency to give readers an attitude toward experience in place of an experience–even though this may be one of the few instances one be grateful for that.
The Playdo Institute
Handel Glassberg, President
I have often wondered if the 2001 quake forced Boeing HQ to skedaddle from Seattle to Chicago?
Boeing kept production here, which would be more affected my an earthquake. Boeing moved HQ to Illinois so they could collect two more senators and a few more Congressional reps who would feel obligated to their corporate constituent.
There is another error in that article, having to do with population, not geology. The sentence is on page 58, near the top of the 3rd column: “Twenty-nine percent of the state’s population is disabled, and that figure rises in many coastal counties.”
That figure is so incredible that it awakened the ex-fact-checker in me (my 26-year career at Conde Nast started in the research department of Traveler). According to both the U.S. Census and Cornell University, that figure is closer to a far more credible 13% or 14%. Perhaps that 29% figure refers to the aging population, identified in the sentence immediately preceding as “Twenty-two percent of Oregon’s coastal population is sixty-five or older”?
Sources:
Census: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_R1810.US01PRF&prodType=table
Cornell: https://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/2013/English/HTML/report2013.cfm?fips=2041000&html_year=2013&subButton=Get+HTML#prev-all
Irene–I don’t know if it is still true, as it was a few years ago, that Florence, Oregon has had the fastest growing population gain of seniors of any city its size. The New Yorker article has been a major news event where I live–Eugene/Springfield. Today I received an email from Eugene’s Emergency Management dept announcing a presentation on earthquake science and emergency preparedness, in response to the article, to be given at a public forum by three U of O geologists and other experts on Aug 6.
There was a lot of research done on the New Yorker article. You need to take that into consideration. You also need to take into consideration that many seismologists that I know think the article was quite on the mark. As someone who studied geology, your assertion of what a Level 6, 7, 8 and 9 magnitude earthquake can do is very misleading. You don’t even bother explaining the Richter scale, the different types of earthquakes, the different effects of a shallow versus a deep earthquake.
Please stick to what you know, and many people were citied in that New Yorker article that you so spuriously disdain. Thanks.