SF Gate: The Great Quake: 1906-2006 (image) — I’ve seen a lot of pics of the 1906 SF Quake, but this photo gallery is the best ever. Done for the 100th anniversay of the quake. Fascinating.
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
There have also been a series of similar images on the BBC news site today, and it is very sobering to see the amount of devastation that was wrought on the city. I can’t be the only one to notice a startling similarity between these images and those taken of Hiroshima some 40 years later, when man not nature was the cause…
With destruction comes renewal. And opportunity. God creates Natural disasters. Sometimes I wonder if Man doesn’t do the same by creating war. When it is said that we are created in the image of God, does that mean we have to imitate him?
I think this falls uner the “bummer” catagory.
My question would be which is worse? Building a large city near a seismicly active fault line because of ignorance about the science of tectonic plate movement, or the stupidity of rebuilding a destroyed city once you do know.
What’s worse, Mike, is creating an organization (FEMA) to “help” the people after they stupidly rebuild their city along a seismically active fault.
Actually, it’s not stupid to build here. There has hardly been any major damage caused by earthquakes here since that one and even on that size would do far less damage today than it did then. San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area is a huge economic engine that has paid off far more than it might have if it had been located in, say, Nevada.
Anyway, much of the US is subject to seismic activity and most of the US is not nearly as prepared for a major earthquake as San Francisco.
“There has hardly been any major damage caused by earthquakes here since that one…”
BHK, did you forget about the 1989 earthquake? 7.1?
Yeah Mike…..they should build it in….say….Missouri.
Seems there is no safe place to build anything. All areas have some form of recurring natural earth cleanser going on.
A 7.9 would still be a disaster. Even with all the up to date building techniques and stuff. There would be wide spread death and destruction. Depending on day, time of day and which fault. Much more of the city and surrounding areas are built on land fill than back then, plus there are millions more people living in the area.
New Orleans being rebuilt(at least the flood prone parts) is a farce. Next time (which could be this year) they should be told….tough crap.
At least with earthquakes you don’t have the problem year in and year out. Large destructive quakes are fairly rare in this country……but hurricane season comes back every year and if the global warming people are right, NO is gurranteed a hit once a year or so.
Thank you Paul.
I just some time perusing the two links you posted. I am awed by it all.