Earthquake destroys Boston.

D

deh74

Active Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
Last week there was a 4.0 earthquake outside Portland Maine. the effects of which were felt in Boston. much of Boston is built on landfill (such as the back bay, south boston, logan airport, etc...) and is subject to liquefaction in an earthquake. something like this could potentially be the biggest natural disaster in united states history. deadlier than hurrican katrina, and the SF earthquake. what would happen in a scenario where there was an earthquake of 6.0 magnitude or more? what would happen to Boston, would we recover?
P.S. i posted this here because an earthquake have have a major effect on the infrastucture of the city, but if there is a better home for this please feel free to move it.
 
I doubt you would get an Earthquake , however a Cat 5 Hurricane is likely...
 
how would a repeat of the cape ann quake effect boston, ive never been to areas which have recently had an earthquake so what would boston look like afterwards?
 
did you read the article I linked to? Yes, it's wikipedia, but it's a good starting point for the discussion.
 
Ron Newman said:
did you read the article I linked to? Yes, it's wikipedia, but it's a good starting point for the discussion.
Click to expand...
I'll admit, i didn't originally. but i have now. so basically it would suck because we'd lose basically the whole back bay. and that would be from a 6.0 magnitude 25 miles away. imagine what a stronger one would do if centered in boston harbor...:eek:
 
So...anyone know if there's anything to be done about the Back Bay collapsing in on itself in the event of a major natural disaster, or do we just sit on our hands and wait for this to happen?
 
For 20 years, code has required buildings to be brought up to modern seismic requirements when major alterations are done. As time goes on more and more buildings will require renovations and seismic retrofits will happen. That's really all that can be done.

A magnitude 6 earthquake is predicted to hit Boston just every 500 to 900 years. Even if we decided to spend what would undoubtedly be tens or hundreds of billions on disaster preparation/retrofitting, that money would be more cost-effectively used on preparing for disasters far more likely than a major earthquake.
 
massmotorist said:
For 20 years, code has required buildings to be brought up to modern seismic requirements when major alterations are done. As time goes on more and more buildings will require renovations and seismic retrofits will happen. That's really all that can be done.

A magnitude 6 earthquake is predicted to hit Boston just every 500 to 900 years. Even if we decided to spend what would undoubtedly be tens or hundreds of billions on disaster preparation/retrofitting, that money would be more cost-effectively used on preparing for disasters far more likely than a major earthquake.
Click to expand...


Agree. We should fix the roads so we can quickly drive away at the first sign of trouble.
 
czsz said:
So...anyone know if there's anything to be done about the Back Bay collapsing in on itself in the event of a major natural disaster, or do we just sit on our hands and wait for this to happen?
Click to expand...

Disaster-proofing isn't sexy enough for the amount of cash we'd need to disaster-proof Back Bay.

It's mathmatically simple - just come up with another $24 billion so that we can rip up all of Back Bay and bring all of the 19th century infrastructure we don't know about up to 21st-century standards.

Of course, I'm the only person I know who wants to see that happen, so there's an incredibly high chance that, should disaster befall Back Bay, you'll find me buried under a pile of rubble halfway through posting a New Topic in General titled "I TOLD YOU SO!"
 
So it sounds like the only preparation we have is building code standards. Which sounds plausible. This is a bet between time versus money. The longer time passes, the more buildings will go into renovation and building codes will make those renovation also earthquake preparation. Hopefully the earthquake is far way enough that most buildings will go into renovation in some form and the quake will not kill hundreds to thousands of people and destroy an entire era of nice architecture.

If MassMotorist is correct that estimate chance is every 500-900 years, it is not that crazy of a bet. But of course, if it occurs within the next 60-100 years and/or the building codes are inadequate or ignored, everyone is going to screaming about the lack of preparation afterwards. Maybe sentence some Italian scientists to six years of prison on manslaughter.
 
When we say "it'll cost $24 billion," it sounds like some kind of heart attack inducing Big Dig squared. But if all we did was increase tax incentives to renovate, this could be taken care of by the private sector in less time than the current rate. The Back Bay is enough in demand that it shouldn't be infeasible from an economic perspective, and it would be a jobs stimulus.

Of course, justifying any new legislation or even administrative order on the basis of a once in a millennium event might prove slightly difficult...
 
They did retrofit all Urban Jersey bridges to handle a 7.0.....and some NYC bridges were upgraded to handle 6.0...
 
On the list of "Things I worry about destroying Boston", a major earthquake ranks somewhere above "Alien Invasion" and "Repeat of Great Molasses Flood" and below "LNG Tanker Incident" and "Diplomatic Misunderstanding Between Menino and Kim Jong-Un"
 
Then why do cops snatch cameras out of the hands of citizens snapping photos of them for "security purposes" ;-)
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
On the list of "Things I worry about destroying Boston", a major earthquake ranks somewhere above "Alien Invasion" and "Repeat of Great Molasses Flood" and below "LNG Tanker Incident" and "Diplomatic Misunderstanding Between Menino and Kim Jong-Un"
Click to expand...

What about major hurricanes?

Where do those rank?

(Topical!)

BostonUrbEx said:
Complete BS. LNG can't explode.
Click to expand...

Actually, it can!

You see, the LNG in that tank is under tremendous, tremendous amounts of pressure, so that it can remain in its liquid state. Should that tank ever rupture, the contents inside would experience a depressurization event, leading to all the LNG expanding at an incredible rate, exceeding the maximum possible volume of the tank and just like when you shake a soda can up really really good and then try and open it...

But, don't worry! They don't build those things cheaply. It should be pretty much impervious to damage.
 
But if you don't keep LNG refrigerated it changes state into natural gas which will explode if in air at proper proportions. A tank failure could lead to this.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
What about major hurricanes?

Where do those rank?

(Topical!)



Actually, it can!

You see, the LNG in that tank is under tremendous, tremendous amounts of pressure, so that it can remain in its liquid state. Should that tank ever rupture, the contents inside would experience a depressurization event, leading to all the LNG expanding at an incredible rate, exceeding the maximum possible volume of the tank and just like when you shake a soda can up really really good and then try and open it...

But, don't worry! They don't build those things cheaply. It should be pretty much impervious to damage.
Click to expand...
what if a terrorist launched an rpg at the tanker as it headed through the harbor from rowes wharf?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top