Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 4/21/2017 8:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:


Living with the threat vs. somewhere else probably gives you a better
understanding of the risks. We have all read of the big one way back
when when, it was mass destruction. BUT that was from fires and broken
water lines. I would imagine in the hundred years since, the
advancements in engineering would less the blow considerably.

Oh, there's no doubt that San Franciscians took it to heart immediately.

The water infrastructure was improved, construction standards changed
after every major California earthquake incorporating lessons learned.
Because of that the damage to SF in 1989 wasn't particularly major outside of the
Marina district. In the financial district where the 50+ story towers
are, they all survived intact. They did end up tearing down the
Embarcadero freeway (another double decker), but that's more due to
folks disliking it esthetically rather than due to cost to repair.
(The supervisors had voted to tear it down four years before the quake).

I must say that the boulevard that replaced it is esthetically much
nicer, but traffic on the embarcadero can be slow, particularly on
weekends with all the weekenders heading to the wharf, Fort Mason
and Ghiradelli Square.

http://www.upout.com/blog/san-franci...eway-came-down

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 9:50:11 AM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:

Nicely done...only comment/suggestion I'd make would be to have used
one board for the top/bottom stiles so would have unbroken grain
across both when closed...now it jars (my eye, anyway) where they
meet...probably go away to a large extent when finished, but...


I was wondering when someone would comment on that, because I would
have. :-)
That was actually my plan when I was laying out and cutting the boards,
but the client said it would look "too matched" and not barn door enough.

Around here they aren't just using these barn door installs as closet or room doors. The fad here is to use them as room dividers. My client screwed around too long with his plans and then way out of budget so I didn't get the job. Thankfully! But he did do a couple of things that he wanted.

They actually looked nice as they have a "country" kind of rustic look to their house. On one side they had the build made to look like a giant fence gate, stiles and a diagonal brace. Painted a kind of red primer color, very rustic. It went well with their rustic kitchen. The other side (think 10' ceilings and barn doors to match) was simply the long boards cut to the same lengths. The wood was a weathered look with kind of a satin/black wash on it. So it looked good on the kitchen side as it had one distinct look, and it looked like a wood wall feature on the other side.

I could see there was some care in making the project look the way the customer wanted. Rustic enough to look like a decorating statement, but the joinery/fit/finish just tight enough to look good.

Robert

On 04/21/2017 9:50 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
....

That was actually my plan when I was laying out and cutting the boards,
but the client said it would look "too matched" and not barn door enough.

Well, I did it on the two matching barn doors, so she's not totally
correct there!

Altho they're painted and it was more for convenience rather than
actually grain-matching, but needn't tell anybody...

--

In some circles its called Shabby Chique. I call it Crappy Crud.

My current house (been here since 2005 now) had been on the market for a
while because of this ****. I took the stupid rolling barn door off the
pantry and sold it at a yard sale. Boom gone. The inane corrugated metal
they had covering lot of the walls came down even quicker. I only bought it
because I could see there really was a house behind their pile of refuse.

"Bob La Londe" writes:
In some circles its called Shabby Chique. I call it Crappy Crud.

My current house (been here since 2005 now) had been on the market for a
while because of this ****. I took the stupid rolling barn door off the
pantry and sold it at a yard sale. Boom gone. The inane corrugated metal
they had covering lot of the walls came down even quicker. I only bought it
because I could see there really was a house behind their pile of refuse.


There is no accounting for taste. Your taste or theirs.

On 4/21/17 1:32 PM, Bob La Londe wrote:
In some circles its called Shabby Chique. I call it Crappy Crud.

My current house (been here since 2005 now) had been on the market for a
while because of this ****. I took the stupid rolling barn door off the
pantry and sold it at a yard sale. Boom gone. The inane corrugated
metal they had covering lot of the walls came down even quicker. I only
bought it because I could see there really was a house behind their pile
of refuse.


That was funny! :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:04:45 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

Ever since the TV home shows have been installing barn doors in all
remodels, the big box stores have started carrying them and the
requests for installations have been pouring in to every carpenter in
suburbia.

I figured I would wait out the fad and in 10 years I'd make a fortune
taking them out after people's frustration in using them overcomes their
overwhelming urge to be trendy. After all, they aren't really any
different than pocket doors other than the fact that they are much
easier to put back on the tracks when they slip off.

Well, I resisted as long as I could but finally had a client who really
wanted them in a closet build-out I was doing in her basement
converted-bedroom.

https://goo.gl/photos/5XhKykF8cVmz9cR68

The client enjoys finishing, so she's going do the stain or faded paint
finish of her choice, and pick out handles.

BTW, the yellow spot on the ceiling behind the left can light is the
reason I never use power tools to cut holes in ceilings. There is a
water line resting on the drywall going straight through the center of
that spot. :-)
I had to move the cans further out in the room, which turned out better
anyway.

Do these doors work independently or together?

On 4/21/2017 5:45 PM, swalker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:04:45 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

Ever since the TV home shows have been installing barn doors in all
remodels, the big box stores have started carrying them and the
requests for installations have been pouring in to every carpenter in
suburbia.

I figured I would wait out the fad and in 10 years I'd make a fortune
taking them out after people's frustration in using them overcomes their
overwhelming urge to be trendy. After all, they aren't really any
different than pocket doors other than the fact that they are much
easier to put back on the tracks when they slip off.

Well, I resisted as long as I could but finally had a client who really
wanted them in a closet build-out I was doing in her basement
converted-bedroom.

https://goo.gl/photos/5XhKykF8cVmz9cR68

The client enjoys finishing, so she's going do the stain or faded paint
finish of her choice, and pick out handles.

BTW, the yellow spot on the ceiling behind the left can light is the
reason I never use power tools to cut holes in ceilings. There is a
water line resting on the drywall going straight through the center of
that spot. :-)
I had to move the cans further out in the room, which turned out better
anyway.

Do these doors work independently or together?


Typically doors that work together have cables that tun through pulleys.
I do not see any of that going on.

On 4/21/17 5:45 PM, swalker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:04:45 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

Ever since the TV home shows have been installing barn doors in all
remodels, the big box stores have started carrying them and the
requests for installations have been pouring in to every carpenter in
suburbia.

I figured I would wait out the fad and in 10 years I'd make a fortune
taking them out after people's frustration in using them overcomes their
overwhelming urge to be trendy. After all, they aren't really any
different than pocket doors other than the fact that they are much
easier to put back on the tracks when they slip off.

Well, I resisted as long as I could but finally had a client who really
wanted them in a closet build-out I was doing in her basement
converted-bedroom.

https://goo.gl/photos/5XhKykF8cVmz9cR68

The client enjoys finishing, so she's going do the stain or faded paint
finish of her choice, and pick out handles.

BTW, the yellow spot on the ceiling behind the left can light is the
reason I never use power tools to cut holes in ceilings. There is a
water line resting on the drywall going straight through the center of
that spot. :-)
I had to move the cans further out in the room, which turned out better
anyway.

Do these doors work independently or together?


Independent.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:54:56 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

OFWW writes:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:31:06 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/20/2017 3:03 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:


Personally, I'll risk the earthquake over living in tornado alley.


A tornado is very selective and does not typically do damage over
thousands of square miles. Repairs can usually begin immediate.

No, but they happen _every_ year, and in volume during the summer.

Earthquakes are quite infrequent.


Major earth quakes and hurricanes typically deliver damage with a broad
stroke, tornados, not so much.


I agree. But I prefer getting it over quick, like in an earthquake.

I've experienced two major earthquakes (Wittier Narrows, Loma Prieta)
and a few minors (Napa a few years ago). For the most part, the damage
is localized (similar to a tornado, more localized than a hurricane). For
Wittier narrows, I was living about 7 miles from the epicenter and it
did no damage to my home, and very little at my office. With the Loma
Prieta the total damage ($5billion) was less than katrina ($108 billion)
even when adjusted for inflation.

I'll take the earthquake anyday. The risk of an 8+ is much lower than the
risk of a F5 tornado or a cat IV hurricane.

I've been through a bunch of major quakes, one where the highway was
separated a solid blocks distance sideways. The last large one which
was the Northridge and Santa Monica one which were only a few sections
apart. The two earthquakes kept trades people of all types busy for
several years on things related to the earthquakes.

The big one is over 100 years overdue, and the pressure is increasing
and visible out in the desert and some other places, some there is
rising, rising and some widening., plus there is one slightly off the
coastline here. That is extensive. I can't remember all the details
since I don't worry about such things other than to have generators,
food and the ability to store water on short notice.

Bad thing about generators are having lights on when no one else does.
You stick out like a sore thumb. The majority of the solar systems
sold here are not to store power but feed excess into the electric
company to roll back your meter.

Whatever the happenstance, it is all bad for someone, or many. And in
today's world a riot can be just as destructive as anything nature
throws at us.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:37:20 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/20/2017 5:15 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:31:06 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/20/2017 3:03 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
OFWW writes:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:04:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:



Cost of living is much lower, you keep much more of the money you earned
and you're not dealing with politicians from outer space.

One thing for sure, if they moved there then they are on the safe side
of the San Andrea's fault.

99% of california is east of the fault, including SF and the bay area.

There is no safe side of any fault, and the largest earthquake in the
continental US east of the Rockies was centered in New Madrid, Misery.

Note that the 1906 quake was felt over 6200 sq miles, while the New
Madrid quake (1811) was felt over 1 million sq miles. New Madrid is
within a hundred miles or so of Nashville (Memphis experienced level IX (Violent)
shaking!)

Personally, I'll risk the earthquake over living in tornado alley.


Tornado's Earth Quakes, and Hurricanes. I'll take tornado's over the
other two for one reason, life immediately after the event.

A tornado is very destructive as are earth quakes and hurricanes. I
have been in 5 hurricanes, the third when I was 15. I thought I was
going to die in that hurricane. Anyway it was a direct hit on the the
Corpus Christi area. It took months to to even think about having
repairs made to your home. And that was probably 20-30 thousand residences.

An earth quake is going to likely deliver the same life changing event
for tens of thousands of families.

A tornado is very selective and does not typically do damage over
thousands of square miles. Repairs can usually begin immediate.

And after a tornado you can usually guy groceries, gasoline and probably
go to work the next day for the vast majority.

Major earth quakes and hurricanes typically deliver damage with a broad
stroke, tornados, not so much.


I agree. But I prefer getting it over quick, like in an earthquake.

I hear what you are saying... ;~) BUT until you actually live with, and
maybe you have, the reality of the aftermath of a large event it is hard
to understand the complexity of the problems.


I haven't lived through floods, like in Texas and elsewhere. And I
hope never to. I can remember flying over the middle of the USA after
the giant flooding in the midwest and seeing mile after mile after
mile flooded no matter where you looked. I think it was in the middle
70's. Then seeing the recent floods in Texas and the south. Shudder
the thought, especially for the old folks, or the invalid.

When you stop and consider, none of it has a personal upside, except
for the work generated out of it. I was glad to hear of laws against
unreasonable profiting from such situations.

Insurance companies help with damage to your home but you rely on the
local government to clear the debris, rebuild bridges, replace broken
water lines, restore electricity so that repairs can actually begin.


Only if you carry the pertinent insurance addon's. Even so they try to
cut their losses.

I would venture to say that a, quick and it is done, earth quake might
be one that does not do a lot of damage. My nephew and niece and their
families live in Edmund, OK. They have earth quakes pretty often, not
terrible ones but enough to crack the walls and such.

BUT in those areas that are on faults, like California, a big quake is
typically followed with days of after shocks that would or can continue
to do extensive damage.


The bulk of damage is on initial impact, the aftershock just enhance
the previous damage and make it more visible, as a rule.

From what I understand, out west we are in a better place in spite of
the Pacific Rim crap, as we have a rock based land, whereas in the
midwest they don't and so the shockwave's carry far.

I just hope whatever happens Texas survives it all. I consider it my
safety net when the USA falls apart and the Republic of Texas arises.
My escape place.









FWIW Harris county/ Houston, Texas has more tornadoes than any where
else in the U.S. We have had 7~8 this month. Not big ones but in
their small paths they do some destruction. At least the city goes on
with its business the next day, not so with a hurricane.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:00:20 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

OFWW writes:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:03:43 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

OFWW writes:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:04:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:



Cost of living is much lower, you keep much more of the money you earned
and you're not dealing with politicians from outer space.

One thing for sure, if they moved there then they are on the safe side
of the San Andrea's fault.

99% of california is east of the fault, including SF and the bay area.


http://geology.com/articles/images/s...-fault-map.jpg

Note that the portions of CA west of the fault on the
SF peninsula are, for the most part, unpopulated (excepting
half-moon-bay and pacifica). The fault crosses into the
ocean at daly city, so all of SF is east of the fault.


Land mass, but not people mass. SF, Berkeley etc would be destroyed.

Considering all the historic quakes on this fault, I find that
statement to be implausible, if not completely false. Particularly
given Loma Prieta, which was the San Andreas and didn't destroy
either SF or Berkeley. No more than Northridge or Sylmar destroyed
LA.

Actually the damage to LA was great. the Northridge/SM earthquake
damage was wide spread. Houses shaken off their foundations, buildings
cracked, just to name a few. As far as downtown proper then the
Burbank earthquake did more.

As to where the fault flows, yes, I know, but the damage to those near
the fault can be extensive. Given all the water there I can see a lot
of damage from it as well as all the old bldgs in Berkeley. But I am
talking worst case scenario, not the stuff less than 7.2

I wish I could remember, but I don't, I do remember them speaking of
an earthquake possibility extending from LB to near Seattle not too
many months ago. I wouldn't have paid it much attention other than for
the fact is spoke of being near to Roseburg. A beautiful place we are
considering in out future plans. It made me wonder if there is any
"safe place".

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ywardFault.jpg

In your area.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:33:07 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:49:33 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:15:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:31:06 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/20/2017 3:03 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
OFWW writes:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:04:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:



Cost of living is much lower, you keep much more of the money you earned
and you're not dealing with politicians from outer space.

One thing for sure, if they moved there then they are on the safe side
of the San Andrea's fault.

99% of california is east of the fault, including SF and the bay area.

There is no safe side of any fault, and the largest earthquake in the
continental US east of the Rockies was centered in New Madrid, Misery.

Note that the 1906 quake was felt over 6200 sq miles, while the New
Madrid quake (1811) was felt over 1 million sq miles. New Madrid is
within a hundred miles or so of Nashville (Memphis experienced level IX (Violent)
shaking!)

Personally, I'll risk the earthquake over living in tornado alley.


Tornado's Earth Quakes, and Hurricanes. I'll take tornado's over the
other two for one reason, life immediately after the event.

A tornado is very destructive as are earth quakes and hurricanes. I
have been in 5 hurricanes, the third when I was 15. I thought I was
going to die in that hurricane. Anyway it was a direct hit on the the
Corpus Christi area. It took months to to even think about having
repairs made to your home. And that was probably 20-30 thousand residences.

An earth quake is going to likely deliver the same life changing event
for tens of thousands of families.

A tornado is very selective and does not typically do damage over
thousands of square miles. Repairs can usually begin immediate.

And after a tornado you can usually guy groceries, gasoline and probably
go to work the next day for the vast majority.

Major earth quakes and hurricanes typically deliver damage with a broad
stroke, tornados, not so much.


I agree. But I prefer getting it over quick, like in an earthquake.

"Getting it over quick"? The aftermath can take years. There is no
comparison. I'll take tornado alley any time. As Leon pointed out,
tornado damage is pretty isolated and there is almost always warning.

Once it is over then we assess, bid and repair, hiring more men than
usual in order to expedite the jobs.

I am not trying to mitigate the suffering caused, nor the damage.
Hurricanes can last quite a while, tornadoes are quick like
earthquakes and I've seen their aftermath as well when I was living in
Texas.

But it doesn't take _years_ for an area to recover from a tornado.

On 4/21/2017 8:07 PM, OFWW wrote:

I just hope whatever happens Texas survives it all. I consider it my
safety net when the USA falls apart and the Republic of Texas arises.
My escape place.



;!) Yeah, Texas offers most everything.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:48:46 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/21/2017 8:07 PM, OFWW wrote:

I just hope whatever happens Texas survives it all. I consider it my
safety net when the USA falls apart and the Republic of Texas arises.
My escape place.



;!) Yeah, Texas offers most everything.

SWMBO was born in Texas and says that when Texas secedes, she'll claim
her natural born citizenship rights. ;-)

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:8-Sdne5H7a00T2fFnZ2dnUU7-
:

On 4/21/2017 8:07 PM, OFWW wrote:

I just hope whatever happens Texas survives it all. I consider it my
safety net when the USA falls apart and the Republic of Texas arises.
My escape place.



;!) Yeah, Texas offers most everything.


Do you guys have big corn fields in Texas? I think I'd miss them.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 1:30:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:

;!) Yeah, Texas offers most everything.


Do you guys have big corn fields in Texas? I think I'd miss them.

Yessir. Only about 3 MILLION acres of it!

Robert

On 04/22/2017 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 1:30:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:

;!) Yeah, Texas offers most everything.


Do you guys have big corn fields in Texas? I think I'd miss them.

Yessir. Only about 3 MILLION acres of it!

There's some, but nothing approaching corn belt...

Planted acres
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cr-pl.php
Harvested acres
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cr-ha.php
Grain Production
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and...nty/cr-pr.php?

Even KS(!) has almost 5 M A grain corn + another 0.5M A for silage. I
don't know what acreage in IA must be; other than IA isn't all that big
comparatively as a state holds it back...

--

dpb wrote in news
On 04/22/2017 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 1:30:11 PM UTC-5,
wrote:

;!) Yeah, Texas offers most everything.


Do you guys have big corn fields in Texas? I think I'd miss them.

Yessir. Only about 3 MILLION acres of it!

There's some, but nothing approaching corn belt...

Planted acres
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cr-pl.php
Harvested acres
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cr-ha.php
Grain Production
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and...nty/cr-pr.php?

Even KS(!) has almost 5 M A grain corn + another 0.5M A for silage. I
don't know what acreage in IA must be; other than IA isn't all that
big comparatively as a state holds it back...


I've lived in dark green areas (from the first map) most my life. Seeing
corn is as normal as seeing cows between my aunt and grandma's house.

The great thing about those dark green areas is that the entire world
begins anew every 3-4 months. Planting: the corn starts turning the
brown/black soil to a bushy green. Growing: The roads turn into a kind
of tunnel. Harvest: neat nooks and crannies develop. Winter: You can
see for miles and miles.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

On 04/23/2017 12:13 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
....

I've lived in dark green areas (from the first map) most my life. Seeing
corn is as normal as seeing cows between my aunt and grandma's house.

The great thing about those dark green areas is that the entire world
begins anew every 3-4 months. Planting: the corn starts turning the
brown/black soil to a bushy green. Growing: The roads turn into a kind
of tunnel. Harvest: neat nooks and crannies develop. Winter: You can
see for miles and miles.

We're one of those in the tier in the SW corner KS...it's almost all
irrigated, though, so isn't planted full up to the sides of the roads
continuously as is in IA, say. Corners are dedicated to dryland wheat
or sometimes milo or often enrolled in CRP grass. So, it's not closed
in out here; we can see horizon 20+ mi away virtually all the time
unless you're out in it directly.

The high-production areas on the map in TX panhandle are similar as
well...the south TX stuff along the Rio Grand up from the Gulf above
Brownsville is a lot of sweet corn including maternal grandparents old
place that uncle/cousins have now...it's much smaller scale/different
style farming down there...truck farming, citrus, etc., than commodity
grain production...

--

OFWW writes:


Considering all the historic quakes on this fault, I find that
statement to be implausible, if not completely false. Particularly
given Loma Prieta, which was the San Andreas and didn't destroy
either SF or Berkeley. No more than Northridge or Sylmar destroyed
LA.

Actually the damage to LA was great.

Not when compared with 1906. And that's because of lessons learned from
Long Beach and Sylmar. From a cost basis, it cost less than Katrina.
Yes, it caused damage, for the most part relatively minor, and the
bulk of which affected soft-story apartment buildings in the valley.

the Northridge/SM earthquake
damage was wide spread. Houses shaken off their foundations, buildings
cracked, just to name a few. As far as downtown proper then the
Burbank earthquake did more.

On 04/24/2017 8:28 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:


Considering all the historic quakes on this fault, I find that
statement to be implausible, if not completely false. Particularly
given Loma Prieta, which was the San Andreas and didn't destroy
either SF or Berkeley. No more than Northridge or Sylmar destroyed
LA.

Actually the damage to LA was great.

Not when compared with 1906. And that's because of lessons learned from
Long Beach and Sylmar. From a cost basis, it cost less than Katrina.
Yes, it caused damage, for the most part relatively minor, and the
bulk of which affected soft-story apartment buildings in the valley.
....

All will depend on precise location and intensity...1906 was roughly
7.7-7.9 only 2 mi off coast of SF; 1989 was 6.9 (10X less energy) and
roughly 50-60 mi S.

In contrast, New Madrid 1811 comprised of a ~7.7 followed by a 7.4
"aftershock" only 6 hours later the same day and another ~7.4 roughly 5
weeks after. At that time the area was pretty-much still undeveloped so
not a lot of structural damage. Created what is now Reelfoot Lake;
eyewitness accounts say south of the location the Mississippi R ran
backwards for several minutes while the new depression created filled...

--

On 04/24/2017 9:05 AM, dpb wrote:
....

All will depend on precise location and intensity...1906 was roughly
7.7-7.9 only 2 mi off coast of SF; 1989 was 6.9 (10X less energy) and
roughly 50-60 mi S.
....

Been _a_long_time_ since did any of the earthquake study work for the
DOE facilities wherein had to do some reading-up, but iirc at least then
the thinking was that because the San Andreas fault lies roughly 8-10 mi
in depth, it's top potential is in the neighborhood of 8 on Richter
scale. So, the upper-7's are getting close.

OTOH, Alaska 1964(?) was like 9.0-9.2 and the Chilean in early '60s was
largest recorded at 9.5. Something like that, if it were to actually
occur much of anywhere in the CA fault area would be truly devastating.

That's kinda' what most people envision in "the big one" for CA, but
afaik, while there's inevitably going to be more major quakes, that
magnitude isn't thought to be likely at all, fortunately.

The _real_ US disaster will be when the Yellowstone caldera goes "boom"
again...

--

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message ...

"Bob La Londe" writes:
In some circles its called Shabby Chique. I call it Crappy Crud.

My current house (been here since 2005 now) had been on the market for a
while because of this ****. I took the stupid rolling barn door off the
pantry and sold it at a yard sale. Boom gone. The inane corrugated metal
they had covering lot of the walls came down even quicker. I only bought
it
because I could see there really was a house behind their pile of refuse.


** There is no accounting for taste. Your taste or theirs.

That's certainly true. Although they took my first offer without
countering. I guess I wasn't the only one who didn't share their tastes.

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:28:22 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

OFWW writes:


Considering all the historic quakes on this fault, I find that
statement to be implausible, if not completely false. Particularly
given Loma Prieta, which was the San Andreas and didn't destroy
either SF or Berkeley. No more than Northridge or Sylmar destroyed
LA.

Actually the damage to LA was great.

Not when compared with 1906. And that's because of lessons learned from
Long Beach and Sylmar. From a cost basis, it cost less than Katrina.
Yes, it caused damage, for the most part relatively minor, and the
bulk of which affected soft-story apartment buildings in the valley.


Sylmar was way after 1906, Long beach I don't remember, I do remember
the earthquake in Bakersfield. Less damage only because of less people
and bldgs. Earth moved a full city block splitting the highway.

the Northridge/SM earthquake
damage was wide spread. Houses shaken off their foundations, buildings
cracked, just to name a few. As far as downtown proper then the
Burbank earthquake did more.

Never bothered equating this with Katrina, different problems, and
mostly they were never prepared for this with a lot of older bldgs
which did not meet current codes. Same kind of problem will plague the
Midwest, east, etc. since their bldgs for the most part where never
designed to be earthquake resistant.

None of it pretty.

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:34:22 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 04/24/2017 9:05 AM, dpb wrote:
...

All will depend on precise location and intensity...1906 was roughly
7.7-7.9 only 2 mi off coast of SF; 1989 was 6.9 (10X less energy) and
roughly 50-60 mi S.
...

Been _a_long_time_ since did any of the earthquake study work for the
DOE facilities wherein had to do some reading-up, but iirc at least then
the thinking was that because the San Andreas fault lies roughly 8-10 mi
in depth, it's top potential is in the neighborhood of 8 on Richter
scale. So, the upper-7's are getting close.

OTOH, Alaska 1964(?) was like 9.0-9.2 and the Chilean in early '60s was
largest recorded at 9.5. Something like that, if it were to actually
occur much of anywhere in the CA fault area would be truly devastating.

That's kinda' what most people envision in "the big one" for CA, but
afaik, while there's inevitably going to be more major quakes, that
magnitude isn't thought to be likely at all, fortunately.

The _real_ US disaster will be when the Yellowstone caldera goes "boom"
again...

BOY HOWDY! That is supposed to effectively wipe out many states,
totally.

OFWW writes:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:28:22 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

OFWW writes:


Considering all the historic quakes on this fault, I find that
statement to be implausible, if not completely false. Particularly
given Loma Prieta, which was the San Andreas and didn't destroy
either SF or Berkeley. No more than Northridge or Sylmar destroyed
LA.

Actually the damage to LA was great.

Not when compared with 1906. And that's because of lessons learned from
Long Beach and Sylmar. From a cost basis, it cost less than Katrina.
Yes, it caused damage, for the most part relatively minor, and the
bulk of which affected soft-story apartment buildings in the valley.


Sylmar was way after 1906, Long beach I don't remember, I do remember
the earthquake in Bakersfield.

Sylmar was 1971. Long Beach was 1934. In both cases,
building codes were changed immediately thereafter statewide.

On 04/28/2017 7:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
....

building codes were changed immediately thereafter statewide.

Which is all well and good for what has been built since; doesn't help
the 100 yo infrastructure like the gas distribution system, etc., etc., ...

And, of course, we'll learn how effective the Code changes were, too...

--

dpb writes:
On 04/28/2017 7:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
...

building codes were changed immediately thereafter statewide.

Which is all well and good for what has been built since; doesn't help
the 100 yo infrastructure like the gas distribution system, etc., etc., ...

There's very little "100 yo" _anything_ in California.


And, of course, we'll learn how effective the Code changes were, too...

We did learn that they were _very_ effective in 1987, 1989 and 1992.

Particularly bolting the frame to the foundation, which, IIRC,
was proposed after 1934 (long beach).

On 04/28/2017 1:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
....

Which is all well and good for what has been built since; doesn't help
the 100 yo infrastructure like the gas distribution system, etc., etc., ...

There's very little "100 yo" _anything_ in California.

....

I suspect a fair amount of LA County (say) gas distribution is quite a
lot older than you may think plus other metro areas have also been
around for quite a while.

--

On 04/28/2017 5:32 PM, dpb wrote:
On 04/28/2017 1:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
...

Which is all well and good for what has been built since; doesn't help
the 100 yo infrastructure like the gas distribution system, etc.,
etc., ...

There's very little "100 yo" _anything_ in California.

...

I suspect a fair amount of LA County (say) gas distribution is quite a
lot older than you may think plus other metro areas have also been
around for quite a while.

....

"The pipe that caused the destruction at UCLA was 93 years old (from
1921), but that's on the younger side of things; the LA Times says most
pipes were installed around 1910"

I didn't find specifics on gas which is a key component in fire after
EQ, but I'd be surprised if the same general time frame isn't quite
common for the larger mains.

--