On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:17:08 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:51:50 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:42:05 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


Hurricanes are all wimped out by the time they hit LonGuyland. And if
NYC ever did have a decent quake (which it will, eventually) it will
be a pile of smoking rubble.

---
Since NYC wasn't built above a geologically active zone, how do you
figure that?


Well, I read things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthqu...rk_City _Area

"A 2008 study argued that a magnitude 6 or 7 earthquake might
originate from the Ramapo fault zone,[3] which would almost definitely
spawn hundreds or even thousands of fatalities and billions of dollars
in damage."

Try it some time.

---
Cherry picking?
---

(Having lived in New Orleans and San Francisco, I figure that
hurricanes are a lot more dangerous than earthquakes.)

---
Rather provincial figuring.

Personal experience, backed up by mortality statistics.

---
Still provincial.
---

In order to come up with a more accurate estimate, I think you need to
assay the damage done, worldwide, by hurricanes and earthquakes, and
then post your findings.

Will you?

Google it yourself.

---
You're the one making the claim, so you're the one who should back it
up.
---

A few thousand people have died in earthquakes in
the USA in modern history, most in the 1906 SF quake, probably less
than died in the great Galveston storm of 1900. Only about 80 died
here in the '89 quake. Katrina alone killed about 1500.

Of course it's different in other countries like China that have worse
quakes but no hurricanes. Or Haiti, which has both.

The USA statistics would change severely if New Madrid broke again. A
lot of the east and midwest have no seismic building standards.

---
Blah, blah, blah...

--
JF