On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:11:57 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:13:22 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

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

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

Last I read they found a new interconnecting fault junction with one
that runs through Long Beach IIRC. The resulting Tsunami on the coast
here would be atrocious. It sure boosts the economy afterwards if you
are in the trades.

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!)

Perhaps, but to them a 2.5 feels like the world is coming to an end. A
Californian barely feels anything smaller than a 5.2.

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

We are near New Madrid, MO. have had three earthquakes largest was 4.
something. Those were from faults up in south west Indiana. The quakes
here happen are much deeper in the crust than west coast. We also
first lived in Murphysboro, IL, one of the towns destroyed by the Tri
State Tornado in 1925.

Won't do hurricanes had enough of tropical storms in North Carolina.

You have to live somewhere making your choices based upon possible
natural disasters gives Murphy's law way to much possiblities of
****ing with you.

For sure!