On 4/21/2017 8:00 AM, 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.


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.