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.