Call me paranoid, but when I was in SF I was very conscious of the unstable earth beneath my feet. Californians seem to ignore the danger and rely greatly on their excellent warning systems, but there are inherent dangers to living in one of the most seismically active places on earth that are ignored at their certain peril. Living in California means that in many ways you have the best of things and the worst of things in America; Californians are quite accepting of that fact and live their lives without much concern for the inevitable. It is an interesting mindset and somewhat unique to this area of the country.A book I've ranted and raved about, and suggest every single California resident read, is A Crack In The Edge Of The World, by Simon Winchester. The book is a historical study of the San Andreas fault, how settlers approached living through natural disasters, how dramatically such a seismically active area can affect the landscape, and most beautifully he recreates the morning of the "big one" using historical accounts from survivors. Mr. Winchester is an Oxford-trained geologist and an author of many excellent books - his writing style is captivating and engrossing. Why do I bring up the book? Because he studies the historical nonchalance with which Californians choose to approach any risks to living where they do. This mindset, according to Mr. Winchester, originated with the risk-averse settlers that put everything on the line to migrate to the mine fields in the mid-19th century. Also, he mentions something very, very prescient to current events.
Yesterday, southern California was struck with a magnitude 5.4 earthquake, the epicenter of which was a few miles east of downtown Los Angeles. In Winchester's book he mentions in particular that seismologists have undertaken revealing studies about how very seismically active areas often suffer smaller earthquakes before a much larger one. Lo and behold, today an article discusses the subject.
One of the most alarming facts of this situation I have found was from a different article in the SF Chronicle, which was special report regarding the exodus of the middle class in their fair city.
SF residents are becoming a dramatically richer demographic as a result of high property values. Many regular folks simply can't afford to live where they work, and the statistics are alarming. The article is a good read in any case, but in particular I found this a very, very scary situation -High housing prices are also a key reason that among 2,227 sworn police officers in San Francisco, only 675 live in the city, a little more than 30 percent, said Gary Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association.
The nightmare consequence of this would be an evening earthquake that shuts down BART and bridges, blocking two-thirds of the city's police officers and large percentages of other first responders from quickly attending to life-threatening building collapses, injuries or fires.
In other words, it is certain that a vast percentage of law enforcement and first responders will not be able to access the city during the time of its most vital need when an earthquake strikes. If you live in SF, you better think carefully about that. It seems apparent that if another massive quake hits the Bay Area that San Francisco may very well suffer just as badly, if not worse, than the city did in 1906 despite all of the better construction techniques and warning systems. If many first responders cannot access the city, how will a massive fire like North Beach suffered in 1906 be stopped? How can an orderly evacuation be conducted, if at all? What about triage? I hope their first responder plan is water tight despite what seems to be an alarming weakness. Part of the warning system relies on seismologists monitoring murmurs that indicate an earthquake is coming, but there is no way to predict exactly when an earthquake will strike.
The good news for ol' Frisco is that the area truly due for a big one is southern California. Los Angeles suffered an earthquake in the early 1800's that, based on survivors' accounts, was at least as severe if not more severe than the one that struck in 1906. La La Land is overdue, but in truth the San Andreas Fault could rupture anywhere and the scientists say that enough pressure has built up along the fault line to expect another big one within 30 years.
Yes I know you aren't criticizing me Personaly. There is one thing that I should clarify a bit. There are some people who think the levy system was made bad on purpose and that there was no response because the people where poor and black and Bush hates those people, that is a step or two past what I think. Yes it is an jump to think that the response was slow because they where poor and black and that if they where white and rich or at least his kind of people That the Army would have been there the next day. I do know that there is red tape and the government moves slow but it shouldn't be that way. If an earth quake hits, there are 25 feet of snow, or some other natural diesater hits then the government some branch of the military needs to just step up. There shouldn't be "Well we have to see if it a national Diesater, then once it is then we can send people into help". It should also be about going to help not about giving the local people money to rebuild stuff. Go in there put troops (oh yeah I'm sorry there in a country that had nothing to do with an attack on us) there and get other feds there to help the locals and get people out (watch a movie and see how they do it there and get some ideas). I think since the feds do move slow the any city should have plans, so should each county and each state. I do think response to SF would be quicker (wait Bush doesn't like the gays so maybe it would be slower, but he likes baseball and they have a team but it isn't texas, kidding) but with how the feds move not quick enough so that is why local people have to come up with there own plans.
On a side Note I haven't been there since I was a young kid and it would be great to go back again. To bad you didn't get any Chocalate. I went to a trader Joes in Carolina and they had there own beer there, it seemed like a pretty nice place.
(e:tiny) - you know, I stayed at a hotel in the Wharf, not too far from the Ghirardelli building. My last day I took some contraband down by the water, to watch the sun cast itself lower and lower off of the Golden Gate, Marin Co., and generally absorb the mountains and the beauty of it all. It was a really nice evening. I hated leaving - I had superlative after superlative for the city that I told (e:ajay), (e:twisted) and my friends that live there. I didn't get any chocolate though! I spent my time that evening eating at an Italian restaurant, walking down Columbus and back through the Wharf to a Trader Joe's, where I bought a bunch of snacks and juice, then back to the hotel where I watched KQED for the night. They show a lot more partisan stuff on their public TV.
(e:peter) - Hey man, I'm not criticizing you for having an opinion. I think you know that. It's well thought out. I'm just saying that I've heard these things in the past and feel that it is a lot of supposition. I think we got caught with our pants down in a major way in a disaster that many said was inevitable. It was only inevitable that the poorest among the citizens would have the hardest time in a disaster like that, and I think it would be true regardless of where the disaster occurred. I visited NO a year after Katrina happened - I saw exactly what happened to the city because we drove through those poor neighborhoods. Seeing many black people suffering live on TV stirred up a lot of racial bitterness that has always been seething - then people say "well if it were white people this would have never happened!" We don't know that! That is absolutely bogus and I reject that kind of supposition. People have to remember, EVERYBODY suffered greatly in that region of the country and it doesn't help that this particular region is bar none amongst the poorest in the USA. People are almost equating the response to Katrina as some kind of genocide that the government intentionally reacted slowly to fix - that is absolutely insane. The single greatest embarrassment that Katrina laid bare as proof was that the richest country the world has ever seen has little capability to protect its most vulnerable when a disaster occurs. White, black, brown, whatever - that is a scary thought for all of us.
Here is what I believe is the truth. Bush is an idiot (well he like most people listen to he advisers so it isn't all on him) but the current adminestration has been so inempt for years that maybe if it was rich white people they would have got there a day sooner. But what that still comes down to is people not caring. What should have happened is the military shouldn't have waited some one should have been a man and called his buddies and said we are going to help and done something. The fact is in this country there is a class war going on in this country where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer (yes some rich people care and do help out the poor). But most people only care about there own. Now maybe if there something awefull in SF what ever plans they have will get people there in a day instead of 3. In terms of New Orleans why would any body care, no really why would they. When people go visit they go to The French part to party not to go see the poor people but that is true in any city. So if most people don't care why should the government. There was bad planning there because people in power didn't care. Hopefully people in SF and the government care more and have better plans and if something does happen there caring will get them their faster.
Totally flippant comment (and you can't really expect anything else from me) but I think the Bay Area Rapid Folders (BARF) alone make SFO worth living in (not to mention the ban on plastic bags and legal gay marriage). I would totally not mind being killed by an earthquake while I am folding one of Kawahata's complicated insects and drinking Ghirardelli chocolate out of a non-plastic biodegradable cup! ;-)
I am not suggesting that they do not have plans in place, (e:tiny) - what I am suggesting is that they are inherently inadequate for various reasons, some of the most important of which they have absolutely no control over. They can have all the earthquake awareness sessions they want in SF, but the potential damage and loss of life will dwarf any previous U.S. natural disaster by many degrees. Interestingly enough there was a special on two nights ago on History Intl. that dealt with this very subject, with Mr. Winchester participating. They seem inclined to think that if another quake hits SF the city is absolutely doomed because there are far more residents and far more gas lines that will start thousands of fires across the city in combination with lack of access, not to mention that the city of SF itself has no statistics on how many buildings in the city are actually quakeproof. With 2/3 of the city's first responders having no access to the city in the event of a quake that is a serious problem. In the end, SF was an incredibly stupid yet incredibly beautiful place to build a city.
So far I think (e:sara) has the most logical explanation for the mindset - the bigger events are so spread apart that the risk seems minimal in the context of time. I suppose the frequency is tempered with the eventual scale of the disaster. Quakes are just one problem that Californians deal with - mudslides, droughts, power grid issues (brought upon entirely by themselves, I might add), but it is clear that people work through it because of the greatness of everything else.
(e:peter) - I'm not buying the racial/economical crap. I knew someone was going to go there.
Its an interesting question, but despite being aware that motor vehicles are the top cause of accidental death in this country (http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm) how many of the people have stopped driving their cars? The point is risk-taking is an inherent part of life. You are taking a risk the minute you are born. It's part of surviving. What emergency plans are in place, you ask? How do you know that they are not in place? Many workplaces in and around the Bay area have an earthquake preparedness sessions at least once every year. My brother has an earthquake-prepared backpack that was given out by his workplace. I trip on it every time I visit him because he insists on keeping it right by the door. They were apparently taught to run out with the backpack the minute they felt a violent jolt.
I think that SF, LA and lot of places in CA have a big advantage over New Orleans. The people in that state are cared about. I have never been to New Orleans but people where warned (that isn't new) then buses and people with cars left. The people who didn't or couldn't leave where poor black people who lived in poor black areas (not all mostly) yes there where some whites and they where poor to. But when you are poor no one cares, when you are black no one cares, when you don't have the means to leave, no one cares. I will admit that there is a lot of red tape in government. But I think if that flood would have hit Miami Beach or maybe south beach the reaction would have been much different. I think if any major City in SF where hit (yes people would die who shouldn't still) I think the federal and State Governments and maybe even military from that state would mobilize a lot quicker.
I would be interseted in reading that book, though for sure.
A few things...
as a NY-tranplant living in Southern California, I have felt exactly one earthquake in 7 years, and at the time, I could've sworn someone ran into the garages under my apartment with their car - a big "bang" and the room swayed..that's about it.
Some of my friends here in the office felt a bit yesterday, while I, who sit 100 feet away, felt nothing.
I know a few people here who have lived through very bad earthquakes in other areas of California, and of course it's a crazy horrific terrible thing.
I'm still waiting though. I always tend to get a little pissed when I don't feel it. Not that I want the Big One, but fuck!
In regards to post-911 NY activity, and granted I was not in NYC when that happened, but it seemed to me that things didn't exactly go smoothly at first, and that first responders absolutely did have a hard time getting to ground zero. What are you gonna do? That's life.
You also note in your comment that "some things are impossible to plan for" and that's just it. As regular citizens we can do our best. As City planners and emergency preparedness crews we can do our best, but you can't plan for everything. That's where faith comes in, but that's just my opinion.
Of course, and this is the real impetus of my comment, it never ceases to amaze me how people who have lived here (CA) their whole lives, and who have experienced semi-serious earthquakes don't worry about it one bit. When I tell them I'm from Buffalo, they look at me like 1) what a poor soul, and 2) I must be crazy. When I tell them I miss the weather, I must be crazy. Their whole thing is that Buffalo winter is sure to come every year, whereas you could have a good 10, 20, 30 years with no even quasi-serious earhquake, so to them it's a no-brainer. You will probably have the same gut-reaction I did at first (well, fuck, at least I won't die with my fucking house on top of my head, gosh, put on some gloves, you'll be fine). But, seriously, you're right, it's not thought about that much at all in terms of fear.
The bottom line, I think, is that people become accustomed to what they know. Talk to old people in Buffalo and that's the first they say about living in Californa - EARTHQUAKES!!! Just about anyone I know here would much rather deal with that risk occasionally than have the surety of a shitty winter.
I'm somewhere in between...take it as it comes, whaddya gonna do?
I was blown away with SF when I visited. Anybody that has read my journal knows I've been highly critical of their public servants and public policy, but as far as the city goes, it is an interesting, dynamic and diverse place, not to mention the natural beauty that surrounds the area. Before I left, I wrote in my journal at the time - "SF I was wrong about you!" My interest in the subject started when I visited SF in January - I was introduced to the book I've referred to by a friend in SF, who was very passionate about how good the book was. Having been there at the time I drew a great deal of inspiration and appreciated the book a lot, and it lead me to learn more about the history of the state and how governments in the area prepare for earthquakes.
In other words, it is complicated! I love the state of California and feel as if it is a second home, and the more I have learned the more concerned I've become regarding what might happen if another big quake struck in a densely populated area. New Orleans didn't have the amount of complications that SF would in the event of a natural disaster. Katrina proved that we had our pants down in a major way, and I worry about the fact that despite learning as much as we can from our mistakes that a disaster in the Bay Area could be just as ugly, if not worse. First responders would make the difference between life or death for many if a big quake hit... could you imagine 9/11 with limited triage and limited ability to maintain law and order at the outset? That is a serious concern if it is true that a large majority of public servants in SF do not actually live there.
The place and the people are magic and I don't want to see people die as a result of something that *might* have been prevented. I want to live there one day as well, which affects my interest. I'm not saying that their plans are inadequate - I'm just saying that some things are impossible to plan for, and when a vulnerability comes to light people should know about it.
Interesting topic.
More interesting is your passion on the subject.
Where did it come from?