I get the impression that, unless it happens 10 to 20 years from now, you can pretty much write the PNW off. Zero salvageable infrastructure and a death toll that adds up to a sizable percentage of the population with little to no chance of recovery economically or socially for decades, if at all.
It'll scar the North American nations - Settler and Indigenous - for the next century at minimum, barring a series of miracles. As badly as the Trump Regime has done, or worse.
Hmm yeah.. they're both a disaster of about the same magnitude.
Although, if it happens anytime soon, given how fragile America is right now, it'll shatter the country I suspect. I mean, it would be hard to cope with that level of destruction and displacement of people at the best of times. The way things stand now, with the Spray-tan Don at the helm, I'd expect the rescue services and the economy to be very quickly overwhelmed, and Washington D.C to essentially abandon the West coast to their fate, with little or no help, the same as they did to Puerto Rico.
I'd imagine that wouldn't go down well, might be the final straw that breaks the camels back, or rather, the Union.
>> Although, if it happens anytime soon, given how fragile America is right now, it'll shatter the country I suspect. I mean, it would be hard to cope with that level of destruction and displacement of people at the best of times.<<
America is in no way equipped to handle a disaster of that magnitude, even if people were acting in concert. All the infrastructure connections -- roads, bridges, pipes, docks, etc. -- will be severed. We don't have enough cargo aircraft to supply the number of survivors. We don't have enough shelters to put them in. We don't have a system for swiftly transporting refugees out of a disaster area and settling them in houses and jobs elsewhere. America has performed very badly in previous examples such as the Dustbowl and Hurricane Katrina; this will be many times worse. In fact, the West Coast still uses Okie as a slur. It makes me wonder if Oklahoma will show them how it's supposed to be done ... or turn them away, laughing "Now it's our turn."
>> The way things stand now, with the Spray-tan Don at the helm, I'd expect the rescue services and the economy to be very quickly overwhelmed, and Washington D.C to essentially abandon the West coast to their fate, with little or no help, the same as they did to Puerto Rico. <<
There is one critical difference: the West Coast provides a vast amount of America's food supply, and all or nearly all of many categories of produce. Few people in power know that, but it would come to their attention very quickly. But there's nothing to be done about it. You can't raise crops in a disaster area, especially with the waterlines all cut. If people expended maximum effort, they might save some of the perennials like grapevines and almond trees, but everything else is a total loss. Either it dies on the vine because people are busy surviving, or it gets eaten by locals because there's little food coming in and no way out. That means the rest of the country takes an instant hit to the food supply that won't recover for at least a year, and serious impacts would last much longer.
>> I'd imagine that wouldn't go down well, might be the final straw that breaks the camels back, or rather, the Union.<<
>> But there's nothing to be done about it. You can't raise crops in a disaster area, especially with the waterlines all cut. If people expended maximum effort, they might save some of the perennials like grapevines and almond trees, but everything else is a total loss.
Given how much water and care almond trees require I'd write them off. They really shouldn't be grown in that part of California.
A lot of things shouldn't be grown where they are. But if we write off the ones currently there, then we lose that crop for years to come. Almonds aren't like lettuce you can restart in a few weeks. They take about 5 years to start producing, and longer to a full crop. California produces 80% of the world's almonds and 100% of the United States’ commercial supply. Lose those trees, and effectively lose commercial almond production globally for at least 5 years. That is not a good thing at all. And it's not the only crop where that's true.
California alone produces 25% of America's food and 40% of its fruits, vegetables, and nuts. If we lose the West Coast food production, the rest of America goes hungry about 3 days later and many other countries take a bad hit also. We can in theory raise many foods elsewhere -- most of the same vegetables will grow in the South or Midwest -- but farmers there aren't equipped for that. T-America managed a big shift quickly, but they were both lucky in timing and much better prepared. We couldn't do that here even with the same timing.
If this distresses you, the best thing individuals can do to fight it is eat local. The more we do that, the higher the demand for farmers to diversify, so that more produce is grown locally instead of shipped from California. That will slightly reduce the damage and greatly improve the recovery, because it's much easier to expand an established farm than to start from scratch.
That's true too. However, if we moved out the rest of the crops, there might be enough left for the few that would be difficult or impossible to move elsewhere. You can grow tomatoes anywhere; not so with almonds, olives, or even grapes.
It's likely that in a disaster, it won't be possible to salvage anything. But if it is, eat the annuals and try to save the longest-lived perennials.
I don't know if any rancherias were placed directly in the kill zone, but some West Coast tribes had taboos about living or camping in certain areas precisely because they had oral tradition about previous wipeouts. You don't camp on the beach, you get your fish and then go camp in the hills, in case Whale and Eagle start fighting again. Or whatever their local version was.
>> I get the impression that, unless it happens 10 to 20 years from now, you can pretty much write the PNW off. <<
Exactly.
>> Zero salvageable infrastructure <<
Even if it happens later, the losses will be very heavy unless people remove all the previous construction and replace it with the most robust things mankind can make -- or simply leave the area altogether. People don't want to do those things.
And even if they replaced the infrastructure, the fact is we can't make things that would reliably survive anything in the 9+ range. That takes tech we just don't have yet. The most we could do is somewhat reduce the damage from total obliteration to merely mass destruction. There's no way to keep a road or bridge or pipe from disconnecting when two pieces of land part company by 60 feet. The only buildings likely to survive intact are monolithic domes.
>> and a death toll that adds up to a sizable percentage of the population <<
In several places, the death toll will approach totality due to specific details of their shape. Those really should be closed, but people insist on living in lethal places.
The best we could do that people might actually put up with is harm reduction. Move the most vulnerable facilities -- hospitals, schools, nursing homes, etc. -- out of the kill zone. Also move homes and hotels out of there. Leave it only for recreation. At least that way, you won't have helpless people or sleepers routinely in the path of certain death. The way it's set up now, many towns will lose 100% of their vulnerable parties.
It's not just your own death you're risking. It's survival in a town that just lost every child because the school's so-called safety zone was 10 feet below the floodline and everyone knew it. And that's a pretty good example of hell on earth. Who wants to be the school board member or mayor that survives such a loss? But they don't think about that.
>> with little to no chance of recovery economically or socially for decades, if at all. <<
No shit. Even in T-America, which was much more prepared than here, it's never going back like it was, not even close. The 5 Minutes That Changed Everything.
I find it interesting (and promising) that a number of places along the coast seem to be working on or planning vertical evacuation solutions. I like this solution personally https://www.opb.org/news/article/tsunami-washington-long-beach-safe/ (it seems likely to be relatively easy to build and the flat space on top could also be used for civic functions or other things) but other places are using existing hills or building civic buildings/schools that are reinforced and have vertical evacuation space on top. While it's not a complete solution by any means, it does seem like one good place to start tackling what probably looks to many people like an impossible problem.
>> it seems likely to be relatively easy to build and the flat space on top could also be used for civic functions or other things <<
I've also seen evacuation towers with a base of open metalwork, which would simply let the water flow through with minimal resistance. Those are probably cheaper, and certainly faster to build.
The problem is that unless you build enough of these things, they turn into death traps, because everyone will try to pile onto them and many will be crushed to death. The only way to avoid that is to have more than you need.
>> other places are using existing hills or building civic buildings/schools that are reinforced and have vertical evacuation space on top. <<
The problem is that most of those aren't actually high enough or strong enough to be safe. People are using what they have, not what they need. Death traps. In many towns, that means they'll lose 100% of the schoolchildren.
>>While it's not a complete solution by any means, it does seem like one good place to start tackling <<
It's better than doing nothing, perhaps, but it could easily wind up being worse than useless if they don't do it right, and they don't have the money to do it right.
>>what probably looks to many people like an impossible problem.<<
It's not an impossible problem. There are many things people could do, most of which they either don't want or can't afford.
Among the simplest:
* Stop approving new construction in the kill zone. Don't make the current problem worse.
* Shift all new construction to safe inland locations.
* Prioritize closing vulnerable facilities like schools, hospitals, and nursing homes in the kill zone; replace them with new structures in safe places. I've seen one place start building an auxiliary town on the cliffs, with a hospital and a few houses.
* Then roll back the residential and hotel structures so that the only things left in the kill zone are for daytime recreation. Don't let anyone new move into that area. Just not having sleepers there will reduce the death toll.
* Every city should have a "sister city" somewhere else whose hazard season is a different time of year, although earthquakes can happen at any time so it's less relevant in this case. Form a connection by visiting each other and sharing cultural material, and stock emergency supplies suited to the number of possible refugees. Then you each have somewhere familiar to go when disaster strikes, and it spreads out the refugees so they don't all crowd into a few places.
Many of these preparations cost no money, they're just about refocusing where things get done. But they don't happen because people want to live in the kill zone.
I'll almost certainly be one of the casualties. I could muddle thru for a while on food. Water might be a problem. and I can handle many of my meds.
What will kill *me* will be the loss of power. I've got sleep apnea. so if the power goes, I don't sleep. I may pass out for varying periods, but I won't get any *rest*.
In at most, a few weeks, I'll be useless to myself or anybody else.
So unless I could miraculously get evacuated, I won't make it.
And I'm far from alone in having lack of power be a killer. Unlike some things, you can't really stockpile power. Solar cells would be about the only possibility, but even the small amount of power I'd need is horribly expensive. :-(
Still I can survive a lot of *other* disasters ok.
>>What will kill *me* will be the loss of power. I've got sleep apnea. so if the power goes, I don't sleep. I may pass out for varying periods, but I won't get any *rest*.<<
That sounds like a good reason to move somewhere the risk is more localized. The Midwest may lose a whole town to a tornado, but not a whole state.
>>So unless I could miraculously get evacuated, I won't make it.<<
Well, your fuse is weeks long, not minutes or days like some people. You'd have a good chance of evacuation precisely because your problem wouldn't kill you quickly, but would kill you slowly. That's the kind of person rescuers can save and would be looking for, so if you could make it until they got there, they would try to get you out. Whether they could is another story, of course.
>>And I'm far from alone in having lack of power be a killer. Unlike some things, you can't really stockpile power. Solar cells would be about the only possibility, but even the small amount of power I'd need is horribly expensive. :-( <<
Stockpile, no; produce, yes. While it's risky to run things on calories in a survival situation, most Americans are packing a lot of fat-batteries. Do you know how to rig up electrical supply from a bicycle? If not, consider learning. In a total disaster scenario, there will be loose crap everywhere that can be scavenged and used, and lots of people. Put them together and you can have power, which can save lives.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2020-02-09 06:22 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-02-09 02:58 pm (UTC)(link)Although, if it happens anytime soon, given how fragile America is right now, it'll shatter the country I suspect. I mean, it would be hard to cope with that level of destruction and displacement of people at the best of times. The way things stand now, with the Spray-tan Don at the helm, I'd expect the rescue services and the economy to be very quickly overwhelmed, and Washington D.C to essentially abandon the West coast to their fate, with little or no help, the same as they did to Puerto Rico.
I'd imagine that wouldn't go down well, might be the final straw that breaks the camels back, or rather, the Union.
Thoughts
America is in no way equipped to handle a disaster of that magnitude, even if people were acting in concert. All the infrastructure connections -- roads, bridges, pipes, docks, etc. -- will be severed. We don't have enough cargo aircraft to supply the number of survivors. We don't have enough shelters to put them in. We don't have a system for swiftly transporting refugees out of a disaster area and settling them in houses and jobs elsewhere. America has performed very badly in previous examples such as the Dustbowl and Hurricane Katrina; this will be many times worse. In fact, the West Coast still uses Okie as a slur. It makes me wonder if Oklahoma will show them how it's supposed to be done ... or turn them away, laughing "Now it's our turn."
>> The way things stand now, with the Spray-tan Don at the helm, I'd expect the rescue services and the economy to be very quickly overwhelmed, and Washington D.C to essentially abandon the West coast to their fate, with little or no help, the same as they did to Puerto Rico. <<
There is one critical difference: the West Coast provides a vast amount of America's food supply, and all or nearly all of many categories of produce. Few people in power know that, but it would come to their attention very quickly. But there's nothing to be done about it. You can't raise crops in a disaster area, especially with the waterlines all cut. If people expended maximum effort, they might save some of the perennials like grapevines and almond trees, but everything else is a total loss. Either it dies on the vine because people are busy surviving, or it gets eaten by locals because there's little food coming in and no way out. That means the rest of the country takes an instant hit to the food supply that won't recover for at least a year, and serious impacts would last much longer.
>> I'd imagine that wouldn't go down well, might be the final straw that breaks the camels back, or rather, the Union.<<
I wouldn't be surprised.
Re: Thoughts
Given how much water and care almond trees require I'd write them off. They really shouldn't be grown in that part of California.
Re: Thoughts
California alone produces 25% of America's food and 40% of its fruits, vegetables, and nuts. If we lose the West Coast food production, the rest of America goes hungry about 3 days later and many other countries take a bad hit also. We can in theory raise many foods elsewhere -- most of the same vegetables will grow in the South or Midwest -- but farmers there aren't equipped for that. T-America managed a big shift quickly, but they were both lucky in timing and much better prepared. We couldn't do that here even with the same timing.
If this distresses you, the best thing individuals can do to fight it is eat local. The more we do that, the higher the demand for farmers to diversify, so that more produce is grown locally instead of shipped from California. That will slightly reduce the damage and greatly improve the recovery, because it's much easier to expand an established farm than to start from scratch.
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
It's likely that in a disaster, it won't be possible to salvage anything. But if it is, eat the annuals and try to save the longest-lived perennials.
Well ...
Yes ...
Exactly.
>> Zero salvageable infrastructure <<
Even if it happens later, the losses will be very heavy unless people remove all the previous construction and replace it with the most robust things mankind can make -- or simply leave the area altogether. People don't want to do those things.
And even if they replaced the infrastructure, the fact is we can't make things that would reliably survive anything in the 9+ range. That takes tech we just don't have yet. The most we could do is somewhat reduce the damage from total obliteration to merely mass destruction. There's no way to keep a road or bridge or pipe from disconnecting when two pieces of land part company by 60 feet. The only buildings likely to survive intact are monolithic domes.
>> and a death toll that adds up to a sizable percentage of the population <<
In several places, the death toll will approach totality due to specific details of their shape. Those really should be closed, but people insist on living in lethal places.
The best we could do that people might actually put up with is harm reduction. Move the most vulnerable facilities -- hospitals, schools, nursing homes, etc. -- out of the kill zone. Also move homes and hotels out of there. Leave it only for recreation. At least that way, you won't have helpless people or sleepers routinely in the path of certain death. The way it's set up now, many towns will lose 100% of their vulnerable parties.
It's not just your own death you're risking. It's survival in a town that just lost every child because the school's so-called safety zone was 10 feet below the floodline and everyone knew it. And that's a pretty good example of hell on earth. Who wants to be the school board member or mayor that survives such a loss? But they don't think about that.
>> with little to no chance of recovery economically or socially for decades, if at all. <<
No shit. Even in T-America, which was much more prepared than here, it's never going back like it was, not even close. The 5 Minutes That Changed Everything.
no subject
no subject
Thoughts
I've also seen evacuation towers with a base of open metalwork, which would simply let the water flow through with minimal resistance. Those are probably cheaper, and certainly faster to build.
The problem is that unless you build enough of these things, they turn into death traps, because everyone will try to pile onto them and many will be crushed to death. The only way to avoid that is to have more than you need.
>> other places are using existing hills or building civic buildings/schools that are reinforced and have vertical evacuation space on top. <<
The problem is that most of those aren't actually high enough or strong enough to be safe. People are using what they have, not what they need. Death traps. In many towns, that means they'll lose 100% of the schoolchildren.
>>While it's not a complete solution by any means, it does seem like one good place to start tackling <<
It's better than doing nothing, perhaps, but it could easily wind up being worse than useless if they don't do it right, and they don't have the money to do it right.
>>what probably looks to many people like an impossible problem.<<
It's not an impossible problem. There are many things people could do, most of which they either don't want or can't afford.
Among the simplest:
* Stop approving new construction in the kill zone. Don't make the current problem worse.
* Shift all new construction to safe inland locations.
* Prioritize closing vulnerable facilities like schools, hospitals, and nursing homes in the kill zone; replace them with new structures in safe places. I've seen one place start building an auxiliary town on the cliffs, with a hospital and a few houses.
* Then roll back the residential and hotel structures so that the only things left in the kill zone are for daytime recreation. Don't let anyone new move into that area. Just not having sleepers there will reduce the death toll.
* Every city should have a "sister city" somewhere else whose hazard season is a different time of year, although earthquakes can happen at any time so it's less relevant in this case. Form a connection by visiting each other and sharing cultural material, and stock emergency supplies suited to the number of possible refugees. Then you each have somewhere familiar to go when disaster strikes, and it spreads out the refugees so they don't all crowd into a few places.
Many of these preparations cost no money, they're just about refocusing where things get done. But they don't happen because people want to live in the kill zone.
*shrug* Darwin Award.
no subject
What will kill *me* will be the loss of power. I've got sleep apnea. so if the power goes, I don't sleep. I may pass out for varying periods, but I won't get any *rest*.
In at most, a few weeks, I'll be useless to myself or anybody else.
So unless I could miraculously get evacuated, I won't make it.
And I'm far from alone in having lack of power be a killer. Unlike some things, you can't really stockpile power. Solar cells would be about the only possibility, but even the small amount of power I'd need is horribly expensive. :-(
Still I can survive a lot of *other* disasters ok.
Thoughts
That sounds like a good reason to move somewhere the risk is more localized. The Midwest may lose a whole town to a tornado, but not a whole state.
>>So unless I could miraculously get evacuated, I won't make it.<<
Well, your fuse is weeks long, not minutes or days like some people. You'd have a good chance of evacuation precisely because your problem wouldn't kill you quickly, but would kill you slowly. That's the kind of person rescuers can save and would be looking for, so if you could make it until they got there, they would try to get you out. Whether they could is another story, of course.
>>And I'm far from alone in having lack of power be a killer. Unlike some things, you can't really stockpile power. Solar cells would be about the only possibility, but even the small amount of power I'd need is horribly expensive. :-( <<
Stockpile, no; produce, yes. While it's risky to run things on calories in a survival situation, most Americans are packing a lot of fat-batteries. Do you know how to rig up electrical supply from a bicycle? If not, consider learning. In a total disaster scenario, there will be loose crap everywhere that can be scavenged and used, and lots of people. Put them together and you can have power, which can save lives.