I Heard That California Has More Then A 99% Chance Of Having A Really Big Earthquake.. I Want To Know If Its Possible For It Not To Happen. I Live Near The San Andreas Fault Line.
-
There is a possibility that California will have a very large earthquake.
However, as you have asked, it is not impossible that it will never occur. Many transform faults (like the San Andreas Fault System) experience many smaller episodes of movement rather than saving it up for one giant earthquake. In fact, there is a town in California that sits right on the fault (it runs through the middle of town) where they experience almost continuous earthquakes -- that no one ever feels. The fault at this location is basically just slipping past itself, greased up by a talc mineral that is practically a natural soap. Unfortunately, as I type this, the name of that town is completely slipping my mind. It starts with a P and is in the middle... anyway.
If there is "the Big One" it is likely -- but not necessarily -- going to occur in one of two places. Either in southern California where it gets stuck in the mountains and has to cram up in a sharp turn to the west, then north. Or... in the Bay Area where it makes a sharp turn to the west at Point Reyes.
I'll also address the issue of "the Big One." Based on the type of fault and historic data, the likelihood of the San Andreas or any of its tributary faults experiencing anything above an 8.0+ is extremely unlikely. The largest quake ever recorded along the San Andreas was the 1906 San Francisco quake, which has been generally estimated and agreed upon at a moment magnitude of 7.7. The Northridge Earthquake in 1994 was a 6.7. So "the Big One" is probably not even possible to be as big as people like to get upset and shout about.
Now.. it doesn't mean that they weren't powerful and destructive. But it does mean that particularly with modern building codes, structure siting, materials and so forth, that even getting another 7.7 is not going to have the destruction that we saw before. In fact, even the 7.7 in 1906 that we saw really isn't as destructive as it looks. Most of the damage was done by the ensuing fires, not the earthquake (including the fire department dynamiting buildings to try to stop the fire -- true story). You won't see cities crumbling to the ground, you won't see private residences in a mass collapse. The biggest problem would likely be the disruption of infrastructure, meaning electricity, gas, water, sewage and transportation.
However, as you have asked, it is not impossible that it will never occur. Many transform faults (like the San Andreas Fault System) experience many smaller episodes of movement rather than saving it up for one giant earthquake. In fact, there is a town in California that sits right on the fault (it runs through the middle of town) where they experience almost continuous earthquakes -- that no one ever feels. The fault at this location is basically just slipping past itself, greased up by a talc mineral that is practically a natural soap. Unfortunately, as I type this, the name of that town is completely slipping my mind. It starts with a P and is in the middle... anyway.
If there is "the Big One" it is likely -- but not necessarily -- going to occur in one of two places. Either in southern California where it gets stuck in the mountains and has to cram up in a sharp turn to the west, then north. Or... in the Bay Area where it makes a sharp turn to the west at Point Reyes.
I'll also address the issue of "the Big One." Based on the type of fault and historic data, the likelihood of the San Andreas or any of its tributary faults experiencing anything above an 8.0+ is extremely unlikely. The largest quake ever recorded along the San Andreas was the 1906 San Francisco quake, which has been generally estimated and agreed upon at a moment magnitude of 7.7. The Northridge Earthquake in 1994 was a 6.7. So "the Big One" is probably not even possible to be as big as people like to get upset and shout about.
Now.. it doesn't mean that they weren't powerful and destructive. But it does mean that particularly with modern building codes, structure siting, materials and so forth, that even getting another 7.7 is not going to have the destruction that we saw before. In fact, even the 7.7 in 1906 that we saw really isn't as destructive as it looks. Most of the damage was done by the ensuing fires, not the earthquake (including the fire department dynamiting buildings to try to stop the fire -- true story). You won't see cities crumbling to the ground, you won't see private residences in a mass collapse. The biggest problem would likely be the disruption of infrastructure, meaning electricity, gas, water, sewage and transportation.
12
keywords: Is,Earthquake,For,Not,It,Happen,To,The,California,Possible,Big,Is It Possible For The Big California Earthquake Not To Happen