New York and disasters

[alex ballard]

This recent tusami claimity has got me thinking, is NYC ready for a crisis?
Could most NYC buildings survive a Eartquake or Tusami? How fast could we be evactuated? How would NYC's infastructure handle a Hurricane or mass flooding? Would NYers come toghether or fall apart if there was a major disaster? If NYC was destoryed, would it get rebuilt to it's full extent?

[Dynamicdezzy]

Well that is kinda hard to say....NOTHING IS THAT PREDICTABLE!!!! (no offense)

[alex ballard]

We could estimate how many buildings would fare under those conditions. As for the human element, think about past experiences. Some of this thread is about your opinions as well.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I did some searching around.

Most tsunamis are caused by undersea earthquakes in subjuction zones - where tectonic plates come together. There is only a small one in the Atlantic Ocean - near Puerto Rico.

But 25% of recorded tsunamis occur in the Atlantic, usually from huge land slides. In 1755, an 8.6 earthquake at Gorringe Bank off Portugal generated a tsunami. Three 30 ft waves destroyed much of Lisbon.

California researches developed a computer model of an asteroid hitting an ocean. A half-mile wide rock would generate a 400 ft tsunami. This is somewhat more than a scientific exercise, in light of a recent story from
Space.com:

Whew! Asteroid Won't Hit Earth in 2029, Scientists Now Say

Wed Dec 29,10:14 AM ET

Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
SPACE.com

The world can exhale a collective sigh of relief. A newfound asteroid tagged with the highest warning level ever issued will not strike Earth, scientists said Monday.

The giant space rock, named 2004 MN4, was said on Dec. 23 to have an outside shot at hitting the planet on April 13, 2029. The odds climbed as high as 1-in-37, or 2.7 percent, on Monday, Dec. 27.

Researchers had flagged the object as one to monitor very carefully. It was the first asteroid to be ranked 4 on the Torino Scale, a Richter-like measure for potentially threatening space rocks. The asteroid is about a quarter mile (400 meters) wide, large enough to cause considerable local or regional damage were it to hit the planet.

All along, scientists said additional observations would likely reduce the chance of impact to zero for the April 13 scenario, but they did not expect any significant new data to allow such a downgrading for days or weeks.

Instead, old observations provided the data necessary to rule out an impact.

Several groups were looking for the asteroid in past observations. Jeff Larsen and Anne Descour of the Spacewatch Observatory near Tucson, Arizona, found very faint images of asteroid 2004 MN4 on archival images dating to March 15 this year. Astronomers already had observations in June and from this month.

"An Earth impact on April 13, 2029 can now be ruled out," read a statement issued Monday evening by asteroid experts Don Yeomans, Steve Chesley and Paul Chodas at NASA (news - web sites)'s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

It is not the first time a potentially threatening asteroid has been theoretically defused by looking into the past, pointed out Clark Chapman of the Southwest Research Institute. Most famously, a space rock catalogued as 1997 XF11 was said, in 1998, to be on a collision course before archived data showed it would pass harmlessly.

"Past observations can greatly extend the time baseline and strongly influence knowledge of the orbit," Chapman told SPACE.com. "At some level, we are 'lucky' that these earlier sightings were made since 2004 MN4 is usually too faint to be detected by near-Earth-object search telescopes."

The difficulty in predicting a precise path earlier in the game owes to knowing only a small section of an asteroid's orbit around the Sun. New observations -- or old ones -- make the known path longer and allow a better prediction of the full path, as well as where an asteroid will be years from now.

Orbits change slightly with time because of gravitational tugs by the Sun and planets, among other factors.

2004 MN4 circles the Sun, but unlike most asteroids that reside in a belt between Mars and Jupiter, the 323-day orbit of 2004 MN4 lies mostly within the orbit of Earth.

Scientists cannot say that the asteroid will never hit Earth, but there are no serious threats in the foreseeable future. "No subsequent Earth encounters in the 21st century are of any concern," the NASA statement read.

Editor's note: Now obsolete are stories about 2004 MN4 early on Dec. 27 and the initial one on Dec. 24. A related story Dec. 27 discusses how this asteroid illustrates the need for a planetary defense strategy.

Copyright © 2004 SPACE.com.

And concerning the landslide tsunami, check
this thread. (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3598&highlight=canary)

[ablarc]

In 1958, an earthquake in Lituya Bay, Alaska, caused a landslide into the ocean that created a tsunami 1,720 feet high, a wave that could have swept over the Empire State Building. Fortunately it headed into a wilderness area and did not travel across the ocean to Hawaii or Japan.

The possibility of great landmasses falling into the ocean is always with us, and recently scientists found vertical fault lines through a volcano on La Palma, one of the smaller and more westward Canary Islands. The volcano has a crater about five miles wide and a half-mile high, and erupts about every 200 years. The last eruption was in 1948, but the newly discovered fault lines have convinced some scientists that eventually the huge crater will break apart and slide into the ocean, bringing more than a half-trillion tons of rock with it.

Since tsunamis are created in proportion to the amount of land that has fallen into the water, this event would likely create a wave mass never before known to written history, many times bigger than the wave at Lituya Bay. The wave would diminish a little as it crossed the Atlantic, but if it hit the Atlantic Seaboard it could be higher than the skyscrapers of Boston, New York, Washington and Miami. Scientists do not know if it will take one, four, or 10 eruptions to separate the landmass, only that the separation is inevitable.

The only good news is that volcanoes usually send signals before they erupt, and it would take eight hours for the wave to travel from Africa to the United States' eastern shoreline. It is not sufficient time, however, to move all the people who would be in its path. In any event, surely the mountain on La Palma should be reduced in size, to lessen the impact should it ever slide into Atlantic. But, who will pay for such a huge reduction of a landmass?

--The New York Times, Dec. 28, 2004

[ZippyTheChimp]

You have to take into account that the Lituya Bay wavefront was generated within a restricted space. The water had no place to go. A wavefront over open ocean would not have been that high.

A good map of the event (http://www.usc.edu/dept/tsunamis/alaska/1958/webpages/lituyacloseup.html)

The data in the article about LaPalma stated an initial wave of 330 ft would be generated, and 150 ft by the time it crossed the Atlantic. It also stated that the wave would last for up to 15 minutes.

[TLOZ Link5]

There's a lot of debate as to how high the wave might be. I've heard estimates as low as 20 feet (enough to flood the subways) to as high as 2,000 feet (the height of the initial "dome" of water that would arise from the landslide). Most scientists estimate that the wave will be 75 feet high.

Much of New York, particularly Manhattan — and more particularly northern Manhattan — could be spared depending upon the height of the tsunami, due to the hilly terrain of this region. Lower-lying areas like Lower Manhattan would be swamped, though I'd hope that the skyscrapers in the Financial District would help to act as a buffer against the wave as it travels uptown. Landfill areas like Battery Park City might be swamped; while Long Island would help protect much of Connecticut from major damage.

The inevitable fact is, it's coming; the only question is how bad the damage will be. But even if the wave is thousands of feet high, you can count on the fact that we will rebuild.

[alex ballard]

That's the big question....Would we rebuild NYC to it's current full extent? Or would Washington, corporations, and people build some Dallas-like replacement with no desnity or flare do to people now having "ocean fear" or policy makers plain not liking the original NYC so they now see a major disaster to trun NY into one of those quaint pasture towns like Pheniox?
My greatest fear is not NY getting destroyed, it's NY never coming back.

[brianac]

Study finds new earthquake dangers for NYC

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 23, 2008
Filed at 5:05 a.m. ET

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) -- An analysis of recent earthquake activity around New York City has found that many small faults that were believed to be inactive could contribute to a major, disastrous earthquake.

The study also finds that a line of seismic activity comes within two miles of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, about 25 miles north of New York City. Another fault line near the plant was already known, so the findings suggest Indian Point is at an intersection of faults.

The study's authors, who work at Columbia University's (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Lamont-Doherty Observatory, acknowledge that the biggest earthquakes -- in the 6 or 7 magnitude range -- are rare in the New York City region. They say a quake of magnitude 7 probably comes about every 3,400 years.

But they note that no one knows when the last one hit, and because of the population density and the concentration of buildings and financial assets, many lives and hundreds of billions of dollars are at risk.

The metropolitan area does not have a single great fault like the San Andreas fault in California, said Leonardo Seeber, co-author of the study.

''Instead of having a single major fault or a few major faults, we tend to have a lot of very minor and sort of subtle faults,'' he said. ''It's a family of faults, and that can contribute to the severity of an earthquake.''

John Ebel, director of seismology at Boston College's (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/boston_college/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Weston Observatory, said he agreed with the study's finding that small faults can contribute to large earthquakes. ''A quake can jump from one fault to another,'' he said.

The study, published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, analyzed 383 known earthquakes over the past 330 years in or near New York City. The biggest were three that reached magnitude 5 in 1737, 1783 and 1884.

Data on earthquakes since the early 1970s, when Lamont deployed dozens of new detectors, enabled the authors to see patterns from smaller quakes, including the magnitude 4.1 quake that was centered on Ardsley, in Westchester County, in 1985.

The report inferred from the data that there is a seismic zone, previously undetected, running west from the southwest tip of Connecticut and intersecting with the large, well-known Ramapo fault near Indian Point.
Lynn Sykes, the lead author, said the finding means the danger of a big quake near the nuclear plants is greater that had been thought.

Sykes acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press that he is opposed to an application from Entergy Nuclear, which owns the nuclear plant, to extend the licenses of the two reactors, but he said, ''I try to keep that as independent from my work as possible.''

Columbia spokesman Kevin Krajick said the study had been provided before publication to state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/andrew_m_cuomo/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who argued unsuccessfully earlier this year that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/nuclear_regulatory_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org) should consider the new earthquake data as it decides whether to extend the licenses.

Ebel said the report's suggestion of a fault line was ''a purely
circumstantial, speculative argument, but while it's speculative it's within the scientific bounds of reason.'' He praised the study and urged other scientists to build on it.

Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, said the plant was designed to withstand a seismic event. He said that even if the frequency and intensity of earthquakes is greater than was believed when the plant was built, it wouldn't drastically change the outlook for plant safety.

He said the plant ''may very well be among the safest places to go during a seismic event.''

------

On the Net:
Seismological Society of America, http://www.seismosoc.org (http://www.seismosoc.org/)/

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Earthquakes-NYC.html

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/)

[stache]

The Red Cross offers a class called Ready New York. It lasts a couple of hours and offers practical advice on what kind of things you should keep on hand etc. They also have a program called the Reserve Institute, which takes a day, and that makes you eligible to be a part of a Red Cross team in the event of a local disaster. Keep in mind if something horrible happens, it usually takes three of four days to get rescue relief up and going.

[NYC4Life]

An earthquake striking the NYC Area is really no laughing matter. Let's hope none will occur in our lifetime.

[stache]

I think the falling glass, and having to walk over the broken glass, would be pretty horrible. I spoke to someone who was in the financial district for the 1989 S.F. quake and strangely enough, she said the glass issue was not so bad, but she was on Market St. which is pretty wide.

[lofter1]

Unreinforced brick + earthquake = much worse than broken glass in the street.

I imagine the entire front of my building will be in the street -- if not the whole structure :eek:

What the falling glass & brick would do on its way down will be much nastier than having to walk over that stuff afterwards.

[stache]

If you died in a quake I think at least it would be over pretty quickly. I was in a 5.9 on the third floor of a 20's four story brick building and I remember thinking 'If this keeps up, I will be dead pretty soon'. :(

[Ninjahedge]

Unreinforced brick + earthquake = much worse than broken glass in the street.

I imagine the entire front of my building will be in the street -- if not the whole structure :eek:

What the falling glass & brick would do on its way down will be much nastier than having to walk over that stuff afterwards.

That is what I was going to say.

The unreinforced masonry in NYC and the surrounding areas, row houses, brownstones, will all come down with more than a subtle shake.

Most of the modern buildings SHOULD be OK, but ones built more than, say, 10 or so years ago might have some serious problems. Most were designed for wind, not seismic.

The thing is, this is something that should be designed for, but not really worried about. we have more of a chance of being hurt by flods, storms, or even fires than this. If this happens, we deal. There is nothing wrong with being prepared, but there is no need to start fitting out the (once nuclear) fallout shelter for earthquakes, ya know?

[brianac]

Study Maps Faults for New York Quakes

By KENNETH CHANG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/kenneth_chang/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: August 25, 2008

New York City may seem immune to earthquakes, at least compared with its West Coast megacity counterpart, Los Angeles. But there is some danger.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/26/science/26quak_190.jpg Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times
HAZARD What is thought to be a fault runs near the Indian Point nuclear plant, 24 miles north of the city.

A new analysis of 383 quakes in a 15,000-square-mile area around New York City estimates that a magnitude-5 earthquake in or around the city occurs on average once a century, and a magnitude-6 or larger quake occurs once every 670 years. An even larger magnitude-7 is estimated at once every 3,400 years.

Researchers at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) analyzed earthquakes that occurred from 1677 to 2007 as well as data gathered by seismic instruments in the past 34 years and mapped out a family of faults responsible for most of the earthquakes. Their report appears in the current issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

“We now have some way to look at the geology and use it to map the hazards,” said Leonardo Seeber, a senior researcher at Lamont-Doherty and one of the study authors.

The historical record includes three earthquakes of magnitude-5 or larger, the most recent in 1884. That quake originated offshore near Coney Island and toppled chimneys in the city.

While earthquakes in the northeast United States are smaller and less frequent than in places like California or Japan, the risks still warrant attention from officials, the researchers said.

“New York City is a major concentration of people and buildings, so if you combine the rate of earthquakes with what is there to be damaged, that combination becomes relatively high,” said John Armbruster, another study author. “There’s a lot to be damaged. A magnitude-5 earthquake under Queens is going to be much more damaging than a magnitude-5 earthquake in upstate New York.”

Lynn R. Sykes, an emeritus professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia and the lead author of the study, said critical facilities needed the most attention. That includes schools, fire stations, bridges — and the Indian Point nuclear power plant 24 miles north of the city. The study found a previously unidentified boundary, likely a fault, that runs 25 miles to Peekskill, N.Y., from Stamford, Conn., passing within a mile of Indian Point.

With the new data, engineers could better analyze what types of forces the plant might experience in an earthquake along that fault. The owner, Entergy, is seeking to extend its operating licenses of the two reactors at Indian Point by 20 years.

Even a modest earthquake could wreak millions of dollars of damage on Manhattan. And, surprisingly, the lack of large earthquakes makes the smaller earthquakes potentially more damaging. In places like California, the many earthquakes have weakened the top layers of crust, making for less buildup of strain and less powerful quakes near the surface. Thus, the most damaging earthquakes usually originate 5 to 10 miles underground.

In the New York area, most earthquakes are much shallower, within three miles of the surface. A shallow earthquake shakes the surface more violently than a deep one of the same magnitude. Mr. Seeber said a recent magnitude-2.3 earthquake near Warwick, N.Y., shook items off shelves, and there were reports of damaged foundations.

Stiffer rocks in the New York area also transmit farther the higher-frequency vibrations that shake objects harder. “These very shallow earthquakes can deliver a big punch even though very small,” Mr. Seeber said.

The Appalachians Mountains were first pushed up several hundred million years ago, and those ancient large faults, including the Ramapo fault that also passes near Indian Point, have been quiet. The earthquakes have instead occurred along smaller faults running perpendicular to the older faults.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26quak.html?ref=nyregion

Copyright 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[ItstheBeat]

Stache- Where did you experience the 5.9 earthquake?

[stache]

I was at home in the Los Feliz section of L.A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittier_Narrows_earthquake

I was standing in the middle of a street for the aftershock. It was interesting because I felt the ground dip and then spring back right away, with no real shaking.

[Ninjahedge]

That vertical shaking can be more damaging than the horizontal if not designed for.

What was that quake a few years back that caused all the highway overpasses to collapse? Loma Preita? (sp)

Needless to say, that changed the loading that needs to be designed for, by code, in certain seismic zones.

[NYC4Life]

You must be referring to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that struck during the World Series.