It is time to expand just a bit on the post which was made yesterday. Let us once again consider epicenters for the coming Cascadia megaquake. Most of the information about this coming quake predicts that the epicenters will be located at the offshore Cascadia Subduction Zone, roughly 70 miles off the coasts of Oregon and Washington. Nevertheless, it is time to ask a question. Is there any indication that the next full-potential Cascadia megaquake could be centered further toward shore or possibly even relatively far inland and much closer to large population centers? Furthermore, is there any chance that the devastating earthquake could be centered much closer to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation? In answer, it is time to consider the findings of scientists who do not appear to be part of the so-called "scientific consensus."
A webpage with information about seismic hazards associated with cities in Cascadia, linked here, on PDF page 3 of 63 states that "the upper limit of transient slip in the vicinity of Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia comes close to the heavily urbanized regions." The information at the bottom of PDF page 3 of 63 and onto page 4 speaks of "observed interseismic deformation patterns, which is consistent with significant plate coupling extending closer to urbanized areas than has been previously thought." It declares that "the stress is likely accumulating much closer to the population centers of the Pacific Northwest than previously supposed." A diagram on PDF page 53 of 63 shows the zone of coupling extending inland as far as Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington, plus very near Vancouver, British Columbia.
An article, linked here, begins with the following words: "Major earthquakes occurring along the Cascadia subduction zone off the coast of Washington state could strike closer to the state's urban areas than some models have suggested, a new study notes." According to scientists at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, GPS data indicates that epicenters for quakes, which could exceed M9.0, could be "more than 60 kilometers (or roughly, more than 40 miles) inland. That means that epicenters for the next M9.0+ megaquake could potentially be very close to large population centers like Portland, Seattle and Vancouver BC. It also means that the potential exists for megaquake epicenters to be 110 miles or more closer to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in central Washington state, than the public is commonly led to believe.
According to an NBC News article, linked here, there is a potential that Cascadia could rupture "within 68 miles of downtown Seattle, pouring seismic energy into a densely populated urban area, threatening to knock down buildings both large and small, and endangering the lives of millions." The article also indicates that the Cascadia slippage zone appears to be locked "right to the western edge of the Seattle metropolitan area." Furthermore, "Ground shaking could be up to five times stronger than anyone has planned for." At this point, there is something important to consider. In relatively recent times, the predictions of the so-called scientific consensus have often severely underestimated the actual, devastating earthquake events which ultimately occurred -- like at Sumatra in 2004 and Japan in 2011, just to name a couple.
So, why is the public steadily being told that epicenters for the next Cascadia megaquake will be about 70 miles offshore, when there is evidence which indicates that the epicenters could very likely be relatively close to major population centers? At this point, a question should be asked. Once again, is there a chance that the truth could be altered to protect the ambitions which certain entities have for the Hanford Nuclear Reservation? Could the truth about a more realistic location for epicenters of the next Cascadia megaquake have a negative effect on that which appears to be a large-scale tritium mining operation (commonly called the Pump and Treat Program) at this nuclear reservation? Is there a chance that the lives of the general public in the Cascadia region are being sacrificed for nuclear bomb ambitions? Or, is there another agenda in operation here? Possibly there is a lot more to the Cascadia story than the public generally realizes.
For further reading:
Current Expectations for a Cascadia Mega-Quake
https://cascadian.neocities.org/cascadiaquake.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment