Do you live in an earthquake prone region in NZ?

Forums › Off topic › Do you live in an earthquake prone region in NZ?

catjones

21 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#93368 19-Nov-2011 05:03

1. Do you worry about earthquakes occasionally?

2. Do you think it is possible that NZ moves all its major cities (including Christchurch and Wellington) to safer regions which are not prone to earthquakes? After all, why tempt fate? NZ is a big country and there are areas which are relatively safe from earthquakes.

1 | 2 | 3

2513 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#547134 19-Nov-2011 06:14

1. Yes
2. Impossible.

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#547136 19-Nov-2011 06:37

prior to september last year, christchurch is considered as a low risk area for earthquake..

cws82us

788 posts

Ultimate Geek

#547138 19-Nov-2011 07:02

umm how about hamilton, new zealand on ring of fire so all of it?

join Quic and get free sign up when you click my link https://account.quic.nz/refer/250676

Wade

2225 posts

Uber Geek

#547139 19-Nov-2011 07:28

Everyone move to Auckland, spend the countries infrastructure budget purely on AK = win win :P

Cloudmelon

186 posts

Master Geek

#547151 19-Nov-2011 08:31

catjones: NZ is a big country

alasta

6703 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#547152 19-Nov-2011 08:32

catjones: 1. Do you worry about earthquakes occasionally?

Yes, but I have a first aid kit, first aid training, gas cooker, stored food and water, always keep at least 1/4 of a tank of fuel in my car, and have procedures for evacuation and shutting off utilities at home so I'm as prepared as I can be.

Whilst some of the suffering in Christchurch was horrific only about one in very 2000 people died so it needs to be kept in perspective.

2. Do you think it is possible that NZ moves all its major cities (including Christchurch and Wellington) to safer regions which are not prone to earthquakes? After all, why tempt fate? NZ is a big country and there are areas which are relatively safe from earthquakes.

No, that would be totally impossible. The focus should be on strengthening (or even demolishing) risk prone buildings as well as dealing with hazards such as shop frontages and parapets but unfortunately even that has economic limitations.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#547154 19-Nov-2011 08:35

Hard to find anywhere in NZ thats not earthquake prone.

My zombie survival kit is multi use, I'll be ok.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#547158 19-Nov-2011 08:45

nakedmolerat: prior to september last year, christchurch is considered as a low risk area for earthquake..

No it wasn't.

The risk calculations were not as high as Wellington where the calculated return period for a significant quake was considered greater, but Chistchurch was certainly a high risk area, with many detailed plans detailing modelling plans showing exactly what would occur in terms of liquefaction etc.

aimsy007

145 posts

Master Geek

#547161 19-Nov-2011 08:54

No chance of escaping the possibility of earthquakes in NZ given our placement on the edge of a tectonic plate. I'm just glad you didn't mention tsunamis or meteor showers!

catjones

21 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#547183 19-Nov-2011 10:31

There are regions in New Zealand which are relatively safe from Earthquakes. New Zealand is not Japan. Much of the North Island and the southern part of the South Island are quite safe from strong quakes.

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

I was watching BBC Hardtalk when the presenter asked John Key a somewhat similar question. Why rebuild Christchurch instead of moving it to a much safer place? Why tempt fate?

CruciasNZ

879 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#547185 19-Nov-2011 10:41

nakedmolerat: prior to september last year, christchurch is considered as a low risk area for earthquake..

It was considered at high risk from Alpine Fault quakes which are theoretically overdue but not local ones.

As for the original question, I do not worry about quakes anymore, there isn't any point. Worrying about them will just make life more depressing than it needs to be, make sure the house is quake proofed (ie shelves secured) and then just go about life.

As for moving the cities, this is not possible. Even if you could move the actual cities there is nowhere to go to, NZ straddles one massive fault line.

Professional Forum Lurker

catjones

21 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#547186 19-Nov-2011 10:43

alasta: Whilst some of the suffering in Christchurch was horrific only about one in very 2000 people died so it needs to be kept in perspective.

During the Japanese tsunami, 20,000 people died. Sendai had around 1 million people. That works out to about 4 in 2000. I am probably underestimating here, since Sendai wasn't the only region that was hit.

Figures are one thing, I doubt you would want to experience the Japanese tsunami yourself.

*Waves hits the beach. Guy on the beach goes 'Bring it on mother nature, 4 in 2000, I will win!!!'. Guy rushes towards 10 metres high waves and his trousers are washed ashore 20 days later.

Geese

1028 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#547187 19-Nov-2011 10:49

sbiddle:
nakedmolerat: prior to september last year, christchurch is considered as a low risk area for earthquake..

No it wasn't.

The risk calculations were not as high as Wellington where the calculated return period for a significant quake was considered greater, but Chistchurch was certainly a high risk area, with many detailed plans detailing modelling plans showing exactly what would occur in terms of liquefaction etc.

When I was at University (Of Canterbury) 13 years ago, we were told Christchurch would be hit by a major earthquake within 30 years. Guess that lecturer was right on the money. He also added for example, the Blenheim Road over bridge would collapse in such an earthquake (anyone remember what year they removed it out of interest?).