Are Oregon and Washington State more at risk for a catastrophic earthquake than California?

Megathrust earthquakes are the most powerful earthquakes known to occur, and can exceed magnitude 9.0. They occur when enough energy (stress) has accumulated in the "locked" zone of the fault to cause a rupture known as a megathrust earthquake. The magnitude of a megathrust earthquake is proportional to length of the rupture along the fault. The Cascadia Subduction Zone, which forms the boundary between the Juan de Fuca and North American plates, is a very long sloping fault that stretches 600 miles from mid-Vancouver Island South to the Oregon California border.

The San Andreas Fault in California is not a powerful mega thrust fault. The mega thrust Cascadia Fault just off the Oregon and Washington Coast, is one of only five mega thrust faults worldwide that are known to exist.

More Info: en.wikipedia.org

Test your knowledge

What are your thoughts on this subject?

35 Comments

Samuel Anhalt

There is about a 20 percent chance that northern Oregon—a region that includes Portland and Astoria—will be hit by a magnitude-8.0-or-higher quake in the next 50 years. (Previously, the area was estimated to have about a 12 percent chance of facing such a quake.) Washington state has between a 14 and 17 percent chance of facing a big one, up from an 8 to 14 percent chance. These numbers still pale in comparison to earthquake risks to the south. For instance, the San Francisco Bay area has a 50 percent chance of experiencing a magnitude-7.0 earthquake in the next 30 years. Los Angeles faces a 93 percent chance.

Carroll Price

Samuel Anhalt, Predicting when earthquakes occur is like predicting a womans mood.

Jim Adams

Rockin' D (See Tagged Profile for Images photos), well, there are earthquakes and then there are EARTHQUAKES!

Jim Adams

And that’s just the regular kind of earth quakes. Let’s not forget earth quakes caused by volcanic activity.

gina mcgroarty

Wayne Durham, it is the correct answer, research it

gina mcgroarty

You are incorrect, research it. I live in WA and it’s getting to be a fairly well known fact.

Rockin' D (See Tagged Profile for Images photos)

I cannot agree with: "The Correct Answer". Truly seems to me that California is at greater risk of. Simply experiencing an earthquake at all. Furthermore California, could also experience a "notable large- very damaging earthquake" as well. I also read thru an another respondants answer, quoting varying %'s. From what I could find, I would concur with his analogy of %'s of earthquake damage (a segmented answer) A pretty or, rather involved question, compared to the average questionwe see on the Quizzes.

Mr.LaFaye

This is very debatable. After i said no, I did a Google and not once with different worded questions did it say that Oregon and Washington are at a greater risk. One response even stated that after a major quake in Oregon there was Not a greater risk. https://katu.com/news/local/usgs-says-no-increased-risk-of-major-earthquake-in-oregon-after-several-west-coast-quakes The way this is worded, the answer should be NO.

jaijam

But it will never thrust. Or will it? Cuz if it does it's going to be devastating.

jack patti go

Earthquakes are possible everywhere! We have feltvyhem, here, in Ohio!

Char

Missed it

Sandra Caulfield

But California has a larger concentration of population, thus considered more catastrophic if a severe earthquake hit there.

Lisa Rodrigues

Wayne Durham, Actually, Alaska has the most earthquakes per year.

Jas Newman

This question is too ambiguous because of sloppy language use. The primary meaning of "catastrophic" is related to "great damage or suffering." Arguably, a catastrophic earthquake is more likely in a state with extensive (and expensive) infrastructure and dense population than in states with less infrastructure and lower population. In short, the question (as written) is not about geological facts so much as it's about potential impact due to land use. However, the "answer" was confined to geology.