|
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by el_richo
(Post 9234979)
$40? Sweet Jesus!!
I'm out his way today so i'm going to gradually move my stuff into Alan2005's basement/dungeon :thumbsup: Don't tell him though............ actually i cant believe it has 12 l of water in it! |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by JonboyE
(Post 9233408)
Excellent thinking. I have an unopened bottle of Remy Martin and a couple of decent single malts. I'll add then to the emergency supplies kit. My only concerns are:
a) we are supposed to be self-sufficient for three days. Will this be sufficient? b) what will Mrs. JonboyE drink? I think a still drink would be useful after an earthquake though. And it will at least bide the time before the Americans come to deliver coolant, ahem, water, and save the day. |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by mattieuk
(Post 9235221)
...
I think a still drink would be useful after an earthquake though... |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by james.mc
(Post 9235255)
After an earthquake, still would be good ;)
|
Re: Earthquakes
I'm not biting! :) A bottle of Vino Tinto already consumed.. but then again I have a time advantage at the moment.
|
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by The4BellsLondon
(Post 9235219)
aah but it comes in a nice small vacuum pack ;)
actually i cant believe it has 12 l of water in it! Afterwards OH went out and bought a shed load of antispeptic wet wipes , enough loo roll to last forever , and a wind up radio, I think he feels hes now done his bit . |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 9233332)
Yes, I have a supply of canned goods, bottled water, a first aid kit and some of those foil blankets. And I was going to stock up on Chunky Soup clam chowder last weekend as they had a five for the price of four special going, but HID vetoed the purchase as apparently we're eating more healthfully at the moment. She can **** off if she thinks she'll steal my Zoodles now if a big earthquake hits.
|
Re: Earthquakes
Might need to add iodine tablets to the kits if the ability to cool these nuclear reactors really has been lost.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ear-plant.html |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 9233813)
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/...ustralesia.htm
Looking at this most of New Zealand is high/very high risk with a small area moderate. Is that where Christchurch is? That map isn't very clear, but it looks like roughly where Chch is. Yet Australia is low risk and they still had one in Newcastle. |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by The4BellsLondon
(Post 9234287)
YOu have? bloody hell I'd better get one 0 they sell em at the IGA for $40 a person!
I got the Red Cross one, it has a wind up radio/flashlight and some water purification tablets etc. |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by Kiwilass
(Post 9239374)
That map isn't very clear, but it looks like roughly where Chch is.
Yet Australia is low risk and they still had one in Newcastle. There was an article in the NCE about the Christchurch earthquake last week. It says the ground acceleration was recorded at 10 times the value the building design code required. The earthquake codes had come in in the 80s and it wasn't until 2004 that a retrofitting law came in giving 15 years for owners to upgrade buildings, and this was only to withstand 1/3 of the load required by the code. Apparently codes require designs to withstand an earthquake which has a 10% chance of occuring over 50 years which equates to a 150 year event. The Christchurch earthquake exceeded a 1 in 1000 year event. I remember reading that Vancouver has a retrofitting programme for older buildings. From what I remember it was quite a long term project. I would certainly think twice about living or working in a rc/masonary structure which hadn't been upgraded yet. |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 9239584)
I think when you look at the risk map for Australia the area from Sydney to Melbourne is actually moderate risk. I see the Newcastle earthquake was 5.6 which isn't really that powerful. UK is low risk and gets earthquakes in the 5 range every 20 years or so.
There was an article in the NCE about the Christchurch earthquake last week. It says the ground acceleration was recorded at 10 times the value the building design code required. The earthquake codes had come in in the 80s and it wasn't until 2004 that a retrofitting law came in giving 15 years for owners to upgrade buildings, and this was only to withstand 1/3 of the load required by the code. Apparently codes require designs to withstand an earthquake which has a 10% chance of occuring over 50 years which equates to a 150 year event. The Christchurch earthquake exceeded a 1 in 1000 year event. I remember reading that Vancouver has a retrofitting programme for older buildings. From what I remember it was quite a long term project. I would certainly think twice about living or working in a rc/masonary structure which hadn't been upgraded yet. |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 9239584)
.
I remember reading that Vancouver has a retrofitting programme for older buildings. From what I remember it was quite a long term project. I would certainly think twice about living or working in a rc/masonary structure which hadn't been upgraded yet. Think Kobe, Mexico City and Alaska. |
Re: Earthquakes
Originally Posted by gryphea
(Post 9240112)
I would think twice about living in the low lying areas (think Richmond). Very susceptible to liquefaction and failures due to amplification of motion at resonant frequencies similar to all the buildings.
Think Kobe, Mexico City and Alaska. |
Re: Earthquakes
It has happened before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake It came to light that it will happen again back in the 1980's. http://archives.cbc.ca/environment/n...s/topics/1561/ |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:59 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.