Timeline for What are the practical implications of buying a house in a high Earthquake risk area?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2019 at 18:17 | vote | accept | fluffykittycute | ||
| Feb 3, 2019 at 16:42 | comment | added | fluffykittycute | @SpencerJoplin It was built in 2004. | |
| Feb 3, 2019 at 6:49 | comment | added | Spencer Joplin | In which decade was the house built? | |
| Feb 2, 2019 at 11:35 | comment | added | alephzero | "A 3 magnitude Earthquake is like having a truck drive by which isn't too bad." - only if it is a very large truck, and you have a very rickety house. (Mag 3 earthquakes in the UK tend to make loose bits and pieces fall off a few buildings, but passing trucks don't usually do that.) | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 23:43 | comment | added | jcaron | Those stats are there to hide the issue. In an area prone to earthquakes, there are very very many earthquakes. Most of them are very very small, so yes, the "most recent" and "nearest" are most probably very very small and look like there are nothing. But in reality, they're completely irrelevant. What you want is the probability of a damage-causing earthquake, which you can get a feel for from past history (it will not tell when it happens, of course). The threshold varies based on the quality of the building. Some will be damaged from a 4 magnitude earthquake, others will resist up to 6. | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 21:46 | answer | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 21:42 | comment | added | user91988 | The implication is that your house will be at risk for earthquake damage. So yes, you should protect yourself with insurance for it... | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 21:35 | comment | added | chepner | @Harper Tell that to the company insuring the house. | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 21:24 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | Past performance does not predict future returns. | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 20:25 | history | edited | Chris W. Rea |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 1, 2019 at 18:58 | answer | added | CrossRoads | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 18:31 | answer | added | S Spring | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 18:10 | comment | added | jamesqf | The risk is not the earthquakes that have happened recently, but the chance of a major earthquake of the sort that happens once every few centuries. Part of the reason the cost is so high would seem to be that this sort of quake isn't really predictable. | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackFinance/status/1091395954568282112 | ||
| Feb 1, 2019 at 17:16 | answer | added | Rocky | timeline score: 18 | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 16:43 | history | edited | Lawrence | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improved formatting
|
| Feb 1, 2019 at 16:43 | comment | added | ceejayoz | That 7.3 one is nothing to sneer at. Look what a 6.7 did: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Northridge_earthquake | |
| Feb 1, 2019 at 16:04 | history | asked | fluffykittycute | CC BY-SA 4.0 |