Scantlings

Interesting images of tectonic movement over the ages

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/ ... onics.html

That's fascinating. Like watching slime mold on the top of bad milk.

Olaf Hart wrote:Interesting images of tectonic movement over the ages

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/ ... onics.html

I agree, about it being fascinating. No comment on the “mold” comment -

It shows us all that we are like a firefly, our lives are so short and irrelevant. No matter what any of us claim. It makes human arrogance absurd.

Wow. I haven't seen movement like that since I picked up a nasty case of crab lice in Port Said.

Would've made for a cake walk Vendee Globe circa -479 Ma.

Here's an opening to one of YouTube's great rabbit holes. It's Nick Zentner, who teaches Geology at Central Washington University. Here's his lecture on 'Great Earthquakes of the Pacific Northwest'. You'll learn about the 'Full Rip' and a whole bunch of other things too. Gloriously old school presentation--he's covered in chalk dust by the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ7Qc3bsxjI

Tigger wrote:Here's an opening to one of YouTube's great rabbit holes. It's Nick Zentner, who teaches Geology at Central Washington University. Here's his lecture on 'Great Earthquakes of the Pacific Northwest'. You'll learn about the 'Full Rip' and a whole bunch of other things too. Gloriously old school presentation--he's covered in chalk dust by the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ7Qc3bsxjI

WOW! That was fantastic!!

My Uncle, George Stanley, (who is only a few years old than I) lives in Port Townsend now, having retired from the University of Montana (Missoula) as a professor of Geology. While his specialty is coral reefs, I'm sending him this link just to stir the pot. (He probably knows this guy).

What great fun!!!

Tigger wrote:Here's an opening to one of YouTube's great rabbit holes. It's Nick Zentner, who teaches Geology at Central Washington University. Here's his lecture on 'Great Earthquakes of the Pacific Northwest'. You'll learn about the 'Full Rip' and a whole bunch of other things too. Gloriously old school presentation--he's covered in chalk dust by the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ7Qc3bsxjI

A good math lecture always ends in a lot of chalk dust.

Hmm.....might be time for some earthquake insurance.

Jamie wrote:Hmm.....might be time for some earthquake insurance.

We have it on all of our real estate holdings. Not that expensive, but really only good in a near total loss. Very high deductible.

kimbottles wrote:

Jamie wrote:Hmm.....might be time for some earthquake insurance.

We have it on all of our real estate holdings. Not that expensive, but really only good in a near total loss. Very high deductible.

Thanks! I guess one only needs it in near total loss situations.

Jamie wrote:

kimbottles wrote:

Jamie wrote:Hmm.....might be time for some earthquake insurance.

We have it on all of our real estate holdings. Not that expensive, but really only good in a near total loss. Very high deductible.

Thanks! I guess one only needs it in near total loss situations.

Most folks are basically operating on earthquake insurance that will pay of most (not all) of the home mortgage. As a result, they'll be left with the land and little/no debt after their home is destroyed. While they aren't totally wiped out by losing the house and still owing the bank a bundle, it's not "insurance" in the way that most folks think about it. One is NOT "made whole" by typical west coast earthquake insurance. That said, better coverage is so much more expensive that almost no one buys it.

I'll just build a new house.

If I'm not dead.

BeauV wrote:

Jamie wrote:

kimbottles wrote:

Jamie wrote:Hmm.....might be time for some earthquake insurance.

We have it on all of our real estate holdings. Not that expensive, but really only good in a near total loss. Very high deductible.

Thanks! I guess one only needs it in near total loss situations.

Most folks are basically operating on earthquake insurance that will pay of most (not all) of the home mortgage. As a result, they'll be left with the land and little/no debt after their home is destroyed. While they aren't totally wiped out by losing the house and still owing the bank a bundle, it's not "insurance" in the way that most folks think about it. One is NOT "made whole" by typical west coast earthquake insurance. That said, better coverage is so much more expensive that almost no one buys it.

Well that's less useful then. I don't have any mortgages.

Panope wrote:I'll just build a new house.

If I'm not dead.

That house we all watched you build will probably do quite well in an earthquake. The best buildings are single story, wood framed, and built rather recently so that there are adequate diagonal braces and blocks. The CA building codes really have changed a LOT due to the research of architects into what will withstand shaking hard for 4-6 minutes. Like everything else, ridged hard structures (EG: Brick, concrete, cinderblock) do very poorly in an earthquake as the hard stuff cracks and crumbles. Steel beam construction is the best, but expensive. Wood ends up winning as it is light, somewhat flexible, and doesn't crack.

Jamie wrote:
Well that's less useful then. I don't have any mortgages.

Neither do we, I don’t do debt.

But we do have the coverage as it is only a couple hundred per rental.

Jamie wrote:

BeauV wrote:

Jamie wrote:

kimbottles wrote:

Jamie wrote:Hmm.....might be time for some earthquake insurance.

We have it on all of our real estate holdings. Not that expensive, but really only good in a near total loss. Very high deductible.

Thanks! I guess one only needs it in near total loss situations.

Most folks are basically operating on earthquake insurance that will pay of most (not all) of the home mortgage. As a result, they'll be left with the land and little/no debt after their home is destroyed. While they aren't totally wiped out by losing the house and still owing the bank a bundle, it's not "insurance" in the way that most folks think about it. One is NOT "made whole" by typical west coast earthquake insurance. That said, better coverage is so much more expensive that almost no one buys it.

Well that's less useful then. I don't have any mortgages.

I don't have any insurance.

kdh wrote:

Jamie wrote:

BeauV wrote:

Jamie wrote:

kimbottles wrote:

Jamie wrote:Hmm.....might be time for some earthquake insurance.

We have it on all of our real estate holdings. Not that expensive, but really only good in a near total loss. Very high deductible.

Thanks! I guess one only needs it in near total loss situations.

Most folks are basically operating on earthquake insurance that will pay of most (not all) of the home mortgage. As a result, they'll be left with the land and little/no debt after their home is destroyed. While they aren't totally wiped out by losing the house and still owing the bank a bundle, it's not "insurance" in the way that most folks think about it. One is NOT "made whole" by typical west coast earthquake insurance. That said, better coverage is so much more expensive that almost no one buys it.

Well that's less useful then. I don't have any mortgages.

I don't have any insurance.

I thought about that until I met the tenants. And I know myself. Adverse selection.